Look at her, sneering at law professors!
Ha ha. I enjoyed Sarah Palin's contempt there. (And good for her, saying "lectern," instead of, like most lawprofs I've heard, "podium.") She's not contemptuous of law professors, generally. Just law professors out of place.
And that's kind of the way I feel about Sarah Palin. The question is: What is the right place for her? I think she does really well observing national politics, commenting, critiquing, and campaigning. Campaigning for others, though, I think. In office, maybe she's as out of place as a professor of law posing as Commander in Chief.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
256 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 256 of 256Digging into that Chappaquiddick just never gets old!
Ann said: " The question is: What is the right place for her? "
My answer is simple: Wasilla, AK.
In Wasilla she rose to her level of competence, beyond that she re-proofed the "Peter Prnciple."
No Obama fan here, particularly his affiliation with faux liberal hijacker and bomber, Ayers, but my dislike for Palin goes back long before Obama. If she becomes the lead Republican, they're toast. There is no follow through there, never was, never will be.
I'm a seriously lapsed Democrat (D since since my days at UW), due to 2004 and the nomination made. Beyond disgust to a veteran of the same war. Independent now, and I'd like a real choice next time. Palin isn't even on my chart. This least unqualified syndrome we're in is depressing.
I don't post here often, however, I enjoy the enlightening read... but I couldnt pass on this one.
With respect to Congressman Murtha, he did serve his country wellas a Marine. I am thankful for his service. Condolences to his family and RIP Mr Murtha.
Murtha was a common criminal. The key now is which member of the syndicate gives the eulogy.
2012 Matchup
Palin v. Biden
One thing that Palin said that impressed me. She said that she was willing to die for her country. I wish someone had asked Obama that before he was elected.
2/8/10 10:39 AM
I don't know if Palin or Obama would or would not die for their country. I'm not sure I know if I would, or under what circumstances I would. I do think, however, that I don't trust a lot people who say they could or would do something like that - it's such a self-serving thing to say in most cases. And someone who really would be a stand-up person, I'm not sure they would always be given to touting their own horn about that.
Garage: Digging into that Chappaquiddick just never gets old!
Only because Kennedy never paid for that Murder. Mary Jo will haunt his legacy for eternity.
As for Murtha, wait till his NAMBLA connections come out.
If Palin is as bad as the left intones, then they wouldn't be trying to get rid of her.
Instead, they'd treat her like McCain, by calling her a 'maverick' and lauding her decisions.
They were quite adept at getting the Democratic selection of the GOP candidate in 2008. I don't think they'll be as successful in choosing a RINO next time.
I don't care if Palin runs or not. Her ability to make the left stamp their feet, pull out the Uniform Talking Points, and go Full-Court Alinsky makes it clear she has a knack for the right direction to tack.
And hell, most high school student councils would be better at governing than the current administration.
Dow 9,908.39
The market loves -loves- Obama.
it's such a self-serving thing to say in most cases.
As I recall, the military accepted women enlistees as far back as Sarah's high school graduation, and even further. I'm a bit surprised that Reagan's service in the White House didn't inspire a staunch conservative like Palin to volunteer.
The Dow has dipped to its October 2008 levels.
"The Dow has dipped to its October 2008 levels.
Or October 2004.
Or May 2000.
As I said, the market loves -loves- Obama.
If the Democrat plan is so great for the economy, why are we stuck there?
Shouldn't the Dow be streaking heavenward with all that Keynseian mojo and spending?
The Obama plan is secretly targeted to help only liberals, Pogo. Sorry duuuuude.
So, in other words, fls
Obama's economic policies haven't done anything.
Where does Caribou Barbie stand on legalization of marijuana? I can't believe the GOP continues to screw themselves with the 18-29 male demographic by keeping up the "war on drugs"...
Pogo - the economy is not the DJIA or the NASDAQ. Maybe 10% at most.
"the economy is not the DJIA or the NASDAQ. Maybe 10% at most."
So the rest of the 90% is doing gangbusters, right?
Is recovery just around the corner?
Oops:
"TrimTabs employment analysis, which uses real-time daily income tax deposits from all U.S. taxpayers to compute employment growth, estimated that the U.S. economy shed 104,000 jobs in January. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported the U.S. economy lost 20,000 jobs.
...the BLS published benchmark revisions to their employment estimates derived from an actual payroll count for March 2009. As a result, job losses from April 2008 through March 2009 were revised up a whopping 930,000, or 23% from their earlier revisions. In addition, the BLS revised their job loss estimates for 2009 up 617,000, or 14.8%."
Pogo - not it's not doing well. But this tendency by wingnuts to always cite the latest DJIA as proof of something is infuriating to say the least. I'm shaking my fist in anger!
John Murtha did a lot of good (VA, tricare, service in the corps, PA pork in a state reeling from free trade losses to China of jobs). And some bad (corruption, pork if you live outside PA, Hadiytha denunciations, being Pelosi's bitch boy).
But in the end he is a man that rose far above his roots, a Marine who won the Bronze Star, became a powerful leader, sadly put on his deathbed by being in the unlucky 1% that die from routine surgery, and died with many friends and family caring for him.. A bigger life than most of us, most of us critics, will have..
====================
I don't blame Obama for the economic meltdown that has its roots in Reagan-Carter globalism, dereg of the financial sector, Clinton's sucking up to Wall Street and complicity in creating bubbles. And Bush's utter incompetence in dealing with the mess of jobs lost to China and reckless devotion to supply side theory and permitting financial leveraging (along with Dems) of insurance and mortagages....
I do blame Obama for not doing more to fix the mess - focusing on Dems pet issues outside the economy and doing as Goldman Sachs tells him to do on the economy.
Cedarford pines for Nixonian economics. You know price regulations and all that wonderful stuff.
and doing as Goldman Sachs tells him to do on the economy.
This statement is factually devoid and makes no sense whatsoever. C4 maybe you should stick to Joo-baiting.
"I'm shaking my fist in anger!"
Gosh!
Damn those wingnuts and their pesky Dow citings!
Grrrrr!
Pogo - citing Dow has always been a self-serving thing for either party. The more important metrics for me are:
Debt/GDP ratio
savings rate
unemployment rate
inflation
FAR more important then the Dow.
"unemployment rate
FAR more important then the Dow."
See above.
Doing well, Obama?
"Debt/GDP ratio"
Man, that's looking good, ain't it?
"savings rate"
Hard to have a savings rate without a job, but what are you gonna do?
"inflation"
Except during a deflationary period, but Obama is desperately trying to stoke that into inflation by tripling the money supply.
Pogo - it's disingenuous to blame Obama for anything other then the stock markets which feed off fear of his interference. Are you saying that businesses are holding off hiring until AFTER the Nov 2010 elections in the hope the GOP makes enough gains as to blunt the Obama/Pelosi agenda for good? Don't tell me you are that cynical.
Or maybe not. Priests deliver sermons from pulpits too. It depends on the church.
or bimahs, if you are in a synagogue or temple.
wv: sulfangs. I don't know but it sounds painful.
@ Cedarford, Re: Murtha:
ABSCAM? Sonofabitch should have been taken down then. The corruption was so blatant and obvious then, that his subsequent sliminess should have been no surprise.
Service in the Marine Corps? Who cares? Once he entered the hell of corruption, his service in the Corps became as relevant as Lee Harvey Oswald's.
Duke Cunningham's amazingly courageous service as a Naval aviator during the Vietnam War (He and his RIO were the only Naval service "aces.") didn't, and should not have ,mitigated his later conviction on corruption charges.
John Murtha was emblematic of everything bad about Washington political culture. To hide him behind the totem of his military service is to belittle the code of conduct he swore to uphold.
Alex, do you think an employer would hire much of anybody when all they see is a government that keeps discussing plans to make the cost of employing people skyrocket? Uncertainty will kill an economy.
damikesc - that's my point as well. Uncertainty is playing a large part in the continuing 10% unemployment AS well as higher productivity.
"unemployment rate
FAR more important then the Dow."
See above.
Doing well, Obama?
We haven't seen unemployment rates like these since Reagan's third year in office.
Reaganomics' peak unemployment rate was 10.8%
http://www.miseryindex.us/URbymonth.asp
Geraldine Ferraro, too.
Are you saying that businesses are holding off hiring until AFTER the Nov 2010 elections in the hope the GOP makes enough gains as to blunt the Obama/Pelosi agenda for good? Don't tell me you are that cynical.
Yes. They are.
Business are also holding off hiring until they have an idea of what the Democrats and Obama have in store for them in the areas of: Insurance, Taxes, Cap and Trade Regulations, new Eco Restrictions, Tariffs and Import Taxes.......to name a few.
Businesses are also waiting for demand to pick up. To see what inflation or deflation is looming on the horizon.
So far all Obama has done is give business owners uncertainty and threatening posturing.
They are waiting to see.
And YES....they are that cynical. You don't get to be successful in business by being a dope or believing magical unicorns.
garage:
The Obama plan is secretly targeted to help only liberals, Pogo. Sorry duuuuude.
One of the few things you've written here that I can agree with.
Democratic congressional districts receive on the average twice as much hopey-changey money as Republican districts.
"Stimulus" is all about confiscating money from future generations to line the pockets of Democrats and their enablers.
Alex:
Are you saying that businesses are holding off hiring until AFTER the Nov 2010 elections in the hope the GOP makes enough gains as to blunt the Obama/Pelosi agenda for good?
What DBQ said, except that I don't think it's cynical. I think it's good business decision-making.
I hope that Republicans can take control of Congress in November, or failing that, take enough seats to cripple the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda.
I don't much like Republicans, but they couldn't be any worse than the Democrats we have now.
When business see that they may be able to make (and keep some of) a profit they will start hiring again.
Until then our economy is toast.
It's not "cynical" to withhold business investment when any payoff is unlikely. It's intelligent.
Only a fool would look at the looming Obama taxes, regs, unionizing, health care boondoggle, and cap-n-trade transfers of wealth, not to mention his demonization of business, and think This is a GREAT time to grow a businesss. Let's HIRE!.
Proof?
It ain't happening; just the opposite.
Gee, Alex, I wonder what they're "uncertain" about?
Pogo - it's disingenuous to blame Obama for anything other then the stock markets which feed off fear of his interference. Are you saying that businesses are holding off hiring until AFTER the Nov 2010 elections in the hope the GOP makes enough gains as to blunt the Obama/Pelosi agenda for good? Don't tell me you are that cynical.
It is that with a lot of Republicans elected, the Democrats could not pull off any of their recession-lengthening proposals. It isn't that Republicans are magic, but rather, the Democrats have all sorts of proposals in the works that might possibly pass and that would hurt the recovery, including, notably, Health Care "Reform", Cap and Trade, increasing tax rates, and the possibility of a big "jobs" bill.
The problem is, first, that all of these bills and proposals are likely to worsen the recession, and, secondly, that the uncertainty of whether or not they get passed into law increases the level of uncertainty for anyone investing in the economy, by, for example, builing new plants and hiring people.
Alex, have you ever tried to run a business?
And I'm not teasing about revleations of Murtha being a pedophile. Wapo is sitting on the story until it will play better.
I would add Pogo's laundry list too for increasing the level of uncertainty. Are the Democrats going to pass union card check? That alone could take a number of business plans from positive to negative.
We haven't seen unemployment rates like these since Reagan's third year in office.
Yeh, until we came out of the Jimmy Carter stagflation. But somehow in your world, Republicans are responsible for their predecessor's screw ups, while Democrats are not even responsible for their own, if they closely follow a Republican. Never mind that the "stimulus" package passed into law a year ago almost by itself caused the difference between the unemployment promised and realized. It was obviously George W. Bush's fault. And, you ignore that the Democrats controlled Congress the last two years of Bush's Presidency, and as a result, that was their budget with the 8,000 earmarks that was passed into law last year, that also locked in a number of funding increases at the worst time possible for the economy.
Sarah Palin: It's Althousian for "traffic".
Except during a deflationary period, but Obama is desperately trying to stoke that into inflation by tripling the money supply.
This is going to be fascinating, how the Democrats pull this off. Sure, it is somewhat safe to crank the money supply like they did when velocity is as low as it is. But how are they going to suck all that extra money out of the money supply when velocity recovers, even to a noticeably lower level than at the peak of the boom? Esp. when TARP, etc. were designed, at least in part, to drive velocity back up.
The stock market is the only thing that everyone can explain...daily.
If you were paying attention at all prior to the November 2008 election, you could have predicted the economic course of 2009 very easily.
Small business owners' heard Obama's redistributionist rhetoric and were all over forums, blog posts, and anywhere they could find, to tell people that if Obama got elected that they would be laying off people, delaying investment, retiring early, etc.
They responded rationally to what Obama was saying, but Obama's cultists were so convinced that the "earth would begin to heal and the waters would recede" that they blithely ignored the howls of protests from the people who were provided the paychecks they used to contribute to Obama's election.
The process started even before Obama actually won. I can't count how many businessmen were posting that they were already in the process of drawing back their investments and laying off employees because they saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to wait until January 20, 2009 to get nailed by some quickly passed piece of redistributionist nonsense.
Now 15 months later, many of those cultists are out of work - African-Americans and youth, Obama's biggest constituencies have been hardest hit - and they want to blame everybody but themselves.
They thought they knew better than those "old white men" that employed them. Stodgy old folks that had spent a lifetime watching politicians come and go and managing their businesses through thick and thin times were ignored.
This is NEW America the cultists proudly proclaimed! We don't need you!
Fine. You don't need us. You don't need the people who provided your jobs. You don't need our expertise in how markets work. You don't need our help in getting through tough times.
Go ask Obama what he's going to do for you now that he's run you out of work and demonized the people you used to work for. Ask Obama why your house got foreclosed upon when you couldn't make your payments.
Or better yet.
Ask yourself how you could have been so foolish to think you could repeal the laws of gravity and vote for the fool that cost you your job. Because ultimately this isn't Obama's fault. It was readily apparent to anyone who paid attention what a Leftist he really was.
It's not his fault. It's yours.
Go, Jim, go!
Well said.
"Ask yourself how you could have been so foolish to think you could repeal the laws of gravity..."
Give it time to work and a few more trillion and "Yes we can!"
Yeh, until we came out of the Jimmy Carter stagflation.
The month St. Ronald was inaugurated, unemployment was only 7.4%. It took Reagan almost two years to rev it up to 10.8%
Unemployment initially increased under Reagan, maxing out at 10.8 in 82, and then declined dramatically continuing for the next decade. It never went up that high again until now. This was a result of Reagan policy moving employment from public to the private sector, with the temporary loss of jobs in the transition. I was one of the ones who transitioned directly as a result of my career in environmental science being virtually eliminated by his cuts to the EPA. Thanks to Reagan, who I hated at the time, I became a maker rather than a taker. Loved that guy.
Obama is moving people the opposite way and it will eventually have the opposite and disastrous result if it continues.
"Digging into that Chappaquiddick just never gets old!"
No, she never did, unlike Teddy. And they say crime doesn't pay?
fls -
The month St. Ronald was inaugurated, unemployment was only 7.4%. It took Reagan almost two years to rev it up to 10.8%
Once again, you conveniently leave out the important part of that story which puts the lie to your attempted equivalence.
The reason that unemployment increased so much is because the Fed jacked up interest rates so high that mortgages were going for almost 20% in order to squeeze out the inflation which Jimmah left the country with.
Voters rightfully recognized the cause of the economic pain wasn't Reagan's fault, but a necessary corrective measure instituted by an independent agency.
On the other hand, as soon as Obama and the Democrats claimed that they could control unemployment by passing an $800 billion porkfest designed to pay off their political debts, they owned this economy.
Reagan's policy was to put people's money back in their pockets by cutting taxes while Obama's policies include raising taxes on everything in sight in order to pay for ObamaCare, jacking up energy prices and everything that requires power to produce with cap-n-trade, and raising taxes on every American who has even the smallest measure of success.
There's a reason why Reagan won the '84 election in a landslide: his policies had the benefit of working. Obama's have the benefit of pandering to his most Leftist supporters while alienating everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders while sending small business owners running for the hills.
If you think drawing parallels to Reagan is either apt or makes Obama look like anything other than an utter failure by comparison, the only one you're fooling is yourself.
A woman without a fish is like a man without a bicycle.
Reagan's policy was to put people's money back in their pockets by cutting taxes
And singlehandledly reversed the progress every President since Truman had made in reducing the national debt as a percentage of GDP, disguising it somewhat by borrowing from the Social Security and Medicare trust accounts to finance government spending.
US dependence on foreign oil also took off during the Reagan administration -- the lessons of two Arab oil shocks during the 70s were lost on the sunny, amiable St. Ron. This helped grow our current account deficit at rates not seen until W. took over.
Not till Clinton did the national debt as a percentage of GDP start going down again. W. made short work of that however.
Sarah Palin: It's Althousian for "traffic".
There are over 18,000 comments on the HuffPo article about Palin and retard. Less than 300 here. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
fls -
Not till Clinton did the national debt as a percentage of GDP start going down again.
And much of that GDP growth was the artificial housing boom for which we are now paying the price, the tech bubble which burst in 1999/2000 and the remnants of which Bush had to pick up when he took office, welfare reform (which was forced on Clinton by public opinion and a Republican Congress).
But you keep telling half the story and making it clear just how disinterested you are in the truth.
I note, by the way, that nothing in your response in any way refutes the fundamental dissimilarity between unemployment under Reagan and under Obama.
I'm glad we can agree that little DNC talking point has been sufficiently debunked.
And much of that GDP growth [under Clinton] was the artificial housing boom for which we are now paying the price
No. The housing boom was all on Bush's watch. Enjoy some facts not pulled from your derriere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Case-shiller-index-values.jpg
the tech bubble which burst in 1999/2000
The techbubble lasted from 1998 to 2000. The bulk of Clinton's national debt reduction came from 1995 to 1998:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Welfare reform took effect in mid-1997, six months before national debt reduction slowed.
The Old Right, or pre-1950s Republicans, were anti-war and anti-imperialism. Ron Paul represents that tradition, not Sarah Palin. She's tabula rasa, and the Republicans are pretending that she actually has a discernible ideology. Pity this party which has fallen into an anti-intellectual chasm.
Post a Comment