The Yamaha Road Star Warrior Forum

Seems to me there are some valid points in the following article. If nothing else, it would lead anybody that's not a democrat to ponder deciding if they should go into politics. The way it looks to me is that If you are a democrat, the only think you need to stand for is not being a republican. Other than that, nobody cares.

An intersting slant not yet spoken of:

People close to Sarah Palin say national political reporters and pundits have missed the real reasons for her surprising decision to resign as Alaska governor. The national media have dismissed or downplayed her real motives, which had little to do with any plans to run for president in 2012.

Contrary to most reports, her decision had been in the works for months, accelerating recently as it became clear that controversies and endless ethics investigations were threatening to overshadow her legislative agenda. "Attacks inside Alaska and largely invisible to the national media had paralyzed her administration," someone close to the governor told me. "She was fully aware she would be branded a 'quitter.' She did not want to disappoint her constituents, but she was no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself."

This situation developed because Alaska's transparency laws allow anyone to file Freedom of Information Act requests. While normally useful, in the hands of political opponents FOIA requests can become a means to bog down a target in a bureaucratic quagmire, thanks to the need to comb through records and respond by a strict timetable. Similarly, ethics investigations are easily triggered and can drag on for months even if the initial complaint is flimsy. Since Ms. Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, some 150 FOIA requests have been filed and her office has been targeted for investigation by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature. Most have centered on Ms. Palin's use of government resources, and to date have turned up little save for a few state trips that she agreed to reimburse the state for because her children had accompanied her. In the process, though, she accumulated $500,000 in legal fees in just the last nine months, and knew the bill would grow ever larger in the future.

"The Alaska ethics elves had painted such a target on Sarah's forehead that she had begun turning down pretty much every invitation she got -- even though they were pouring in every day by the dozens," a confidant of the governor's told me. "It is not throwing in the towel. It is deciding that she was ineffective in fighting for her principles and could do more in another role."

Family considerations also played a role. Ms. Palin gave birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome in 2008, and also has a six-year old. Everyone in the family was weary of endless personal attacks, including mean-spirited suggestions on liberal blogs that all of her children should have been aborted and that she would run on a presidential platform promoting retardation.

Governor Palin tried hunkering down. She ignored offers of help from outside and kept media outlets at a distance. "Palin had become so suspicious of the media that she rejected hundreds of requests by even friendly reporters to interview her. Her press aides say that before considering interviews, she insists that they comb through reporters' work, even if they write for a friendly, conservative publication," writes Ron Kessler of NewsMax.com. I can also attest to the difficulty of reaching Governor Palin's staff and getting simple requests answered -- the problem is that such standoffishness can sometimes result in more negative coverage rather than less.

Karl Rove acknowledges the unusual battering Ms. Palin has endured in recent months, but told Fox News that GOP leaders are still puzzled by her decision. "If she wanted to escape the ethics investigations and save the taxpayers money, she's now done that," he said. Unfortunately, he added, her decision "sent a signal that if you do this kind of thing to a sitting governor like her, you can drive her out of office."

But Palin friends say such commentary misses the real point. "The Beltway media can't understand someone not consumed with presidential ambition," one told me. "Maybe Sarah Palin won't run for president and maybe her family situation made it tougher to handle the barrage of attacks that come with that territory. The real issue that should be asked is why a mean-spirited system has to treat people who run like that, instead of why someone may choose not to go through it."

All good points, and they lead me to conclude that Ms. Palin mostly likely will not run for president -- in 2012, at least. She made many mistakes after suddenly being thrust into the national spotlight last year, but hasn't merited the sneering contempt visited upon her by national reporters. She simply was not their kind of feminist -- and they disdained the politically incorrect life choices she had made.

In helping to convince Sarah Palin that her road forward in national politics would demand even more sacrifices and pain than exacted from most politicians, the media did nothing to encourage women or people of modest means to participate in politics. By sidestepping her critics, Sarah Palin is now moving to another playing field where she has more control over the rules of the game. Her friends say her critics may call her a "quitter" now, but they should wait and see what new role she decides to fill. She may wind up having the last laugh.

-- John Fund

 i think i noted earlier that alaska law makes it almost impossible for her to profit from her newfound fame while in office.  i don't think that she's putting a presidential run first, i think she's done something incredibly self-serving and betrayed the people she pledged to serve.  from a political perspective, it's hard to see that she's viable presidential material, really.  she must know that.

Playboy offer ???? Huh????

 WHITE HOUSE give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Darth_Warrior:

....i think she's done something incredibly self-serving and betrayed the people she pledged to serve.... 

Go back and read the article Dennis posted.  I'd be self serving as well if the BS was costing me more than I make.  Most of the ethics complaints are being filed by one woman up there who has decided it's her job to make Palin's life hell for as long as she can.  This biatch has a blog that's getting lot of hits cuz of this sh*t.   Funny, I haven't talked to anyone, other than democrats, who thinks she has betrayed us. 

OldMan:

Darth_Warrior:

....i think she's done something incredibly self-serving and betrayed the people she pledged to serve.... 

Go back and read the article Dennis posted.  I'd be self serving as well if the BS was costing me more than I make.  Most of the ethics complaints are being filed by one woman up there who has decided it's her job to make Palin's life hell for as long as she can.  This biatch has a blog that's getting lot of hits cuz of this sh*t.   Funny, I haven't talked to anyone, other than democrats, who thinks she has betrayed us. 

Jack,
These guys that are bashing her are the usuals that look to the mainstream media for their opinions. It just becomes more and more entertaining reading the posts by "intellectuals" whose IQ is only slightly higher than the number of nuts they have in their sack. This is the sad state of affairs and until everyone is willing to stop listening to the media and do their own research on the candidates, we will just fall deeper into the funk we're currently in. My only worry is my kids and grand-children. I'm 60 and I can survive this for the years I have left, but our kids deserve better than the mess we're leaving them. This should be everyone's concern, but it sure doesn't seem to matter.

You've got that right Duke.   I got to spend a couple of day with two of my grandsons this past weekend.  I really feel like sh*t because their prospects are looking pretty dim.  Our government, both major parties, isn't worth a damn.    We need to ship DC off to Siberia and start over

You know Jack, I don't draw great pleasure from criticizing post by fellow members, but it's tough to watch people who can't think for themselves (or are just too lazy)  repeat the same crap "word for word" that we get from the media. God gave us a set of morals (values if you will) and a brain to make "smart" decisions about our future and the future of this country.
It's actually simple to see through all of the BS and realize what needs to be done to get this country on track, but I guess for some it's just easier to follow the "pied piper". 

I'm too old to change and will continue to think for myself,  and I'm sure you will do the same.

interesting that instead of countering with anything meaningful, you have to resort to ad hominem (if you don't have sufficient "nuts" in your "sack," look it up, it's latin) attacks on the people you disagree with.  maybe you should follow with a wink and a "you betcha!" 

 seriously, though, the "sad state of affairs" to which you refer is largely the result of drawing partisan lines based on who's on what team, rather than engaging in a little critical analysis and *gasp* thinking for yourself.  look at it rationally, rather than through some kind of partisan groupthink lens here.  you're trying to defend someone who aspired to the co-pilot seat of the free world who wilted under the pressure of the press (and if you think the WSJ is liberal media, i can't imagine what you consider "conservative"), and then quit.  if the cost of defending the ethics allegations is costing her more than her salary, she's either got the worst legal representation in the history of the bar, or there's something to them.  elected officials get that sort of crap all the time, even on the city and county level, and they manage just fine.  i never said she was a bad person, or that she's an idiot; she got into a kitchen that was too hot for her.  the white house is the hottest kitchen we have, and she's made it clear that she lacks the stomach to play at that level.

it's too early to tell if the obama administration is going to be able to right the ship, and i certainly don't agree with everything they're doing, but i'm not so caught up in whether the red or the blue team one that i've lost my ability to think independently or critically.  i hope that your fears of what we're leaving our grandchildren turn out to be unfounded, but we have a long way to go, and the previous administration dug a pretty deep hole. i agree with you on researching the candidates, although i'm not sure what the media has to do with it, there's plenty of media slant on both sides.  the media is a popular scapegoat, but the media, much like a computer, only gives us what we ask for.

Darth_Warrior:

interesting that instead of countering with anything meaningful, you have to resort to ad hominem (if you don't have sufficient "nuts" in your "sack," look it up, it's latin) attacks on the people you disagree with.  maybe you should follow with a wink and a "you betcha!" 

 seriously, though, the "sad state of affairs" to which you refer is largely the result of drawing partisan lines based on who's on what team, rather than engaging in a little critical analysis and *gasp* thinking for yourself.  look at it rationally, rather than through some kind of partisan groupthink lens here.  you're trying to defend someone who aspired to the co-pilot seat of the free world who wilted under the pressure of the press (and if you think the WSJ is liberal media, i can't imagine what you consider "conservative"), and then quit.  if the cost of defending the ethics allegations is costing her more than her salary, she's either got the worst legal representation in the history of the bar, or there's something to them.  elected officials get that sort of crap all the time, even on the city and county level, and they manage just fine.  i never said she was a bad person, or that she's an idiot; she got into a kitchen that was too hot for her.  the white house is the hottest kitchen we have, and she's made it clear that she lacks the stomach to play at that level.

it's too early to tell if the obama administration is going to be able to right the ship, and i certainly don't agree with everything they're doing, but i'm not so caught up in whether the red or the blue team one that i've lost my ability to think independently or critically.  i hope that your fears of what we're leaving our grandchildren turn out to be unfounded, but we have a long way to go, and the previous administration dug a pretty deep hole. i agree with you on researching the candidates, although i'm not sure what the media has to do with it, there's plenty of media slant on both sides.  the media is a popular scapegoat, but the media, much like a computer, only gives us what we ask for.

 

I've been around for over 60 years and can probably remember about 52 years clearly. Other than the Cuban Missle Crisis I can't recall feeling so much concern for the future of this nation and our kids. The assassinations of President Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy made me realize what a mess this country is really in. While you choose to blame the previous administration for the mess we're in I think you need to look back at the fact that we were operating in an inflated economy for 20 to 30 years. Instead of addressing the fact that we were going to eventually have a huge economic turndown, every administration (plus the House and Senate) continued to "rubber stamp" everything that came along and swept concerns under the rug.

While I'd love to continue this dialogue with you, it will be an effort in futility as long as you continue to blame one administration for the situation this country is in. I can't defend the Bush Administration for a lot of things that were done, but the economic and energy problems we're facing weren't created by them. Last time I checked these problems are global, not national. 

The pressures that Palin has been facing are a direct result of the position she was placed in by the McCain clan. When she first arrived on the scene she was aggressive and attacking on all fronts. When the McCain advisors decided to place a "muzzle" on her, it not only gave the Obama campaign a boost, but it also created the turmoil she's been facing. The McCain advisors were wrong to do it and she was wrong to go along with it.

Was it wrong for her to resign? You obviously have your own opinion about that,  but to continue to stay the course would be political suicide in my opinion. The only fighting chance she has is to step away, regroup, and come out swinging.

Do I think she's a viable candidate for the 2012 Presidency? Absolutely. Why? Because I don't think she'll allow herself to become a puppet or scapegoat of the GOP, or any party for that matter. She's her own woman and has been for quite some time. It's the one thing that has carried her throughout her political career. She's tough enough to face the powers in Washington and stir things up.

If however she lacks that drive and agressive attitude, she'll be just another face in the crowd and definitely not someone I would want running our country. 

 I don't really care what she does, that's for her to decide. If she had an agenda in Alaska that she could not fulfill because she was spending all of her time defending against allegations (true or false), it makes little difference if she steps down does it? She wasn't going to fullfill them anyway because of the above mentioned allegations. Thus, the agenda has a better chance of being fullfilled with the lieutenant governor taking charge. Will she run for president?  Who knows or cares right now, that's a long way off and many things will happen between now and then. I figure our economy will get a lot worse (since the entire stimulus did nothing to stimulate anything), much more of the private sector will be nationalized and proving how stupid that idea is. Iran and North Korea will have nukes and probably export a couple to Hamas and some other fringe group. By then most of south and central America could be socialist/communist and possibly importing nukes and here in the US of A, we'll be bickering about the same old nothings that they have distracted us with for years. Will Palin run? I wouldn't if I were her, we're on the bdink of more disaster than I can ever remember why would anybody in their right mind want to step into that?

....

While I'd love to continue this dialogue with you, it will be an effort in futility as long as you continue to blame one administration for the situation this country is in. I can't defend the Bush Administration for a lot of things that were done, but the economic and energy problems we're facing weren't created by them. Last time I checked these problems are global, not national. 

i didn't suggest that all of our problems were a result of the last administration, only that the last administration left the place a mess.  i think that the wheels started working their way off after goldwater, to be honest, and it's silly to think that presidents make the mess on their own.  but i don't think that the economic and energy problems you identified are the only ones we're facing. those are policy concerns, issues that we should all agree we're facing, but solutions tend to differ along partisan lines.  the other, and arguably deeper concern in America, is a crisis of spirit, helped along in large part by an approach to campaigning and political wrangling promoted, if not pioneered, by the likes of karl rove.  this approach involves riling up the extreme ends of the political spectrum with wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion, which are largely irrelevant in terms of critical governance or policymaking, but which tend to divide the populace long after the election cycle.  our communities, neighborhoods and families are split along these lines, in some cases, irreparably, and that's unforgiveable.  we need to get back to being American, and not holding others' differing views against them, or allowing our politicians to divide us in this way.  looking at how some of the posts in this thread refer to "libs" is a case in point of the division that we are allowing to happen, and are even fostering.  if we were able to step out of all that emotional crap and look at each other's views objectively, you'd find that we all probably agree on over 90% of things, and have allowed passionate disagreement on a very narrow set of things to divide us utterly, causing us to lose ground on everything else.  

The pressures that Palin has been facing are a direct result of the position she was placed in by the McCain clan. When she first arrived on the scene she was aggressive and attacking on all fronts. When the McCain advisors decided to place a "muzzle" on her, it not only gave the Obama campaign a boost, but it also created the turmoil she's been facing. The McCain advisors were wrong to do it and she was wrong to go along with it.

i think that is something of an oversimplification, and a tad disingenuous.  the woman is not a robot, and part of the mccain camp's problem all along was maintaining interal cohesion and order within the campaign. sarah palin had already garnered a fair amount of criticism prior to the campaign clamping down on her, and really, it was a sign of poor campaign management on the campaign's part and political immaturity on her part that those issues played out publicly.  i don't blame her for her frustration with the campaign, but if you're going to frag your superior officer, you'd (a) better finish the job, and (b) do it when no one is looking.  to be honest, i'm not looking at her through a partisan lens at all, i'm looking at it from an objective political strategist perspective, and she was a management nightmare, and the rest of the campaign was a disaster.  was it all her fault? of course not.  but i still believe that my earlier point remains valid; if this kind of turmoil is too much for you, this isn't your cup of tea.  love him or hate him, george w. bush handled all kinds of wild accusations without losing it, as did obama during the campaign.

Was it wrong for her to resign? You obviously have your own opinion about that,  but to continue to stay the course would be political suicide in my opinion. The only fighting chance she has is to step away, regroup, and come out swinging.

"wrong" presupposes many things i don't know, nor profess to know.  it certainly suggests a lack of commitment to the people of alaska, as there was nothing prohibiting her from finishing her term.  the "lame duck" remarks were particularly alarming, especially in light of the fact that alaska doesn't have gubernatorial term limits (to my knowledge, anyway), because it sends a message that when the office ceases to be useful to her, she's done with it, and really, it's not about her.  i know that it's absurdly idealistic, but we are a nation born out of wild idealism, and an elected official is the representative embodiment of the people they serve.  that said, it may well have been best for her to quit, i don't know.  again, though, if she left because of the "turmoil" it seems obvious to me that she's not able to take the level of pressure that comes with playing on the national level.  lord knows i wouldn't want to do it.  from a purely political strategy perspective, it's hard to see leaving your governor's seat as a positive step toward future aspirations, but who knows, crazier things have happened.

Do I think she's a viable candidate for the 2012 Presidency? Absolutely. Why? Because I don't think she'll allow herself to become a puppet or scapegoat of the GOP, or any party for that matter. She's her own woman and has been for quite some time. It's the one thing that has carried her throughout her political career. She's tough enough to face the powers in Washington and stir things up.

there are a number of serious hurdles for her in becoming a viable candidate for 2012, looking at it objectively.  if i were a betting man (and i am not), i'd say that her role is more likely to be a party-building one, as evidenced by her sarahPac efforts, and i would expect to see her more in a rallying the troops role than a candidate role.  she would arguably be able to be more effective, and it would keep her out of the kind of scrutiny she's shown a disinclination to tolerate.  during the campaign and after, she pretty much mangled her interactions with the press, becoming almost indignant at times, and really, that's poor form (i'm talking in terms of political strategy and ability to win here, not whether the press was fair, right or anything else; the constitutional hurdles in making the press "behave" are far more egregious and horrifying than anything the press does, which means that the candidate has to be able to handle that).  at best, she appeared not ready for primetime, at worst, thin-skinned and unable to take the heat.

If however she lacks that drive and agressive attitude, she'll be just another face in the crowd and definitely not someone I would want running our country. 

i would never suggest that she lacks aggression or drive.  i don't think that her ambition has ever been in question, and may have ultimately been her downfall.  i'm just not sure someone who can't take anything other than softballs from a pointy-headed tv commentator, or who can't handle being taken to task on the disparity between what's happening in her own family and the policies she wants the rest of us to be subject to, is prepared for the rigors of leading this country.  the business with letterman was another example.  letterman was an ass, that's his schtick.  when he's able to get a rise out of you, then he wins.  if you don't respond, or you respond dismissively, or even chuckle a little, then it's forgotten by his next show.  react like she did and they'll be talking about it for months...and really, if you're looking out for your daughter's good name, do you want to fan the flames like she did?  this is basic politics, regardless of party.  put bluntly, if you want to be the leader of the nation, the bar is a lot higher.  if someone said what he said about one of my kids, i'd be hard pressed not to punch them in the mouth...but you can't do that as president, and really, it's not asking too much. it's a big job, and the stakes are high.  if you don't want to be held to those standards, don't run. 

You know history usually repeats itself:

Like Nixon, Palin seemed fraught with emotion. Like Nixon, she seemed angry at her critics. Of course to the surprise of his detractors, Nixon recovered. He spent the next six years stumping the country, piling up chits from grateful politicians who benefited from his endorsements, chits he cashed in during his successful 1968 run for the presidency.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ticket5-2009jul05,0,1629385.story

Don't count her out.  Heck, who counted Obama in - back in 2006 or 7??  He has no resume or experience and look how well that worked for him.

I'm just trolling along......................

Damon- I like to have your side on posts, and respect your opinions , but bringing  up Palin's child with down syndrome was NOT FUNNY. 

Old Man , PEP -  +1

 nixon is a good point, although i daresay she shouldn't aspire to his entire career trajectory, or his tactics. :)

Darth_Warrior:

interesting that instead of countering with anything meaningful, you have to resort to ad hominem (if you don't have sufficient "nuts" in your "sack," look it up, it's latin) attacks on the people you disagree with.  maybe you should follow with a wink and a "you betcha!" 

 seriously, though, the "sad state of affairs" to which you refer is largely the result of drawing partisan lines based on who's on what team, rather than engaging in a little critical analysis and *gasp* thinking for yourself.  look at it rationally, rather than through some kind of partisan groupthink lens here.  you're trying to defend someone who aspired to the co-pilot seat of the free world who wilted under the pressure of the press (and if you think the WSJ is liberal media, i can't imagine what you consider "conservative"), and then quit.  if the cost of defending the ethics allegations is costing her more than her salary, she's either got the worst legal representation in the history of the bar, or there's something to them.  elected officials get that sort of crap all the time, even on the city and county level, and they manage just fine.  i never said she was a bad person, or that she's an idiot; she got into a kitchen that was too hot for her.  the white house is the hottest kitchen we have, and she's made it clear that she lacks the stomach to play at that level.

it's too early to tell if the obama administration is going to be able to right the ship, and i certainly don't agree with everything they're doing, but i'm not so caught up in whether the red or the blue team one that i've lost my ability to think independently or critically.  i hope that your fears of what we're leaving our grandchildren turn out to be unfounded, but we have a long way to go, and the previous administration dug a pretty deep hole. i agree with you on researching the candidates, although i'm not sure what the media has to do with it, there's plenty of media slant on both sides.  the media is a popular scapegoat, but the media, much like a computer, only gives us what we ask for.

 

 The media sure doesn't give me what I ask for - truthful unbiased reporting. Almost all facets of the media have an agenda or an ax to grind depending on the editor. They are, by in large, a joke and should be an embarrassment to all Americans. Palin is hated by almost all females in politics because of her looks, she doesn't need to open her mouth to earn their contempt. If she were fat and ugly she probably wouldn't have near the same trouble. Getting back to the media, did any of you guys ask for the non-stop network coverage of the Michael Jackson circus?