Sarah Palin Resigns

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
187

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Ahhh…yessss…now we are talking Biden. Good point.
[/quote]

Not this old whiny, piece of bullshit again. Sorry, any failings that Biden or Obama may have don’t magically transform Palin into an intelligent, able, and desireable candidate. If she’s not, she’s not. Period. The two are entirely unrelated. Heidi Montag would not magically become presidential material because the domocratic candidate running against her was lousy.

The reverse is obviously true. Palin’s shortcomings don’t magically enhance Biden’s capabilites. The only time there is a point in comparing both is when they are actually running against ech other in a “lesser of the two evils” situation. Not true now. Biden’s entrenched as VP. Many were and some still are talking about Palin as a presidential candidate.

188

Maybe it’s just that it’s easier to see on a small scale, but what I see of local government is pretty depressing. Locally, I care about honesty and competence, and there’s precious little of that. If you look at the city, or better, neighborhood level, every project the local government touches is a failure or tainted with corruption. (Maybe it’s better in small-government Montana?)

I like the idea of local government (although anybody who brings up ‘states’ rights’ should remember the history of that notion.) But here’s the thing. Some states are net recipients of federal money and some states are net producers. New Mexico produces practically nothing but government employees.

Cut the size of federal expenditures, and the first result, before we all adapt to a smaller level of gov’t spending, would be a rash of state bankruptcies. Is a state ‘too big to fail’? Are we prepared to let states fail if they can’t raise their own revenue, even if that means things like school lunch programs have got to be cut?

Can Alaska and New Mexico really face, not just the removal of federal restrictions, but the removal of federal funding? Often it’s the very same conservative states, who want government out of their back yards, who are net recipients of federal largesse.

189

tGun and Alisa have brought up some points that we have to be VERY careful about…

That is the idea that Local and State Governments are somehow “less” intrusive; more honest; act in the best interest of their citizens…etc. etc. than compared to the Feds.

Nothing could be furthur from the truth.

Local Governments, even in small towns, develop power bases and wield that power sometimes in ways that would make a Washington Lobbyist blush. I’ve seen corruption in the granting of contracts; kickbacks; ill-conceived okays given for sub-divisions granted for money. Lack of due process…the list is a mile long.

And the protection of individual Rights is another thread altogether.

This is NOT to say that our current centralized Government is best…but don’t fool yourself into thinking that Andy Griffith and Jimmy Stewart are running these Local and State Governments.

Mufasa

190

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
tGun and Alisa have brought up some points that we have to be VERY careful about…

That is the idea that Local and State Governments are somehow “less” intrusive; more honest; act in the best interest of their citizens…etc. etc. than compared to the Feds.

Nothing could be furthur from the truth.

Local Governments, even in small towns, develop power bases and wield that power sometimes in ways that would make a Washington Lobbyist blush. I’ve seen corruption in the granting of contracts; kickbacks; ill-conceived okays given for sub-divisions granted for money. Lack of due process…the list is a mile long.

And the protection of individual Rights is another thread altogether.

This is NOT to say that our current centralized Government is best…but don’t fool yourself into thinking that Andy Griffith and Jimmy Stewart are running these Local and State Governments.

Mufasa[/quote]

Or that State and Local governments will automatically be more accountable to the people who vote for them than Congress is.

191

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Maybe it’s just that it’s easier to see on a small scale, but what I see of local government is pretty depressing. Locally, I care about honesty and competence, and there’s precious little of that. If you look at the city, or better, neighborhood level, every project the local government touches is a failure or tainted with corruption. (Maybe it’s better in small-government Montana?)

I like the idea of local government (although anybody who brings up ‘states’ rights’ should remember the history of that notion.) But here’s the thing. Some states are net recipients of federal money and some states are net producers. New Mexico produces practically nothing but government employees. Cut the size of federal expenditures, and the first result, before we all adapt to a smaller level of gov’t spending, would be a rash of state bankruptcies. Is a state ‘too big to fail’? Are we prepared to let states fail if they can’t raise their own revenue, even if that means things like school lunch programs have got to be cut? Can Alaska and New Mexico really face, not just the removal of federal restrictions, but the removal of federal funding? Often it’s the very same conservative states, who want government out of their back yards, who are net recipients of federal largesse.[/quote]

Good points. People that hate a strong, centralized and arguably intrusive federal government don’t realize that you can’t just put the cat back in the bag. Even if a substantail reduction in federal expenditures and federal power is desireable, it can’t just happen overnight. That would be a recipe for disaster.

192

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
tGun and Alisa have brought up some points that we have to be VERY careful about…

That is the idea that Local and State Governments are somehow “less” intrusive; more honest; act in the best interest of their citizens…etc. etc. than compared to the Feds.

Nothing could be furthur from the truth.

Local Governments, even in small towns, develop power bases and wield that power sometimes in ways that would make a Washington Lobbyist blush. I’ve seen corruption in the granting of contracts; kickbacks; ill-conceived okays given for sub-divisions granted for money. Lack of due process…the list is a mile long.

And the protection of individual Rights is another thread altogether.

This is NOT to say that our current centralized Government is best…but don’t fool yourself into thinking that Andy Griffith and Jimmy Stewart are running these Local and State Governments.

Mufasa

Or that State and Local governments will automatically be more accountable to the people who vote for them than Congress is. [/quote]

Agree.

Mufasa

195

To stay on the topic of Sarah…

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/04/politics/main5133592.shtml

She has threatened all the usual suspect of the MSM that has been trashing her not to engage or reprint allegations she embezzeled money in the building of the Wasilla sports complex.

Personally, I beleive she is baiting them.

She would not have brought it up it were true.

If they bring it up, she sues and possible makes bank and is portrayed as a victim of a vicious MSM. This also discredits pretty much any previous (and future) allegations against her.

If the MSM stands down on the topic, she wins by shutting them up.

196

Maybe she should set up another interview with Couric! :)–!

Again…it really looks like her toughest critics are Alaskans…not the “MSM”.

Mufasa

197

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Maybe she should set up another interview with Couric! :)–!

Again…it really looks like her toughest critics are Alaskans…not the “MSM”.

Mufasa[/quote]

No teleprompter, no interview. Otherwise, the person interviewed might look dumb as a rock.

198

After looking at all she’s gone through I wonder why any good republican candidate would ever step up to that sort of abuse.

199

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Quidnunc: that’s my problem with her as well. (Was trying to be a little more charitable.)

But it’s true. She avoided cramming on the facts, avoided being coached for public media appearances, and, after the Couric interview, avoided the press altogether. The danger of becoming so down on the “Mainstream Media” is that you actually don’t get enough national and international news. It becomes very easy to live in an echo chamber. She really seemed more confused than she should have been, and that’s because she prioritized her folksy image over getting up to speed on the details.

Not the same as being a bad politician. It’s being incurious. Maybe a little stumble in front of the camera is endearing and shows she’s not fake. But not educating herself shows she’s not interested in what’s important.

What did Obama know, sans teleprompter, that Palin didn’t? How to say: “uh…and then we’ll…uh…change will be my…uh…our goal will be…uh…uh…” ?

You voted for someone because they had a teleprompter?

[/quote]

You need to stop believing your own talking points. Watch any Obama press conference or interview (you know, when he doesn’t have a teleprompter). Watch any Palin press conference or interview (not that she does them any more). One of these will show a smart, oratorically gifted man thinking on his feet, and one will show a woman with the linguistic ability of a high-schooler.

200

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Quidnunc: that’s my problem with her as well. (Was trying to be a little more charitable.)

But it’s true. She avoided cramming on the facts, avoided being coached for public media appearances, and, after the Couric interview, avoided the press altogether. The danger of becoming so down on the “Mainstream Media” is that you actually don’t get enough national and international news. It becomes very easy to live in an echo chamber. She really seemed more confused than she should have been, and that’s because she prioritized her folksy image over getting up to speed on the details.

Not the same as being a bad politician. It’s being incurious. Maybe a little stumble in front of the camera is endearing and shows she’s not fake. But not educating herself shows she’s not interested in what’s important.

What did Obama know, sans teleprompter, that Palin didn’t? How to say: “uh…and then we’ll…uh…change will be my…uh…our goal will be…uh…uh…” ?

You voted for someone because they had a teleprompter?

You need to stop believing your own talking points. Watch any Obama press conference or interview (you know, when he doesn’t have a teleprompter). Watch any Palin press conference or interview (not that she does them any more). One of these will show a smart, oratorically gifted man thinking on his feet, and one will show a woman with the linguistic ability of a high-schooler.

[/quote]

quin:

I wonder how well she’d do on an even playing field.

You know, like selecting the questions in advance.

You know your guy does this pretty blatantly?!?

By the way, if the White House is her goal, I think Palin made a mistake. I think she should have kept her seat and then ran for the Senate. She should have spent some time improving her light foreign policy bona fides.

However, if she’s done, then I support her giving the middle finger to all the lefty pukes in the MSM and elsewhere.

201

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Quidnunc: that’s my problem with her as well. (Was trying to be a little more charitable.)

But it’s true. She avoided cramming on the facts, avoided being coached for public media appearances, and, after the Couric interview, avoided the press altogether. The danger of becoming so down on the “Mainstream Media” is that you actually don’t get enough national and international news. It becomes very easy to live in an echo chamber. She really seemed more confused than she should have been, and that’s because she prioritized her folksy image over getting up to speed on the details.

Not the same as being a bad politician. It’s being incurious. Maybe a little stumble in front of the camera is endearing and shows she’s not fake. But not educating herself shows she’s not interested in what’s important.

What did Obama know, sans teleprompter, that Palin didn’t? How to say: “uh…and then we’ll…uh…change will be my…uh…our goal will be…uh…uh…” ?

You voted for someone because they had a teleprompter?

You need to stop believing your own talking points. Watch any Obama press conference or interview (you know, when he doesn’t have a teleprompter). Watch any Palin press conference or interview (not that she does them any more). One of these will show a smart, oratorically gifted man thinking on his feet, and one will show a woman with the linguistic ability of a high-schooler.

quin:

I wonder how well she’d do on an even playing field.

You know, like selecting the questions in advance.

You know your guy does this pretty blatantly?!?

[/quote]

He selected his own questions in every press conference he’s ever had, all of the hundreds of interviews he’s done, and every single one of the ten thousand debates last year?

If you watch the primary debates, he goes from being “too smart” - too long-winded, willing to see both sides, eager to present the complexities of an issue (charges I do not accuse Palin of committing!) - to being a stronger, more on-the-point debater. But both modes showed him quite able to think on his feet and speak in coherent sentences, very unlike the word salad that Palin talks in.

202

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
<<< He selected his own questions in every press conference he’s ever had, all of the hundreds of interviews he’s done, and every single one of the ten thousand debates last year?

If you watch the primary debates, he goes from being “too smart” - too long-winded, willing to see both sides, eager to present the complexities of an issue (charges I do not accuse Palin of committing!) - to being a stronger, more on-the-point debater. But both modes showed him quite able to think on his feet and speak in coherent sentences >>> [/quote]

203

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Quidnunc: that’s my problem with her as well. (Was trying to be a little more charitable.)

But it’s true. She avoided cramming on the facts, avoided being coached for public media appearances, and, after the Couric interview, avoided the press altogether. The danger of becoming so down on the “Mainstream Media” is that you actually don’t get enough national and international news. It becomes very easy to live in an echo chamber. She really seemed more confused than she should have been, and that’s because she prioritized her folksy image over getting up to speed on the details.

Not the same as being a bad politician. It’s being incurious. Maybe a little stumble in front of the camera is endearing and shows she’s not fake. But not educating herself shows she’s not interested in what’s important.

What did Obama know, sans teleprompter, that Palin didn’t? How to say: “uh…and then we’ll…uh…change will be my…uh…our goal will be…uh…uh…” ?

You voted for someone because they had a teleprompter?

You need to stop believing your own talking points. Watch any Obama press conference or interview (you know, when he doesn’t have a teleprompter). Watch any Palin press conference or interview (not that she does them any more). One of these will show a smart, oratorically gifted man thinking on his feet, and one will show a woman with the linguistic ability of a high-schooler.

quin:

I wonder how well she’d do on an even playing field.

You know, like selecting the questions in advance.

You know your guy does this pretty blatantly?!?

He selected his own questions in every press conference he’s ever had, all of the hundreds of interviews he’s done, and every single one of the ten thousand debates last year?

If you watch the primary debates, he goes from being “too smart” - too long-winded, willing to see both sides, eager to present the complexities of an issue (charges I do not accuse Palin of committing!) - to being a stronger, more on-the-point debater. But both modes showed him quite able to think on his feet and speak in coherent sentences, very unlike the word salad that Palin talks in. [/quote]

Yawn.

Watch off the teleprompter/script. You’ll see one hell of a difference.

If that doesn’t bother you or give you pause, I can’t help you see it.

By the way, even with all obama’s advantages, he sure screws up alot. Look it up.

Does that make him “dumb?”

JeffR

204

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
<<< He selected his own questions in every press conference he’s ever had, all of the hundreds of interviews he’s done, and every single one of the ten thousand debates last year?

If you watch the primary debates, he goes from being “too smart” - too long-winded, willing to see both sides, eager to present the complexities of an issue (charges I do not accuse Palin of committing!) - to being a stronger, more on-the-point debater. But both modes showed him quite able to think on his feet and speak in coherent sentences >>>

[/quote]

God, that’s disturbing!!! (and hilarious!)

Oh, and he certainly is.

JeffR

206

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I love all these, “State and local governments are for the birds and only the feds can do it right” posts. This clearly exposes who we’re dealing with here. You all have pulled down your flag of convenience and run up your true colors. Ho ho ho and a bottle of rum.[/quote]

“…This is NOT to say that our current centralized Government is best…but don’t fool yourself into thinking that Andy Griffith and Jimmy Stewart are running these Local and State Governments…”

I just wanted to make clear what I said, Push.

The Feds have a LOT of issues and problems. But to paint State and Local Governments as being all honesty, Apple Pie and the Red, White and Blue is painting a false perception of what they are are and how they operate.

Mufasa

207

Push,

I really must not be cut out for this; I always let it get to me personally, sorry. I honestly don’t want you to think I’m some kind of monster.

There are lots of good reasons I think more should be done at the state level. Local communities do vary. Federalism can be a “lab” for policy ideas, allowing us to compare results of different policies. There can be some competition between local governments as people leave worse governed states and move to better ones. And, like you, I’d like less intrusive government overall.

It’s just that local governments aren’t automatically more rights-respecting than national government. And mostly they don’t raise enough revenue to cover expenses without federal aid. So I think it would be a tough transition, and possibly one that doesn’t leave people better off. Does that make me … a pirate?

Relevant to the local government question: here’s Will Wilkinson (Cato Institute writer) on the Civil Rights Act:

“Federal intervention, while certainly limiting freedom of association and trumping more local jurisdictions, resulted IMO in an overall increase in freedom. That many traditional libertarian conservatives, such as Goldwater, seem to have been willing to sacrifice a great gain in overall freedom in order to maintain status quo levels local self-rule seems to me to betray a commitment to ancient ideals of liberty as community self-government in conflict with the modern idea of liberty as freedom from coercion.”

Community self-government can be, in my view, very restrictive of liberty. And that’s nanny-state provisions and local pork projects as well as segregation fifty years ago. The fact that it’s done by people who live near to me is not all that significant.

208

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Again, why I always laugh when people want “state’s rights.”[/quote]

Yea, fuck the states!! Central authority rules! You must’ve been a big fan of communist Russia, certainly of Cuba or Venezuela.

Back to reality. Irish, I recommend Mark Levin’s book, “Liberty And Tyranny”. In it he discusses the concept of mobility. Mobility is what gives a person the freedom to escape the oppressions of a governing body. Which is easier to get out from underneath; state regulations, or federal. Now, it certainly doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that It’s easier for me to leave a back assward Michigan, than it is for me to leave the US. Statists generally don’t like the idea of mobility, it lessens their grip on the individual.

This is why I will always fight to empower the states vs the feds. Remember, that’s how it’s supposed to work. Read up on federalism.