• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide

Demon of Light

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

. . .

“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”

. . .

The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market.

What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn’t choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time.

Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism.
Click to expand...

Source: The New York Times

It is nice to see a media portrayal of Sarah Palin that is not so cartoonish.
 
That was the basis of her 94% approval rating in Alaska. There was a LOT of Democratic support for her. Then Democrats turned partisan in their need to protect Obama and well, you know the rest of the story.
 
Will the Real Sarah Palin please stand up?

I found this article today on NYTimes.com and found it quite interesting. Could it be? Sarah Palin speaking to a broader sense of reasoning? Sarah Palin speaking the truth about how our national politics have been captured to a large degree by lobbyist and special interest groups, i.e., PACs or corporations who "buy" politicians or as some would dare to theorize political campaigns as well? She calls it "crony capitalism", a jab at the corporate elites who funnel millions of dollars to one side of the political divide over another OR sometimes financing both in order to play one side against the other. A few snippets from the article:

“The working men and women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came down from the deer stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the John Deere, and we took to the streets, and we took to the town halls, and we ended up at the ballot box.”
Click to expand...

That's an appeal to the average "Joe Six Pack" out there. She then goes on to say:

“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done? It’s because there’s nothing in it for them (entrenched career politicians in Washington). They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”
Click to expand...

She goes on further still to say:

“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”
Click to expand...

I find all of this very interesting considering which side of the political divide this woman originally hailed from. So, what changed her perception of politics in America? I mean, is this the woman who claimed to be all "Mavericky" as Sen. McCain's VP sidekick OR has she finally begun to figure something out having never worked within the Washington beltway? Sarah Palin's commentary sounds very similar to the issues...no truths outlined in this article entitled, "Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP operative who left the Cult (Republican party)," from the thread of the same name. Moreover, her words echo somewhat those expressed in this NYtimes.com op-ed piece also linked in the aforementioned thread.

It rather makes one wonder "Where has this Sarah Palin been all this time?" The one who now suddenly speaks from the middle instead of from the far-Right? Not the extreme far-Right, but still far enough out there to make people think twice about taking her seriously. But maybe after this speech, maybe she'll start to reinvent herself. Who knows. Regardless...

Will the real Sarah Palin please stand up?
 
Last edited:
RiverDad said:
That was the basis of her 94% approval rating in Alaska. There was a LOT of Democratic support for her. Then Democrats turned partisan in their need to protect Obama and well, you know the rest of the story.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think Sarah Palin just went too rouge. It was one thing to attack the Democratic nominee for president on the campaign trail. It became quite another to keep at it long after the election was over. Her side lost; she should have just faded away, but instead what did she do? She continued her attack mode, went on speaking tours, did two book tours and joined the Tea Party which I think most of us can agree has a fringe element to it. But...

Had she come out as portrayed in the NYTimes peace long ago and showed herself to be a true Maverick, someone not part of the political elite, someone who remained outside the frey of Washington "lobbyist ruling/corporate sell-out" politics, she'd be the front runner against Pres. Obama himself right now. Instead of folks truly seeing her as an "independent", people will likely now see her as a sellout to her party despite her speaking the truth about political games committed by both sides.

In short, the spotlight of political fame and celebraty status went to her head. It will be extremely difficult for her to reinvent herself now.
 
Last edited:
Hope that this catches on with her followers. I'm extremely skeptical of her motives given her past behavior, but if it brings positive results, so be it.
 
liblady said:
she's got some new writers?
Click to expand...

This is just classic Sarah Palin. It is why people like me, who knew about her before she was nominated for VP, would have rather seen her running for President than McCain. While I support Ron Paul, I would at least feel like there was a real alternative with her running. She would get my vote over Obama any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
 
Re: Will the Real Sarah Palin please stand up?

Objective Voice said:
I found this article today on NYTimes.com and found it quite interesting. Could it be? Sarah Palin speaking to a broader sense of reasoning? Sarah Palin speaking the truth about how our national politics have been captured to a large degree by lobbyist and special interest groups, i.e., PACs or corporations who "buy" politicians or as some would dare to theorize political campaigns as well? She calls it "crony capitalism", a jab at the corporate elites who funnel millions of dollars to one side of the political divide over another OR sometimes financing both in order to play one side against the other. A few snippets from the article:



That's an appeal to the average "Joe Six Pack" out there. She then goes on to say:



She goes on further still to say:



I find all of this very interesting considering which side of the political divide this woman originally hailed from. So, what changed her perception of politics in America? I mean, is this the woman who claimed to be all "Mavericky" as Sen. McCain's VP sidekick OR has she finally begun to figure something out having never worked within the Washington beltway? Sarah Palin's commentary sounds very similar to the issues...no truths outlined in this article entitled, "Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP operative who left the Cult (Republican party)," from the thread of the same name. Moreover, her words echo somewhat those expressed in this NYtimes.com op-ed piece also linked in the aforementioned thread.

It rather makes one wonder "Where has this Sarah Palin been all this time?" The one who now suddenly speaks from the middle instead of from the far-Right? Not the extreme far-Right, but still far enough out there to make people think twice about taking her seriously. But maybe after this speech, maybe she'll start to reinvent herself. Who knows. Regardless...

Will the real Sarah Palin please stand up?
Click to expand...

Nothing changed her perception. She has always fought against the entrenched establishment private and public. Of course, despite your claim to be moderate it seems you are trying to portray hers as a positive partisan shift away from the Republicans, rather than a rejection of both established parties.
 
Objective Voice said:
Actually, I think Sarah Palin just went too rouge. It was one thing to attack the Democratic nominee for president on the campaign trail. It became quite another to keep at it long after the election was over. Her side lost; she should have just faded away, but instead what did she do? She continued her attack mode, went on speaking tours, did two book tours and joined the Tea Party which I think most of us can agree has a fringe element to it. But...
Click to expand...

You've got your causality flipped my friend. She went back to govern Alaska and the partisan attacks kept coming, to the point that she couldn't govern effectively because she was forced by legislation to address the complaints filed against her in a timely manner and on her own dime.

Your complaints focus on her activities after leaving office.

Had she come out as portrayed in the NYTimes peace long ago and showed herself to be a true Maverick, someone not part of the political elite, someone who remained outside the frey of Washington "lobbyist ruling/corporate sell-out" politics, she'd be the front runner against Pres. Obama himself right now.
Click to expand...

All of this was OUT at the very moment she hit the national stage. I knew this all long ago. The question is why didn't the press report this information then as they do now. She wasn't trying to keep her record a secret.

The thing with news is that someone has to decide WHAT IS NEWS. Information that exists but isn't reported, or if reported isn't reported widely enough, is really a function of internal decisions being made by news editors.

Palin made her career by taking down corrupt politicians and did so with great risk to her career. It's not politically wise to target the people who give you jobs in politics. She took out the Chair of the Alaska Republican Party and he faced legal sanctions for his corruption. She is only one of a small handful of people in our nation's political history who mounted a primary challenge to a sitting Governor of her party, beat him in the primary and then ran against a Democratic former Governor of Alaska and beat him to win the general election. Then she performed on the job by attacking special interests and corrupt deals in the Oil-Politics symbiotic relationship up in Alaska. All of this is history. The fact that the public doesn't know this but knows that she "can see Alaska from her house" speaks volumes about how public perceptions are shaped by people of influence in the news media.
 
Last edited:
Demon of Light said:
This is just classic Sarah Palin. It is why people like me, who knew about her before she was nominated for VP, would have rather seen her running for President than McCain. While I support Ron Paul, I would at least feel like there was a real alternative with her running. She would get my vote over Obama any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Click to expand...

she could not win a general election, nor imo, would she be a good president. she's way too in love with herself.
 
liblady said:
she could not win a general election, nor imo, would she be a good president. she's way too in love with herself.
Click to expand...

You're funny. Have you looked at who is currently sitting in the White House? Mr. Narcissism himself.
 
Re: Will the Real Sarah Palin please stand up?

Demon of Light said:
Nothing changed her perception. She has always fought against the entrenched establishment private and public. Of course, despite your claim to be moderate it seems you are trying to portray hers as a positive partisan shift away from the Republicans, rather than a rejection of both established parties.
Click to expand...

She fought the establishment by supporting spending millions on a bridge to nowhere? For an oil pipeline that Oil corps wanted? By running as GOPs candidate for VP? By helping to raise millions for the anti-establishment RNC? By quitting her job as governor? By taking more than $150k worth of clothes from the RNC?
 
Re: Will the Real Sarah Palin please stand up?

Objective Voice said:
I find all of this very interesting considering which side of the political divide this woman originally hailed from. So, what changed her perception of politics in America? I mean, is this the woman who claimed to be all "Mavericky" as Sen. McCain's VP sidekick OR has she finally begun to figure something out having never worked within the Washington beltway?
Click to expand...

Go back to some of the early coverage of her after McCain announced her on the ticket. The focus on her Maverick bona fides had to do with precisely what she is talking about now. She walked that walk up in Alaska, which is why she had 94% approval ratings. She took on the crony network and kicked ass.

If you can develop an understanding of what motivates this woman then a lot of what she does makes sense, even her resignation from the Governorship. She accomplished a ****ton of her agenda in her 3 years in office and her hand-picked Lt. Gov. was on board with the same agenda. She bent the oil companies to her will, something that had eluded 30 years of Governors who had preceded her and she knew that it made a lot of sense to stay in office and punch the clock until her term expired, but she didn't believe that she was serving the best interests of Alaska by doing so because her presence in office was like poking a stick into a nest of wasps for Democrats all over the nation. The evidence clearly shows how Democratic operatives were intent on sabotaging the governing of Alaska in order to bring down Palin. She resigned so as to put a stop to the sabotage efforts. Her decision is consistent with her philosophical views on government, what is means to serve in office, what politicians should be doing while in office, etc. She was, and still is, a Maverick.

It rather makes one wonder "Where has this Sarah Palin been all this time?" The one who now suddenly speaks from the middle instead of from the far-Right? Not the extreme far-Right, but still far enough out there to make people think twice about taking her seriously. But maybe after this speech, maybe she'll start to reinvent herself. Who knows. Regardless...
Click to expand...

Here's the interesting thing - I've been following her career since before she hit the national stage. I haven't seen any change in who she is. She's been the same person throughout. What she did during the election season though was play the role of partisan attack dog for McCain - a job that every VP candidate does for the top of the ticket, so that the Presidential candidate remains above the fray and unsullied. I'll give you that. Her philosophy though is pretty damn constant.
 
Re: Will the Real Sarah Palin please stand up?

sangha said:
She fought the establishment by supporting spending millions on a bridge to nowhere? For an oil pipeline that Oil corps wanted? By running as GOPs candidate for VP? By helping to raise millions for the anti-establishment RNC? By quitting her job as governor? By taking more than $150k worth of clothes from the RNC?
Click to expand...

She cancelled all state contributions to the bridge only weeks after being elected. Obama and Biden, on two occasions, had the opportunity to cancel funding for the bridge and they chose to fund it. Her position was that if the Feds wanted to spend the money she wasn't going to look a gift horse in the mouth but she wasn't prepared to commit a dime of State money to the project and then when push finally came to shove, she cancelled the damn project, not Obama, not Biden, not Congress, not the President.
 
Re: Will the Real Sarah Palin please stand up?

RiverDad said:
She cancelled all state contributions to the bridge only weeks after being elected. Obama and Biden, on two occasions, had the opportunity to cancel funding for the bridge and they chose to fund it. Her position was that if the Feds wanted to spend the money she wasn't going to look a gift horse in the mouth but she wasn't prepared to commit a dime of State money to the project and then when push finally came to shove, she cancelled the damn project, not Obama, not Biden, not Congress, not the President.
Click to expand...

She continued to lobby for it, and only opposed it when it became public. Not very mavericky

But it was very pander-like.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 
Now if she could actually find a record of backing up that talk and be MALE, I might consider voting for her. Alas, I don't think she can do the first, and I know she can't do the second, so it's really just a lot more hot air from mama grizzly.
 
The New York Times's theme of presenting a fresh look at Palin was already done by The Atlantic back in June with a 4 page article that gives her an honest "fresh look" and highlights her accomplishment and her deficiencies. I don't mind the inclusion of the deficiencies but they shouldn't have relied so heavily on one particular disgruntled former staffer who has severe credibility issues.

If you've got time enough for a long article, here you go. The Tragedy of Sarah Palin
 
RiverDad said:
That was the basis of her 94% approval rating in Alaska. There was a LOT of Democratic support for her. Then Democrats turned partisan in their need to protect Obama and well, you know the rest of the story.
Click to expand...

The coverage of Sarah Palin reminds me a lot of something I've seen before.

Back during the 1988 Presidential campaign, after Bush Sr. had secured the nomination, attention turned to who he might choose as his running made. Several possibilities were discussed, but there was a lot of attention given, in particular, to a young senator from Indiana; who was portrayed as some sort of political prodigy, favorably compare to JFK, and described as a “Robert Redford look-alike”.

As soon as Bush announced that that was who he had chosen, the same press which had been building up and praising Dan Quayle suddenly turned viciously against him; and for the next four years after that, the news media took every possible opportunity to depict Quayle as puerile and foolish.

It seems to me more recently, that Sarah Palin has been the target of the same sort of concerted effort on the part of the news media to destroy her image that was carried out against Dan Quayle.
 
Last edited:
RiverDad said:
That was the basis of her 94% approval rating in Alaska. There was a LOT of Democratic support for her. Then Democrats turned partisan in their need to protect Obama and well, you know the rest of the story.
Click to expand...

And of course Riverdad can't cite anything to support his position.

All of the 75% of Democrats support Palin links cite back to http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/03/how-popular-is-gov-palin/ which doesn't load.

Huh. Red flags should have gone up. But one cannot trust Riverdad on any number he cites.
 
Re: Will the Real Sarah Palin please stand up?

RiverDad said:
Go back to some of the early coverage of her after McCain announced her on the ticket. The focus on her Maverick bona fides had to do with precisely what she is talking about now. She walked that walk up in Alaska, which is why she had 94% approval ratings.
Click to expand...

Google says otherwise

Run a search for " "94%" approval ratings palin "

Why is it that nothing at supports your claim comes up? The specific "" on 94% should eliminate any google bombs.

Is it that you're making numbers up again?
 
obvious Child said:
And of course Riverdad can't cite anything to support his position.
Click to expand...

Her sky-high approval ratings were widely discussed back when she was announced as the Republican VP candidate. Maybe you didn't get the news over there is Jerkistan.

All of the 75% of Democrats support Palin links cite back to http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/03/how-popular-is-gov-palin/ which doesn't load.
Click to expand...

Do they teach math in Jerkistan? Where did this 75% number suddenly pop up? I wrote 94%.

Mea culpa, 3 years after hearing the news I misremembered her highest approval rating. Sorry, it was 93%. My bad.

palinapproval.jpg


Why didn't you go to Wikipedia, which is where I got the above table? Does the Jerkistan Government censor Wikipedia and thus prevent you from accessing it?
 
RiverDad said:
Her sky-high approval ratings were widely discussed back when she was announced as the Republican VP candidate. Maybe you didn't get the news over there is Jerkistan.
Click to expand...

You must enjoy shooting yourself in the foot. She basically starts with a high rating...and then proceeds to fall quite precipitously. A year later she's down to 69%.

Normally people try not to destroy their own arguments. Starting at a 93% after he predecessor left at 19% is not necessarily a strong argument people actually liked her governing. The fact that her rating fell hard fast is a sign that people didn't.

Do they teach math in Jerkistan? Where did this 75% number suddenly pop up? I wrote 94%.
Click to expand...

More fail from Riverdad. You wrote "94%" total. And what you stated was "There was a LOT of Democratic support for her." That 94% was everyone a few months from her start date. It makes no mention of her Democrat support. Once again you play fast and loose with numbers hoping no one notices you're being royally dishonest. The only number available for democrat support is that 75%, which is pretty high. The problem is there is no actually support for such a number. And everything linking back to a single website is highly suspicious. So you claim there was alot of Democrat support for her. But there isn't just anything out there to support such a claim.

Mea culpa, 3 years after hearing the news I misremembered her highest approval rating. Sorry, it was 93%. My bad.
Click to expand...

Which was a few months into her governorship. I do enjoy how you posted an article which shows her fall from grace. Support eh? Try not to shoot yourself in the foot the next time.

Why didn't you go to Wikipedia, which is where I got the above table? Does the Jerkistan Government censor Wikipedia and thus prevent you from accessing it?
Click to expand...

Why would I deprive you of your chance to shoot yourself in the foot?

You fail to show any numbers for Democratic support.
You reveal her highest number was shortly after entering office.
You post a graph showing her number falls relatively quickly.

Good job Riverdad. ahhaha.
 
obvious Child said:
You must enjoy shooting yourself in the foot. She basically starts with a high rating...and then proceeds to fall quite precipitously. A year later she's down to 69%.
Click to expand...

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Do they have that expression over there in Jerkistan?

After one year on the job, her approval rating was still higher than that of the Greatest Politician and Orator to Ever Run for Office in the History of The United States, President Barack Obama, aka The One aka The Lightworker.

Daily Tracking Poll - January 21, 2009 = 65%


More fail from Riverdad. You wrote "94%" total. And what you stated was "There was a LOT of Democratic support for her." That 94% was everyone a few months from her start date. It makes no mention of her Democrat support. Once again you play fast and loose with numbers hoping no one notices you're being royally dishonest.
Click to expand...

Again, this is all widely acknowledged background information about her. Maybe you didn't have access to this information living in that Jerka Bora cave complex in Jerkistan. If you go and read the Atlantic article they revisit that part of her time as Governor, the corrupt Republicans hated her and she only had a few Republican allies, so she wove together an alliance of Democrats and Independent Republicans who were not part of the party machinery, and this means that she had a lot of Democratic support, in fact she had more support from the Democrats than she did from the Republicans:


In the Republican primary, Palin crushed Murkowski, delivering one of the worst defeats ever suffered by an incumbent governor anywhere. She went on to have little trouble dispatching Knowles, an oil-friendly Democrat. “A lot of people on the East Coast, when they think of Sarah Palin now,” Cliff Groh, a former state tax lobbyist, told me, “some five-letter words come to mind: Scary. Crazy. Angry. Maybe some others. But the five-letter word that people in Alaska associated with her name was clean.”

Palin has gained a reputation for being erratic, undisciplined, not up to the job. But that wasn’t how she looked as governor. She began by confronting the two biggest issues in Alaska—the gas pipeline and the oil tax—and drove the policy process on both of them.

After taking office in December 2006, she kept her word and hired Tom Irwin, and other members of the Magnificent Seven. They devised a plan to attract someone other than the oil companies to build the pipeline, and they bid out the license to move ahead with it—to the deep displeasure of the oil producers, who vowed not to participate. Palin came under serious political pressure. Although she doesn’t mention it in Going Rogue, the Associated Press discovered that Vice President Dick Cheney called her at least twice that month. According to her aides, Cheney urged her to make concessions, but she didn’t. . . . .

In September, she released her proposal and, so no one missed the point, christened it Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES). Stronger than Murkowski’s PPT, it met a mostly hostile reception from her party. “I will stand in your way like the little man in Tiananmen Square to keep you from hurting the economy,” one Republican House member declared. Democrats, eager to capitalize on public anger, introduced several tougher alternatives that were particularly aggressive—that is, confiscatory—when oil prices rose. Palin focused on capturing more revenue when prices were low.

At first, her team tried to win the Republicans over. But it became clear this wasn’t going to happen. So Palin did something that would be hard to imagine from her today: she pivoted to the Democrats. “We sat down with her and said, ‘If you want to get something passed, it’ll have to be much stronger,’” Les Gara, a liberal House member, told me. “And to give her credit, she did what she needed to get a bill passed.”

In the end, Palin essentially grafted the Democrats’ proposal onto her own. What she signed into law went well beyond her original proposal: ACES imposes a higher base tax rate than its predecessor on oil profits. But the really significant part has been that the tax rate rises much sooner and more steeply as oil prices climb—the part Democrats pushed for. The tax is assessed monthly, rather than annually, to better capture price spikes, of which there have been many. ACES also makes it harder for companies to claim tax credits for cleaning up spills caused by their own negligence, as some had done under the old regime.​


The only number available for democrat support is that 75%, which is pretty high. The problem is there is no actually support for such a number. And everything linking back to a single website is highly suspicious. So you claim there was alot of Democrat support for her. But there isn't just anything out there to support such a claim.
Click to expand...

Why are you unburdening yourself on me? This is all your invention. I didn't write anything about 75%. Go tell your village elder about this, he probably cares. I don't.

You post a graph showing her number falls relatively quickly.
Click to expand...

Over here in America we call what I posted a table, not a graph. In Jerkistan, if that table is referred to as a graph then what is a graph referred to as, a table?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom