rickyp wrote: She gets elected Governor then finds governing tedious....and quits.

except that is not the reason she resigned. It was the fact that the unending frivolous ethics complaints were bankrupting her.

rickyp wrote:It took her what 4 colleges to get a journalism degree?

Wow, you are seriously ignorant. It took me 3 different colleges to get my undergraduate degree in History. Does that make me a quitter or could possibly it be the fact that I was paying for it on my own and had to stop going from time to time to save money to fit it.

In the case of Sarah Palin it is my understandning she paid for college by using scholarships won from beauty pagents. If you look at the school she attended, I believe most of them were ones to which she had won a one year scholarship .

3 schools here as well
I went to (gasp!) a Community College for two years
Then on to a State School
But wait, I screwed around a bit and had to take Summer classes at a closer State College
...three schools for a Bachelors degree, how droll of me!?

Guess I'm a loser and I should have just quit instead?

Ray Jay wrote:so your original statement had truthiness, but was not really accurate. NOW didn't criticise Palin for running instead of staying home with her family.

Meanwhile, of course, they went after Congressman Weiner, after all--he treats women with contempt! Just look at the denunciation:

The head of the Brooklyn/Queens chapter of the National Organization for Women said she could separate Weiner's sexcapades from the liberal track record that earned the group's support.

"I wasn't happy to discover that my congressman is a 14-year-old boy," said Julie Kirshner, president of the NOW chapter.

"But he happens to be one of the best politicians out there, so we're in a bad position. We're trying to give him the benefit of the doubt."

Doug Muzzio, a Baruch College public affairs professor, said women's groups can stand by Weiner because he's championed their causes - but he can't count on the votes of many individual women.

Boys will be boys!

Richard suggests Hillary Clinton was pursued by the MSM in the same way. I would love to see him prove that--not by recounting the scandals and alleged scandals she was involved in that deserved scrutiny, but in actual numbers--or stories that got into the MSM that were not true, but meant to maim her politically--something along the lines of Trig not being her baby.

except that is not the reason she resigned. It was the fact that the unending frivolous ethics complaints were bankrupting her.

The new book on her says otherwise. That she essentially lost interest in actually governing... Course that was written by her aide so what would he know?
I have a great deal of sympathy for her problems with frivolous lawsuits and the strange Alaska rules about using her own funds to defend them .. I think she was geting a raw deal becasue of bad laws and vindictive people. .
Rather than choose to stay and change the rules, she left.
And thats okay. She made her choice to go make money and thats fine. But then don't whine and complain about how people react to her moves... Newt Gingrinch has screwed up in the media recently. (Well, according to the hard core republican he committed sins against Ryan...) He didn't blame the media for his mistakes.
You don't see Tim Pawlenty complaining about being "ambushed by a gotcha question" in the debate the other night. They all know the rules of the game and work through them.
Palin, uniquely, doesn't. She's always a victim.
She likes to paint herself that way, and her supporters and admirers seem to accept that as reality.

rickyp wrote:

except that is not the reason she resigned. It was the fact that the unending frivolous ethics complaints were bankrupting her.

The new book on her says otherwise. That she essentially lost interest in actually governing... Course that was written by her aide so what would he know?

Have you followed his story at all? I suspect not--if you did, you wouldn't be citing him.

I have a great deal of sympathy for her problems with frivolous lawsuits and the strange Alaska rules about using her own funds to defend them .. I think she was geting a raw deal becasue of bad laws and vindictive people. .

Finally . . . truth!

Rather than choose to stay and change the rules, she left.

I knew it wouldn't last.

How do you think it would have been perceived if she announced that to avoid personal bankruptcy she was going to have to change the State ethics laws?

I'm sure that would have done very well.

And thats okay. She made her choice to go make money and thats fine.

Iirc, she had legal bills SHE had to pay of half a million dollars. So, what would you do? Go bankrupt? Change the rules while in office (I don't even know if that would have been legal)?

But then don't whine and complain about how people react to her moves... Newt Gingrinch has screwed up in the media recently. (Well, according to the hard core republican he committed sins against Ryan...) He didn't blame the media for his mistakes.

Apples and atom bombs are a better comparison.

All of Newt's troubles, he created. She has been scrutinized and rumored about like no politician in the last 40 years.

You don't see Tim Pawlenty complaining about being "ambushed by a gotcha question" in the debate the other night. They all know the rules of the game and work through them.
Palin, uniquely, doesn't. She's always a victim.

Go ahead and say it, "Why can't she take it like a man?"

Her situation in Alaska was unique. Bad law exploited by Democrats. That is completely different than Pawlenty saying "Obamneycare" on Sunday and being too timid to say it on Monday. Get a grip.

She likes to paint herself that way, and her supporters and admirers seem to accept that as reality.

The one thing I can accept: you are an expert on victimology. Liberals are.

rickyp wrote:Rather than choose to stay and change the rules, she left.

Of course this presumes she would have been able to change the law. One must remember that she ran against the party organization and was not liked by the rest of the party establishment. From what I remember reading half of those frivilous complaints were coming from Republicans. Do you think a Legislature like that will help her out?

There there is also the fact that she was getting to the point where she would have to decide to run for reelect or not. Once everybody knows she has decided not to run for reelect the Legislature stop working with her and she becomes a lame duck.

Therefore, she had the option of spending 2 years fighting frivilous complaints, getting nothing achieved legislatively all the while going bankrupt in the process. Or she can step aside in favor of a guy she supports to give him some experience as the Governor and save her family from going bankrupt.

Given that choice ricky, what would you do?

Archduke Russell John wrote:

rickyp wrote:Rather than choose to stay and change the rules, she left.

Of course this presumes she would have been able to change the law. One must remember that she ran against the party organization and was not liked by the rest of the party establishment. From what I remember reading half of those frivilous complaints were coming from Republicans. Do you think a Legislature like that will help her out?

There there is also the fact that she was getting to the point where she would have to decide to run for reelect or not. Once everybody knows she has decided not to run for reelect the Legislature stop working with her and she becomes a lame duck.

Therefore, she had the option of spending 2 years fighting frivilous complaints, getting nothing achieved legislatively all the while going bankrupt in the process. Or she can step aside in favor of a guy she supports to give him some experience as the Governor and save her family from going bankrupt.

Given that choice ricky, what would you do?

What he will post will be a dodge and/or another assault on Palin.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:so your original statement had truthiness, but was not really accurate. NOW didn't criticise Palin for running instead of staying home with her family.

Not really. On Sept 5, 2008 NOW President Kim Gandy said,

“It would be best for everyone if Sarah Palin would just stay home and raise her kids. When you have one child with Down syndrome and another with an unwanted pregnancy who won’t even consider the ease and convenience of abortion, you need to be a better mother, not Vice President.”

http://carbolicsmoke.com/2008/09/05/fem ... -her-kids/

Russ, thanks. I'm content knowing the facts.

Ray Jay wrote:Russ, thanks. I'm content knowing the facts.

My pleasure Monte. It actually took me a while to find it. I did a yahoo search of "sarah palin should stay home with kids". That link was buried on page 3 or 4.

Seriously, there were 3 pages of links to people making that comment some as recent at January of this year, including, surprising, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta.

Given that choice ricky, what would you do?

If I'd pissed off everybody I had to work with to get the law changed? and if there was this bag of money hanging out there at Fox? I'm lazy and I'd hit the road like she did.
But I wouldn't then hold out myself as a potential saviour for the nation, a potential candidate for a higher even more complicated and demanding position.
And if i did I'd expect to weather some heavy storms.For whatever reason Palin doesn't. There's a strange sense of entitlement in her approach to politics. She's entilted to attention, entitled to respect and shouldn't have to meet anyones standards but her own.
She ducked a tough road in Alaska, partly of her own making, and yet expects that a much higher office should tumble for her with the same kind of approach. Mccain did the woman a diservice by throwing her into the national scene the wat he did. Perhaps He was fooled by her charisma into thinking there was something there that could grow. Or perhaps he recognized that he had an enormous charisma deficit and that Palin offered that in spades.

Compare her to other republicans and most especially Michelle Bachman. Now Ms. Bachman has been characterized as crazy by her opponents on the left. And she has said some things that opened her up to that, that and the way her eyes come off in interviews....
But she seems to have learned, toned things down, and seems to have studied how to become credible. Palin, continues to do things her own damn way. Her bus tour is a marvel of self promotion with no appreciable goal unless its to pump her run at the presidency.. She might as well be selling soda pop. She purely invites the media to take her down a peg. So they try sometimes. But she can falter even with soft balls and non-questions.

Archduke you don't think she'll run. Why not? The money? I sorta agreed with you for awhile, but this bus tour can only foretell a run at the presidency. And she hasn't the stamina for that so if the going gets tough, she'll quit. . Plus, aren't the party elite trying like hell to stop her from running? She's the loosest canon out there. (Well Newt's pretty loose but he's sorta run his course...)

entitled to attention?
The MSM hates her (the threads title), they cover every single thing she does in an effort to discredit and belittle her, even if it means making some of it up. Then because of this intense scrutiny you want to blame the victim? I guess by these standards any woman who wears a short skirt deserves to be raped? Same twisted logic.

Doctor Fate wrote:Meanwhile, of course, they went after Congressman Weiner, after all--he treats women with contempt! Just look at the denunciation:

The head of the Brooklyn/Queens chapter of the National Organization for Women said she could separate Weiner's sexcapades from the liberal track record that earned the group's support.

"I wasn't happy to discover that my congressman is a 14-year-old boy," said Julie Kirshner, president of the NOW chapter.

"But he happens to be one of the best politicians out there, so we're in a bad position. We're trying to give him the benefit of the doubt."

Doug Muzzio, a Baruch College public affairs professor, said women's groups can stand by Weiner because he's championed their causes - but he can't count on the votes of many individual women.

Richard suggests Hillary Clinton was pursued by the MSM in the same way.

Bad example!!!. The local chapter head of NOW and some college professor aren't MSN. Have you seen the Daily News on Weiner? Four inch headlines (oh, did I just type that???) They are having a field day. We all are!! The combination of his name, the prurient nature of what he did, the fact that he's a jerk personally, has just made him a target that is irresistible.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Russ, thanks. I'm content knowing the facts.

My pleasure Monte. It actually took me a while to find it. I did a yahoo search of "sarah palin should stay home with kids". That link was buried on page 3 or 4.

Seriously, there were 3 pages of links to people making that comment some as recent at January of this year, including, surprising, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta.

You all know that website is a fake news website, right? Or am I missing your the sarcasm?
"Proud publishers of fake news" kind of gives it away . . .

Ok, so, in case anyone thinks that George is referring to the Liz Trotta story...

Archduke Russell John wrote:On Sept 5, 2008 NOW President Kim Gandy said,

“It would be best for everyone if Sarah Palin would just stay home and raise her kids. When you have one child with Down syndrome and another with an unwanted pregnancy who won’t even consider the ease and convenience of abortion, you need to be a better mother, not Vice President.”

http://carbolicsmoke.com/2008/09/05/fem ... -her-kids/

And then...

GMTom wrote:Thanks Russ, I knew I heard that before.

followed by...

bbauska wrote:Does the defense have a rebuttal?

All three of you missed that "Carbolic Smoke Balls" at the top of that link is flanked by two statements:

"News unencumbered by facts" and "Proud publishers of fake news since 2005".

Well spotted, George. I assume you did what the others didn't and read the link instead of taking it on trust. Wait -- the internet lies?

GMTom wrote:not part of NOW, but a feminist just the same all the same in my mind:

Interesting. I have this bridge here. It's not London Bridge, but a thing that goes over water just the same. If it's all the same in your mind, then I'm sure it's just what you need...

I guess I can't explain how I personally think? My opinions, clearly indicated as my own personal opinions are not welcome to be discussed? I have seen others talk about their feelings here, I guess I am not allowed to do so?