What is Sarah Palins future?

omeythehomie said:

Well, in about two years Sarah Palin has come from being an obscure Alaska governor to one of the biggest names in politics.

Vice Presidential Candidate
Best selling author

And now, Fox News Contributor

Does anybody think she's going to run in 2012 or even later in the future? I firmly believe shes going to make a run for it sometime in the future but im not entirely convinced its going to be 2012. I think she's going to see the political environment when the time comes and make a decision for either 2012 or 2016.


What do you think of her current role on TV and her future?

Click to expand...

I like her, she is an outsider and isn't afraid to shake up the system. We need people that don't have any political favors to repay.

Her weakness is foreign affairs and she needs to get educated in that subject. A run for President in 2012 is probably too early, but that's 3 years away so she has plenty of time to learn. I would expect a run for the Senate in 2012, and a run for Pres in 2016. Maybe in a 3rd party, too.

Sarah Palin single-handedly lost John McCain?s bid for the Presidency; and at the same time sounded the death knell for the Republican Party. (Indeed, she represents everything that is wrong with the radical right wing, which has driven true conservatives away.) Fortunately, the "real" leaders of the GOP have excluded her from any consideration; which, as events have shown, was a wise move. (The abandonment of her office of Governor of the State of Alaska was the final act of her political suicide.) She is dead - like the Wicked Witch in The Wizard of Oz, "she's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead." There will be no "Phoenix rising from the ashes."

omeythehomie said:

Well, in about two years Sarah Palin has come from being an obscure Alaska governor to one of the biggest names in politics.

Vice Presidential Candidate
Best selling author

And now, Fox News Contributor

Does anybody think she's going to run in 2012 or even later in the future? I firmly believe shes going to make a run for it sometime in the future but im not entirely convinced its going to be 2012. I think she's going to see the political environment when the time comes and make a decision for either 2012 or 2016.


What do you think of her current role on TV and her future?

Click to expand...

She needs to wait on running for anything. Then run for a state something. But I think she will fit in on FOX NEWS just fine.

DodgeFB said:

I think she will fit in on FOX NEWS just fine.

Click to expand...

I agree. She's certainly ignorant and bigoted enough.

Dirk said:

I agree. She's certainly ignorant and bigoted enough.

Click to expand...

I guess I am too. But if I am I am too damn old and dumb to care.

omeythehomie said:

I'm going to have to disagree with this, I think Sarah Palin was the best thing he had going for him.

Click to expand...

I have to agree here, but not "the best thing" however. She was an excellent marketing diversion, and brought some energy out of McCain that he did not have before. She livened up things, however most definitely did not add substance to it. She came across as quite ignorant about some historic facts during interviews.

deanhills said:

I have to agree here, but not "the best thing" however. She was an excellent marketing diversion, and brought some energy out of McCain that he did not have before. She livened up things, however most definitely did not add substance to it. She came across as quite ignorant about some historic facts during interviews.

Click to expand...

"I have foreign policy experience! I can see Russia from Alaska!" And the locals at the 1 island where this is true didn't even know she was governor she was so irrelevant to their lives. :giggle:

Dirk said:

I agree. She's certainly ignorant and bigoted enough.

Click to expand...

I hear this a lot from people that don't like her.

Let's hear your evidence that she is ignorant. No name calling or quoting comedians, show me some real facts.

And while you're at it, let's hear your evidence that she is bigoted. Again, no second hand sources, show me a quote that she uttered that makes you think she is bigoted.

deanhills said:

I have to agree here, but not "the best thing" however. She was an excellent marketing diversion, and brought some energy out of McCain that he did not have before. She livened up things, however most definitely did not add substance to it. She came across as quite ignorant about some historic facts during interviews.

Click to expand...

I think her problem was her lack of media savy. A politician in Alaska doesn't get the media attention that people in the lower 48 get, and her lack of experience in dealing with the media showed. I don't limit it to being able to artfully dodge the question and spin from the subject the reporter asked to a more comfortable subject, but also the ability to go from event to event and interview to interview and keep everything straight in your mind, and to stay mentally alert and see where the question is going and how your answer can be used against you in the future. It's a mind game, and if a person hasn't played it then they make mistake and get trapped.

She is also an outsider, some in the media don't like her, and went after her.

Just look at Biden, he made some pretty big screwups but was given a pass. For example, he blatantly lied about his past (see this http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/22/u...atest-report.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print), or google the reports on all the misstatements Biden made in the VP election debate.

Whats worse, an inexperienced person like Palin that makes mistakes on the campaign trail and isn't up to speed on some subjects, or a long time politician like Biden who has served on all the powerfull Senate committees and is supposed to be an expert but makes mistakes (and flat out lies)?

dave said:

I think her problem was her lack of media savy.

Click to expand...

Excellent point. Some of the media tended to go for her as a sexy person and she did not know how to deal with it, nor was ahead of the "game" that the media plays. She probably needs experience, but possibly the naivity and sincerity that came out of her lack of experience also did something for her. At least that had some appeal.

dave said:

She is also an outsider, some in the media don't like her, and went after her.

Click to expand...

Are you sure they went for her? The take I have on it was that they were making fun of her along the lines of not being able to take her seriously as a politician.

dave said:

Just look at Biden, he made some pretty big screwups but was given a pass. For example, he blatantly lied about his past (see this http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/22/u...atest-report.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print), or google the reports on all the misstatements Biden made in the VP election debate.
Whats worse, an inexperienced person like Palin that makes mistakes on the campaign trail and isn't up to speed on some subjects, or a long time politician like Biden who has served on all the powerfull Senate committees and is supposed to be an expert but makes mistakes (and flat out lies)?

Click to expand...

Biden is a veteran politician, and yes, experienced and savvy at dealing with the meida. It will take a long time for Palin to be even considered at his level, and her resigning her Governor position in Alaska did not do anything for her either. It created a loose cannon image on top of everything else and someone who is politically immature with objectives that are not clearly defined.

dave said:

Let's hear your evidence that she is ignorant. No name calling or quoting comedians, show me some real facts.

Click to expand...

Well, i could utter the two words "death panels" and leave it at that.

But there were other examples, such as her false verbal reprsentation of the constitutional role of the vice president. Also her stupid and petty conspiracy theory of the "In God We Trust" being moved on coins by Obama - what the hell?! She also referred to the "Department of Law", which obviously doesn't exist. She refered to the US's "neighbouring country of Afghanistan".

Dirk said:

She refered to the US's "neighbouring country of Afghanistan".

Click to expand...

She was thinking "Global" Dirk!

DodgeFB said:

She was thinking "Global" Dirk!

Click to expand...

I'll be sure to remember when talking about Germany's neighbouring country, New Zealand.

Dirk said:

I'll be sure to remember when talking about Germany's neighbouring country, New Zealand.

Click to expand...

There ya go! You have to thing big and into the future.

Dirk said:

Well, i could utter the two words "death panels" and leave it at that.

But there were other examples, such as her false verbal reprsentation of the constitutional role of the vice president. Also her stupid and petty conspiracy theory of the "In God We Trust" being moved on coins by Obama - what the hell?! She also referred to the "Department of Law", which obviously doesn't exist. She refered to the US's "neighbouring country of Afghanistan".

Click to expand...

Added to this there were also specific criticisms during the Presidential Election Campaign:

McCain aides are letting it all out. Campaign insiders told Fox News:
- Sarah Palin didn?t know basic civics, such as municipal, state, and federal government responsibilities.
- She didn?t know the nations involved in NAFTA (i.e. U.S.A., Canada, and Mexico).
- She thought Africa was a country instead of a continent.
- She threw tantrums.
- She was a shopaholic.

Click to expand...

Source: http://sarahpalinexposed.com/

Dirk said:

Well, i could utter the two words "death panels" and leave it at that.

But there were other examples, such as her false verbal reprsentation of the constitutional role of the vice president. Also her stupid and petty conspiracy theory of the "In God We Trust" being moved on coins by Obama - what the hell?! She also referred to the "Department of Law", which obviously doesn't exist. She refered to the US's "neighbouring country of Afghanistan".

Click to expand...

If "death panels" is your big hit, then its a foul ball. "Death Panels" is just a catchy name for rationing health care based on cost vs benefits. Should a 90 year old get a hip replacement which is very expensive and a life and death medical problem at that age? The cost-benefit analysis says no. When these types of cases are presetned to supporters of this health care reform, they dance around and don't answer because they don't want to admit its true.

The role of the VP was a mistake on her part and shows a lack of understanding. I can let this one slide, most congressman don't have a clue what the Constitution is all about.

The "In God We Trust" issue was not an issue outside the liberal world. If you look at what she said and what was reported by the reporters who were there, she was talking about the dimished role of God in our society, and the reference to Obama was rhetorical.

"Department of Law" was no a reference to a federal "Dept of Law", but was made in an explanation of why she quit the Gov office. She said that in Alaska, she has to personally finance her defense of ethics charges as opposed to the VP in the White House who has lawyers provided by the govt to deal with ethics charges.

The comment about Afghanistan is another false arguement. I can't find a transcript of her statement, but the individual sentence was ‘They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan'. Its a mistatement (just like Biden has made many, many times) and does not reflect ignorance. Only the most partisan or vindictive believe that she doesn't know Afghanistan is not physically our neighbor. Particularly when Alaska National Guard troops served in Iraq, including her own son. In fact, when she made the referenced statement, her son was already preparing to deploy.

Stop going to the Huffington post for your information. Think for yourself.

dave said:

If "death panels" is your big hit, then its a foul ball. "Death Panels" is just a catchy name for rationing health care based on cost vs benefits. Should a 90 year old get a hip replacement which is very expensive and a life and death medical problem at that age? The cost-benefit analysis says no. When these types of cases are presetned to supporters of this health care reform, they dance around and don't answer because they don't want to admit its true.

Click to expand...

That's how it works now. The reform bill bans precondition based denials.

Nice try though.

David said:

That's how it works now. The reform bill bans precondition based denials.

Nice try though.

Click to expand...

This isn't about accepting or denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. Its about rationing care.

The cost of care is the problem that all countries with universal/govt provided care are facing. They have limited choices regarding costs: increase taxes and fees to increase the availability of care; keep costs (taxes and fees) low and ration care; reduce the payments to health care providers to increase availability of care. None of these solve the problem and lead to additional problems.

All of the countries that I have looked at (Canada, England, Taiwan, Japan, Germany) spend less than the US as a portion of GDP, but they are all facing serious financial troubles. Some are about to collapse (Japan, for example, where 50% of hospitals and clinics are in the red) because reimbursements don't cover actual costs. SOme are facing shortages of health care workers and reduced quality of care (Germany, for example, where doctors went on strike). Some are facing significant wait times (such as Canada, see the CIHI report cited earlier).