Friday, July 3, 2009

Episode 67: Sarah Palin Resigns? What?!



Sarah Palin never ceases to entertain. In the early days of this blog, I’ve spent a good amount of time bashing Palin because she is the worst kind of leader this country could have (by which I mean she is ignorant, uninformed, lacks intellectual curiosity, and lacks the culture to thrive in a national or international stage.) My guy won, so I saw no reason to continue the Palin bashing, and I was getting bored ding so anyways.

I hop on Facebook today only to find a bunch of links about Palin’s resignation on my feeds. Was this some kind of joke? So I read NY Times, Fox News, WSJ, and a few other sources, and lo and behold it is indeed true. Her reason? Because she can have a larger positive impact if she could travel around, presumably to raise her stock in 2012.

Sarah Palin are you crazy?! Do you realize being a governor is like being the president of the state of Alaska?? You have the perfect forum to show America your leadership skills! Take a stand on the economy, and sign legislation that sticks it to Obama’s face! Enact trade deals with Canada for oil and generic medicine to save your citizens some money! Use your executive power to travel across the country and speak with other governors… see what works in other states and how you can apply what you learned in Alaska! There are so many ways you can innovate and prove your mettle in Alaska, that one could only assume that you either still think the far right is going to get you into office or you simply have no sense whatsoever. Either way, I want you nowhere near the oval office. I can’t respect a politician who would abandon her people in the middle of an economic crisis to raise her own political stock. Absolutely absurd.

So much for my preliminary thoughts on this… it could change after more info is released, but I strongly doubt it…
Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

10 comments: on "Episode 67: Sarah Palin Resigns? What?!"

Anonymous said...

She cost McCain the election, her folkyness, accent and winking do not ring true, her intellect is below par (our vivid memory of the last one who delegates and follows because of their lack of intellect), but lets face it with the right type of marketing (vote folky, vote god) it can be sold to US, history tends to repeat itself. God help us!

Kate said...

This comment is sort of unrelated to this post, but is about your blog in general...

It's sort of funny that "through a blue lens" means left-wing in the US, because Democrats are blue and Republicans are red.

But in Canada, the Conservatives (center-right) are blue while the Liberals (center-left) are red.

Then the NDP are orange, and they're by far the coolest. Even before I liked them for their environmental policies, I liked them simply because they were orange.

The Law said...

@ Anon, for what it's worth, I always thought Palin was a decent governor for Alaska, and probably a far better mayor. Her style of politics is absolutely perfect for her constituency because that's what they respond to. Beyond the remote borders of Alaska, and it is a completely different story. Republicans are so quick to throw G.W. under the bus, but then they rally behind Palin who is far worse!

@ Kate, lol... I think the history of red and blue states in America is fairly recent, with the term coined in the George H.W. Bush v Clinton race in 1992. Prior to that, I think the colors were chosen at random. After the '92 election, the colors kind of just stuck. I believe ABC News coverage of the election is responsible for that =)

conservative generation said...

tL,

I have no clue what she's thinking either. However, I did have a thought...Obama was a community organizer and everyone thought that was great experience. If Palin goes and does the same thing will you be saying it's not good experience?

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

Hey L. Thanks for joining my blog.
I know we have a long future of peaceful disagreement ahead of us.

Take this Palin thing. Alaska is one of the FEW states not in an economic mess, the other notable exception is Tx. Ever wonder why?

You can overlay the states in the worst mess with the Bluest states; whereas the two most constitutional and small r republican (as in republic not pol party) states are the two best economically...does that give you pause at all?

Because of the Drive-By MSM constant attacks on Sarah she was probably not being very effective in the governorship; add to that the Liberal Attack Machine hassling her all the time in court and I bet it was hard to get anything positive done.

There is a BIG difference between Sarah and Dubya in that Sarah is a conservative and Dubya was a lifelong politician who was far closer to your guy Chairman Zero than he is to Palin.

Andrew33 said...

I jsut wanted to join KOOK in welcoming you to our blog. We hope you always heel welcome there despite having a differing word view. We put our ideas out there for debate and as long as you keep it clean and about personal attacks and insults, you opinions will be welcome there. I also made a statement on my blog that anyone insulting you on a personal level without being provoked would face the wrath of both KOOK and myself. I have often wished that more liberals would come on our blog and debate us. I got my wish. I have no problem with those who hold differing views from me. As long as they treat me with respect, I will do the same in kind.
I agree with KOOK about Palin. I believe G.W. was corrupt. I believe that he was beholden to several special interest groups who financed his campaigns. He was no conservative as he supported more wasteful government spending than all the Presidents before him. I believe Bush got Iraq right...the second time, but we should have used the tactics in the surge the first time. Of course Obama has spent more in 6 months than Bush did in 8 years. I at least am consistent in my argument that wasteful spending is bad no matter which party is in. And by the way, I could care less about party. I will use the '02 election as an example. I lived in Tennessee and voted for Bredesen(D) for gov. and Blackburn(R) for rep. Both were good votes, both are still in office with high favorability ratings. So in debating me, don't make it a "party" issue because I am not a "party" supporter. I am an Issues supporter.

Anonymous said...

[Taken from comment on TheLaw's Facebook]

People like her hate the government and want it gone so they can continue to rape and pillage (the environment, Alaskan wilderness, poor people, etc.) All she ever did was rail against the government so it was kind of hypocritical of her to be in it in the first place.

The Law said...

I agree with that, except one thing... republicans say they want less government because it is a talking point that sounds good. That is not what they really want. They want a different type of large government, one that creates an expansion of military power, and one that creates massive wealth in the financial sector. Wise republicans know you can't deregulate everything, but they would still seek to expand defense spending since it is for better or FOR WORSE, the primary leverage against many netural and enemy countries. But that is a whole 'nother can o' worms...

Grog said...

The soon to be former governor is significantly dumber(in a way that no amount of experience can help) than GW. I am astounded by people who seriously consider her for an office higher than high school principal.

The party colors are interesting, clearly the most patriotic are red or blue with white so the big boys got those. The green party likes green things etc
I am a big fan of orange through

Tony Briley said...

I don't see the republicans making the same mistake twice (yet they did with Bush).

I see her trying to be Ross Perot #2 and starting a 3rd party.

Jeesh, will it be more right wing nutty than the right wing nuts now?

Post a Comment