On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:20:43 -0400, gfretwell wrote:


I imagine she was simply driven from office by frivolous law suits and
unfounded charges. I hear she is a half million in debt from the legal
bills.

I don't know, but does that pass the smell test? If they were all
frivolous, why was she spending big bucks on legal fees? On top of that,
most states have legal departments that are there to protect the state.
Why was she going to outside representation? There were no charges, just
ethics complaints.

wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:56:54 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:23:31 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:42:33 -0400, JustWait wrote:


Nothing for nothing, but she is a potential Presidential candidate. I
would expect media coverage of her, especially when she does something
as unusual as resigning in mid-term.
Did you have a problem when Obama quit being a Senator to run for
President? I mean, just because he didn't make an honest announcement,
doesn't mean he kept the job..

So, he didn't have a problem when Obama quit on his constituients? Years
before the Presidential election? Hypocrites..


Hey, I don't have a problem with Palin stepping down, but then, I'm not
an Alaskan, nor did I vote for her. We did have a Governor step down
recently, McGreevey, and while the circumstances were different, I
wouldn't expect him to be able to win a race for local dogcatcher. There
is an issue of public trust. McGreevey broke it, and Palin? It's for
the public to decide, but I would say she did.
She's not running for another office, she's running away from a
contract she signed with the state of Alaska to do a job until it was
finished.

She's a quitter in addition to being an incompetent ignoramus.

I imagine she was simply driven from office by frivolous law suits and
unfounded charges. I hear she is a half million in debt from the legal
bills.

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:56:54 -0700, jps wrote:


She's not running for another office, she's running away from a contract
she signed with the state of Alaska to do a job until it was finished.

She's a quitter in addition to being an incompetent ignoramus.

She's also become quite adept at playing the "victim". The world's
picking on me. The world's picking on my family. Whether true or not,
it's not a quality wanted in a POTUS, IMO.

Half million in bogus legal charges... If that happened to you would you
feel like you were a victim of a scam?

jps wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:20:43 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:56:54 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:23:31 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:42:33 -0400, JustWait wrote:


Nothing for nothing, but she is a potential Presidential candidate. I
would expect media coverage of her, especially when she does something
as unusual as resigning in mid-term.
Did you have a problem when Obama quit being a Senator to run for
President? I mean, just because he didn't make an honest announcement,
doesn't mean he kept the job..
Hey, I don't have a problem with Palin stepping down, but then, I'm not
an Alaskan, nor did I vote for her. We did have a Governor step down
recently, McGreevey, and while the circumstances were different, I
wouldn't expect him to be able to win a race for local dogcatcher. There
is an issue of public trust. McGreevey broke it, and Palin? It's for
the public to decide, but I would say she did.
She's not running for another office, she's running away from a
contract she signed with the state of Alaska to do a job until it was
finished.

She's a quitter in addition to being an incompetent ignoramus.
I imagine she was simply driven from office by frivolous law suits and
unfounded charges. I hear she is a half million in debt from the legal
bills.

Maybe she shouldn't have put herself in that position. Taking per
diems for living at home? Putting your kid's travel expenses on the
state? Pressuring the head of the state police to fire a relative
who'd already answered to charges and been disciplined?

She brought these things on herself.


I enjoyed reading how she billed the state for expenses...that was
classy, eh?

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:25:34 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:25:01 -0700, jps wrote:

She's a quitter in addition to being an incompetent ignoramus.

I imagine she was simply driven from office by frivolous law suits and
unfounded charges. I hear she is a half million in debt from the legal
bills.

Maybe she shouldn't have put herself in that position. Taking per
diems for living at home? Putting your kid's travel expenses on the
state? Pressuring the head of the state police to fire a relative
who'd already answered to charges and been disciplined?

She brought these things on herself.

When you compare those things to what most politicians are doing, it
is really chump change.

Oh, she's a paragon of virtuosity. Do you expect it's okay for these
guy and gals to play dirty? I don't. They make good salaries for
what they do and if they don't think they're compensated enough, they
should bring it up with the governing body or not accept the position.

She ended up spending a whole lot less than
virtually any other governor in the country for her living expenses.

How in the world have you come to that conclusion? Is the Rand
Corporation now tracking living expenses/governor?

Most governors don't charge per diems and mileage because they have 2
or 3 state troopers chauffeuring them around in state limos and they
live in the mansion eating government food. When they travel they stay
in a suite in a 4 star hotel on the government dime.

Are they following the rules? If so, bully. She didn't follow the
rules. Are we a nation of laws only for the common pleeb?

My thought was that if this is all the "corruption" they can come up
with given all the effort they spent digging, she was really pretty
honest.

Apart from trying to get her former brother in law fired for what had
already been addressed and closed.

Competent and smart may be an issue we could talk about. I did not
vote for McCain/Palin, but I couldn't vote for Obama either. Flip
Flopping on the war and the other things that he started out opposing
killed him for me.

She's undereducated for her chosen profession. Apart from being
telegenic, she's neither bright nor studied and she wears thin in a NY
minute.

It was a stupid gamble on the part of the Republicans and she'd helped
to set them on a faster downward spiral than they were on pre-Palin.

Good, like a junkie, the R's aparently need to hit bottom before they
pick themselves up and decide to be productive members of society.

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:26:58 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:30:04 -0700, jps wrote:

I wonder if she knows what the Bush doctrine is yet.

I am not sure I know what the Bush Doctrine is.

Pre-emptive strikes against a country that has taken no action is
among the main tenets of the Bush doctrine.

Seems like an important policy to know for one who aspires to join the
most elite political executive team on the planet.

The lowest member of the state department would be expected to
understand the Bush doctrine.

jps wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:25:34 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:25:01 -0700, jps wrote:

She's a quitter in addition to being an incompetent ignoramus.
I imagine she was simply driven from office by frivolous law suits and
unfounded charges. I hear she is a half million in debt from the legal
bills.
Maybe she shouldn't have put herself in that position. Taking per
diems for living at home? Putting your kid's travel expenses on the
state? Pressuring the head of the state police to fire a relative
who'd already answered to charges and been disciplined?

She brought these things on herself.
When you compare those things to what most politicians are doing, it
is really chump change.

Oh, she's a paragon of virtuosity. Do you expect it's okay for these
guy and gals to play dirty? I don't. They make good salaries for
what they do and if they don't think they're compensated enough, they
should bring it up with the governing body or not accept the position.

She ended up spending a whole lot less than
virtually any other governor in the country for her living expenses.

How in the world have you come to that conclusion? Is the Rand
Corporation now tracking living expenses/governor?

Most governors don't charge per diems and mileage because they have 2
or 3 state troopers chauffeuring them around in state limos and they
live in the mansion eating government food. When they travel they stay
in a suite in a 4 star hotel on the government dime.

Are they following the rules? If so, bully. She didn't follow the
rules. Are we a nation of laws only for the common pleeb?

My thought was that if this is all the "corruption" they can come up
with given all the effort they spent digging, she was really pretty
honest.

Apart from trying to get her former brother in law fired for what had
already been addressed and closed.

Competent and smart may be an issue we could talk about. I did not
vote for McCain/Palin, but I couldn't vote for Obama either. Flip
Flopping on the war and the other things that he started out opposing
killed him for me.

She's undereducated for her chosen profession. Apart from being
telegenic, she's neither bright nor studied and she wears thin in a NY
minute.

It was a stupid gamble on the part of the Republicans and she'd helped
to set them on a faster downward spiral than they were on pre-Palin.

Good, like a junkie, the R's aparently need to hit bottom before they
pick themselves up and decide to be productive members of society.



One of the reasons Palin was picked was the hope McCain and his advisors
had that her selection would attract some of the women who were
disappointed that Hillary Clinton was not on the Democratic ticket.

That reason alone demonstrates how little understanding the Republicans
have of educated, smart women.

On Jul 7, 9:09*am, HK wrote:
JustWait wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:27:57 -0400, Eisboch wrote:

What are you liberals so worried about?

Nothing for nothing, but she is a potential Presidential candidate. *I
would expect media coverage of her, especially when she does something
as unusual as resigning in mid-term.

Did you have a problem when Obama quit being a Senator to run for
President? I mean, just because he didn't make an honest announcement,
doesn't mean he kept the job..

* As for those 16 ethics complaints, one
of which she filed against herself, they haven't all been without
foundation. *She did have to repay moneys for her children's travel. *
A minor offense I'll grant you, but most of the complaints are the
result of political infighting in one of our more dysfunctional and
corrupt states. *Still, none of this would be news worthy on a
national level, if she wasn't a potential Presidential candidate.

Uh...Obama did not quit his job as U.S. Senator nor did he quit "being a
U.S. Senator" to run for a higher office. He remained in the Senate.


Very true, Herr Krause. Now, can you name one of his many
accomplishments in the four years of his office?

On Jul 7, 9:09 am, HK wrote:

Uh...Obama did not quit his job as U.S. Senator nor did he quit "being a
U.S. Senator" to run for a higher office. He remained in the Senate.



Actually, Obama resigned early .... November 17th, I think. The last
senator to do so was JFK.
Obama didn't want to remain in his Senate seat during his lame duck period.

Eisboch

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:38:33 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:59:34 -0700, jps wrote:

I wonder if she knows what the Bush doctrine is yet.

I am not sure I know what the Bush Doctrine is.

Pre-emptive strikes against a country that has taken no action is
among the main tenets of the Bush doctrine.

That sounds more like an Olbermann rant than an official policy.

What does Bush say the Bush doctrine is?

You'll have to consult the neocons for the correct answer.

People for a New American Century is the group.