Palin Discussion [split]

[tim31]

Jesus christ, this woman is the new Britney. The tabloids will probably keep following her when it's over while the maintream media will drop her in favor of focusing on the new Obama Administration.

[salm]

I said it when i first heard her and i´ll say it again, this person is dumber than the Chimp.

[Uraniun235]

Here's the 'Sarkozy' interview.

X fucking D

What a dumbshit. Sarkozy doesn't even speak English in reality, which is why he's always surrounded with translators.

Quebec has finally proven useful.

[Koolaidkirby]

I always knew there was a reason we never got around to assimilating them

[Ender]

Palin FIrst!

POLK CITY, Florida (CNN) — At a boisterous Sarah Palin rally in Polk City, Florida on Saturday afternoon, one name was surprisingly absent from the campaign décor — John McCain’s.

Watch: Palin campaigns in Polk City, FL Saturday

Looking around the Fantasy of Flight aircraft hangar where the rally took place, one could see all the usual reminders that it was a pro-McCain event. There were two large “Country First” banners hung on the walls along with four enormous American flags meant to conjure the campaign’s underlying patriotic theme. Many of the men and women in the audience wore McCain hats and t-shirts.

But on closer inspection, the GOP nominee’s name was literally nowhere to be found on any of the official campaign signage distributed to supporters at the event.

Members of the audience proudly waved “Country First” placards as Palin delivered her stump speech. Those signs were paid for by the Republican National Committee.

The other sign handed out to supporters read “Florida is Palin Country,” but those signs were neither paid for by the Republican National Committee nor the McCain campaign. In small print, the signs were stamped with the line “Paid for and authorized by Putnam for Congress" — as in, the re-election campaign of Florida congressman Adam Putnam, whose district skirts Polk City.

In fact, Putnam’s name was considerably more prominent than was McCain’s — his campaign had placed a number of large “Putnam for Congress” banners around the event site.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Here is the thing that is truly telling about the incident of the phone prank, as well as Damning on the part of Sarah Palin...
Two things.

One: She believed she was talking to the President of France, a world leader held in High esteem, and she talks to him like, well, like shes talked to everyone else, as a redneck country bumpkin. At no point was there any sort of seriousness or respect or "Yes Mr.President" in there. no, she acted like a total idiot... which brings me to point two

Two: Any IDIOT should realize, 30 seconds into that, that you are NOT talking to the president of France but some shmuck. At no point was there a "Who is this?" a "Are you REALLY the president of France?" nope, not a moment of that. Which in truth is the more frightening aspect of this.

Just imagine, someone calling "Hello! this is the Russian president! we launch missiles at you! HA HA!" would she even been able to realize such a thing is a joke? Surly, after seeing this, she is unable to.

For any pther person in the whole of politics, such a gaff should be their death nail, their total humiliation... Not a blip of this ive seen on any of the "Liberal" news networks.

[Duckie]

Three: Palin's campaign is proven by this to have no McCain oversight. In case you didn't believe the "Going Rogue" thing, Palin is clearly getting off McCain's sinking ship and trying to get ready for a 2016 run. She even mentions it in the call.

[tim31]

Just imagine, someone calling "Hello! this is the Russian president! we launch missiles at you! HA HA!" would she even been able to realize such a thing is a joke? Surly, after seeing this, she is unable to.

Even if, having become President, she still received crank calls, the military would be somewhat more inclined to believe their vast and expensive network of tracking systems than a phone call to someone who has previously been punk'd.

[RedImperator]

To be fair to Palin, it's not like she was the one who picked up the phone. An aide answered, and if anybody on the McCain-Palin campaign knew what the fuck he was doing, they would have vetted the call to be certain it was really Sarcozy (or, for that matter, anybody worth the personal attention of a major-party vice-presidential candidate) before handing it over to her. When you're a VP candidate and a staff member says, "The president of France is on the line," you're supposed to be able to trust him. This isn't to say that Palin's subsequent performance wasn't embarrassing, but if she screwed the pooch, her staff was holding it in place.

[DaveJB]

In retrospect, would McCain have benefitted from choosing a more experienced and moderate VP candidate? Or would he have alienated the hard right voting block, and cancelled out any gains he might have got?

Not that I'm saying Palin alone has lost him this election, mind, but she doesn't really seem to have contributed much other than a really brief bounce in McCain's ratings.

[ray245]

In retrospect, would McCain have benefitted from choosing a more experienced and moderate VP candidate? Or would he have alienated the hard right voting block, and cancelled out any gains he might have got?

Not that I'm saying Palin alone has lost him this election, mind, but she doesn't really seem to have contributed much other than a really brief bounce in McCain's ratings.

Alienation of the right wing vote is ok, if you show everyone that you are going to win over the liberal or independent voters. If he wants to be a real maverick, then he should be alienating the ultra right-wing in US.

Show the right-wing that their belief has no real value in the politics of the USA.

[DaveJB]

Alienation of the right wing vote is ok, if you show everyone that you are going to win over the liberal or independent voters. If he wants to be a real maverick, then he should be alienating the ultra right-wing in US.

Show the right-wing that their belief has no real value in the politics of the USA.

Oh, yeah, completely throw away any chance of election you have just to make some point of principle. Great plan there.

If he did alienate a significant chunk of far-righters, what then? Where would he pick up the support? He isn't going to go for the far, or even more moderate left-wing voters, because they'd be hardcore Obama supporters. That'd leave McCain with the more moderate Republicans (a rapidly dying breed, from what I've heard) and a few swing voters. Barr would probably move in on the White Evangelical states and carve up McCain's support there, and the end result might well be a third place finish in the electoral college for the GOP!

McCain is really trapped into relying on the White Evangelical factor in order to get him elected. Unfortunately, as these past few months have proven, that alone won't win you an election.

[RedImperator]

In retrospect, would McCain have benefitted from choosing a more experienced and moderate VP candidate? Or would he have alienated the hard right voting block, and cancelled out any gains he might have got?

Not that I'm saying Palin alone has lost him this election, mind, but she doesn't really seem to have contributed much other than a really brief bounce in McCain's ratings.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson was the one name floated for Veep that really scared me. Unlike Palin, she might have had a decent shot at peeling away disaffected Clinton voters--she's a smart, tough, experienced woman who's moderate on social issues, especially abortion. She could have held her own against Joe Biden, the campaign wouldn't have had to sequester her, she wouldn't have made an ass of herself in an interview with Katie Couric or anyone else, she doesn't undermine McCain's experience argument against Obama, she damn sure could have told you what the Vice-President's actual job is, and I have no doubt people would have no trouble picturing her as president. And she wouldn't have had an abuse-of-power investigation hanging over her head. Yeah, the base wouldn't have liked it, but they would have disliked it less than they would have, say, Joe Lieberman, and at any rate, the smarter move for McCain would have been to try to appeal to independents and soft Democrats and bet the base is going to come home in the end.

Now, would Hutchinson have taken the job? Maybe not; rumor is she's tired of Washington and wants to run for governor of Texas when Rick Perry's term expires in 2010. But even if she didn't want the job and couldn't be convinced to take it for the sake of the party, there are other Republican women out there who wouldn't have been such a disaster--even Liddy Dole would have been a better choice. Hell, given the benefit of hindsight, even Holy Joe would have been a much better choice. Yeah, the base might have taken its ball and gone home, which probably would have cost him the election, but it's not like he could be doing any worse than he is now.

[Darth Wong]

Alienation of the right wing vote is ok, if you show everyone that you are going to win over the liberal or independent voters. If he wants to be a real maverick, then he should be alienating the ultra right-wing in US.

Show the right-wing that their belief has no real value in the politics of the USA.

Oh, yeah, completely throw away any chance of election you have just to make some point of principle. Great plan there.

It worked for Clinton. He moved away from his base toward the center, and stayed in power for 8 years as a result.

If he did alienate a significant chunk of far-righters, what then? Where would he pick up the support? He isn't going to go for the far, or even more moderate left-wing voters, because they'd be hardcore Obama supporters. That'd leave McCain with the more moderate Republicans (a rapidly dying breed, from what I've heard) and a few swing voters. Barr would probably move in on the White Evangelical states and carve up McCain's support there, and the end result might well be a third place finish in the electoral college for the GOP!

As I said, it worked for Clinton. It's not as stupid an idea as you seem to think. A lot of the hard-right people will come home even if they're unhappy, because they're still more hostile to the other guy. And if you can pick up some of those Mindless Middle people, you could be in a much better position.

McCain was a fool. He decided to piss on the Mindless Middle. I have no respect for them, but they're still the deciding factor in elections, like it or not, and his choice for VP was a person who may have "energized the base" as her fan idiots kept saying, but who rubbed almost everyone else the wrong way. And no matter how many times her apologists keep trying to characterize the visceral dislike for her as "sexism", they can't make it go away. She is the most transparently condescending public speaker I've ever seen: a doubly infuriating trait from someone who has little education or knowledge to speak of herself. Whenever she speaks, you get the feeling that she's treating the listeners like children. At no time does she give the impression that she has any grasp of how to act in a stately fashion; she acts like she's chatting to a teenager.

[DaveJB]

As I said, it worked for Clinton. It's not as stupid an idea as you seem to think. A lot of the hard-right people will come home even if they're unhappy, because they're still more hostile to the other guy. And if you can pick up some of those Mindless Middle people, you could be in a much better position.

True... I was actually thinking of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace when I mentioned a third party potentially coming in to steal the hard-right vote, but then again Perot didn't really make any significant gains out of those Clinton alienated, certainly not enough to seriously affect the election.

McCain was a fool. He decided to piss on the Mindless Middle. I have no respect for them, but they're still the deciding factor in elections, like it or not, and his choice for VP was a person who may have "energized the base" as her fan idiots kept saying, but who rubbed almost everyone else the wrong way. And no matter how many times her apologists keep trying to characterize the visceral dislike for her as "sexism", they can't make it go away. She is the most transparently condescending public speaker I've ever seen: a doubly infuriating trait from someone who has little education or knowledge to speak of herself. Whenever she speaks, you get the feeling that she's treating the listeners like children. At no time does she give the impression that she has any grasp of how to act in a stately fashion; she acts like she's chatting to a teenager.

It's actually kind of sad that she got into this position; between her and Geraldine Ferraro, who was on the ticket that took perhaps the worst electoral defeat in US history (not that Ferraro was really responsible for that, mind), the two might possibly end up poisoning the well for female Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidates, which would be a damn shame if it happened.

[RedImperator]

It's actually kind of sad that she got into this position; between her and Geraldine Ferraro, who was on the ticket that took perhaps the worst electoral defeat in US history (not that Ferraro was really responsible for that, mind), the two might possibly end up poisoning the well for female Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidates, which would be a damn shame if it happened.

That's stupid. If it poisons any well, hopefully it will poison the gimmick female Vice-Presidential candidate. Both Ferraro and Palin were poorly-vetted lightweights selected to generate excitement and gain female voters. If McCain had picked a serious female veep, this might actually be a close contest. As for president, that's even more ludicrous. Hillary Clinton netted 18 million primary votes, and only lost by a hair's breadth to the best politician anyone has seen in a generation. Why would Sarah Palin somehow damage a future presidential candidate's chances? "Oh wow, a third-rate idiot turned out to be a bad vice-presidential pick. THAT MEANS ALL FEMALE POLITICIANS WILL BE BAD PRESIDENTS".

[DaveJB]

That's stupid. If it poisons any well, hopefully it will poison the gimmick female Vice-Presidential candidate. Both Ferraro and Palin were poorly-vetted lightweights selected to generate excitement and gain female voters. If McCain had picked a serious female veep, this might actually be a close contest. As for president, that's even more ludicrous. Hillary Clinton netted 18 million primary votes, and only lost by a hair's breadth to the best politician anyone has seen in a generation. Why would Sarah Palin somehow damage a future presidential candidate's chances? "Oh wow, a third-rate idiot turned out to be a bad vice-presidential pick. THAT MEANS ALL FEMALE POLITICIANS WILL BE BAD PRESIDENTS".

That's my point - it shouldn't affect the prospects of any future candidate, but there are plenty of reductionist idiots out there who will see Ferraro and (if there's any justice) Palin both as women who were part of tickets that got spanked in the elections... and just leave it at that. Believe me, Ferraro's role in the '84 fiasco meant that the Democrats were skittish about letting any women near the ticket in '88 or '92. It was unfair, and Mondale was really more to blame for what happened in that election, but that's how the Democrats of all people saw it.

In all honesty it should a non-issue, since the Democrats obviously no longer have any qualms about letting a woman near the ticket, and quite frankly the GOP have many more problems without sexism being one of them... but you can bet that Palin is going to have done more harm than good for the prospects of a female VP, as stupid as that may be.

[RedImperator]

That's my point - it shouldn't affect the prospects of any future candidate, but there are plenty of reductionist idiots out there who will see Ferraro and (if there's any justice) Palin both as women who were part of tickets that got spanked in the elections... and just leave it at that. Believe me, Ferraro's role in the '84 fiasco meant that the Democrats were skittish about letting any women near the ticket in '88 or '92. It was unfair, and Mondale was really more to blame for what happened in that election, but that's how the Democrats of all people saw it.

I'll "believe you" when you come up with some evidence for that. And at any rate, that was 20 years ago. Barack Obama couldn't have been part of a ticket in '88 or '92 either. What bearing does that have on today, or, more importantly, 2012?

In all honesty it should a non-issue, since the Democrats obviously no longer have any qualms about letting a woman near the ticket, and quite frankly the GOP have many more problems without sexism being one of them... but you can bet that Palin is going to have done more harm than good for the prospects of a female VP, as stupid as that may be.

No, actually, I don't have to take that bet. It's very clear to any political observer that Palin's problems are not a result of her gender, and in fact, she's most popular among the most conservative members of the GOP coalition. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that a woman can 1) be taken seriously on "male" issues like national security, and 2) win decisively among working-class, non-college graduate blue-collars, a group where one would expect the most resistance to a female candidate. In fact, in 2008, the two most prominent female candidates in both parties appealed to the most conservative voters in those parties.

[Ender]

In all fairness, we haven't had a gay candidate since James Buchanan, so the "poisoning the well" idea isn't complete lunacy.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, but the well was poisoned against gay candidates by rampant homophobia in the general population, not by this one guy. Similarly, the only way that Palin's failure could turn into "women candidates are no good" in someone's mind is if he's a hardcore misogynist. And I mean really hardcore: you would have to work hard to think that Palin's failure was due to her gender rather than the fact that she is exactly what you could expect from a rural ignoramus.

[CaptainChewbacca]

CNN

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Alaska's Personnel Board concluded Monday that Gov. Sarah Palin did not violate ethics law by trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police, contradicting an earlier investigation's findings.

"There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters," Timothy Petumenos, the Anchorage lawyer hired to conduct the investigation, wrote in his final report.

The announcement comes a day before Palin and Republican presidential nominee John McCain face voters in Tuesday's presidential election.

Allegations that Palin fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan in July because he refused to fire her sister's ex-husband, Mike Wooten, have dogged her since before she became the GOP's vice presidential nominee in August.

An earlier investigation launched by the state Legislature concluded Palin violated state ethics law by trying to get Wooten fired. The law bars public officials from pursuing personal interest through official action.

That first inquiry -- led by legislative investigator Stephen Branchflower -- also concluded that Palin's firing of Monegan likely stemmed in part from his refusal to fire Wooten, but that Palin's firing of Monegan was within her authority as governor.

Despite the conclusions of Branchflower's October 10 report, Palin declared that she had been "cleared of any legal wrongdoing" in the matter. Her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, argued the Branchflower report had wrongly interpreted state ethics law.

Though the governor originally agreed to cooperate with the Legislature's inquiry, she tried to stop the investigation once she became McCain's running mate -- and campaign aides attacked the investigation as a partisan circus that was being manipulated by supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Instead, Palin asked the Personnel Board -- an executive branch agency whose members were appointed by her predecessor -- to handle the investigation, arguing it was the proper legal venue.

In a brief statement after Monday's decision by the Personnel Board, Van Flein said Palin was pleased with Monday's report.

"The governor is grateful that this investigation has provided a fair and impartial review of this matter and upholds the governor's ability to take measures when necessary to ensure that Alaskans have the best possible team working to serve them," Van Flein said.

Petumenos said he had been "working until midnight and beyond" to complete the report before the election and had hoped to deliver it to the Personnel Board last week.

"The Alaska Personnel Board has determined in this case, because there was already in some respect the sanction of public approbation and many conclusions and opinions reached with respect to this matter, that it was critical the report be issued now and in a timely fashion," Petumenos said.

But he said he faced no "artificial deadlines" and disputed any suggestion that he was trying to affect Tuesday's election with the report.

"If you think this was done to favor the governor politically, it would have been much more favorable for her to have received this days before now," Petumenos said.

Petumenos said Branchflower had done a good job of collecting facts for the legislative inquiry. But Petumenos said Branchflower did not have access to all the evidence that he did and that Branchflower's legal analysis was "completely wrong."

Petumenos questioned Palin and her husband, Todd Palin, on October 24 about Monegan's removal from the commissioner's post, which oversees the Alaska State Troopers.

Monegan told the earlier investigation that complaints about Wooten were the "central theme" of his 17-month tenure.

Wooten had already received a five-day suspension in 2006 for using a Taser on his 11-year-old stepson "in a training capacity," illegally shooting a moose on his wife's permit and driving his patrol car with an open beer -- complaints raised during his acrimonious divorce with Palin's sister.

Monegan's deputy, John Glass, told Branchflower that he warned Todd Palin that disciplinary action already had been taken against the trooper and that the governor risked "some extreme amount of discomfort and embarrassment" if she pushed the issue. In August, Palin disclosed that members of her administration contacted Department of Public Safety officials about two dozen times about Wooten -- including one top aide whose call to a state police lieutenant had been recorded.
advertisement

But Petumenos found little evidence that Palin knew of those contacts herself, and he said e-mails and interviews with the governor's advisers corroborated Palin's contention that Monegan was fired over budget disputes.

He also found that Alaska's ethics laws are aimed at preventing officials from seeking financial advantage from their positions -- another break with Branchflower, who found Palin had violated state law by using her office to settle a family score.

[Tribun]

You know that's worth nothing, since the ones who said this are employed by the government, e.g. Palin, and they wouldn't dare to speak against their boss.

[Metatwaddle]

Actually, the article states that she did not appoint the members of the Personnel Board.

Instead, Palin asked the Personnel Board -- an executive branch agency whose members were appointed by her predecessor -- to handle the investigation, arguing it was the proper legal venue.

I have no reason to believe that the appointees of Frank Murkowski are squeaky-clean, but they have plenty of motives to despise Palin and few motives to like her.

[Darth Wong]

So the new guy finds that she did nothing unethical by declaring that using your position to settle scores is not unethical, as long as there is no financial gain. What a joke.

[McC]

Current CNN report shows Stevens over Begich by 3353 votes, with 99% reporting. If Stevens is indicted and forced to step down, the odds seem rather good that Palin will take his place. That's...depressing.