# And again -- who IS Sarah Palin **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2008, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686 "2008-09-02T15:30:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/161 "2008-09-03T16:14:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The same thing was said about Quayle too. These cries of sexism are completely fatuous. You just don’t get it do you? At the moment, ANY critical comments about Palin must be met with crys of "SEXISM!!!OMG. This will change shortly into “Let’s move on past this nonsense”, and by next week, it will be “this is all old news, let’s move along”. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/162 "2008-09-03T16:16:50Z")
> [@CanvasShoes](#): > > What it says to me is either way, it’s no different than every other Washington politician. And I’m unhappy with that. But I’m still less unhappy with it than I would be if it were Obama. Right, because of those skeeeeery “[beliefs [of] his wife and other associates](http://boardstest.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10147198&postcount=126)”. You know, you blew your [claim of non-partisanship](http://boardstest.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10147147&postcount=123) the minute you posted that not-so-veiled innuendo based on the ugly and hate-filled partisan email smear campaign. OT: I now have a girl crush on **SmartAleq**. Oh, and for the record, I referred to Palin as Governor Princess Palin, including both the acknowledgment that she’s risen to the ranks of Governor, but inserting the Princess as a reference to her beauty-queen-tiara-wearing start. That hardly means I think she hasn’t worked hard to get to where she has. It also doesn’t mean I think the work she’s done to date in any way whatsoever qualifies her to lead this nation either in the highest or second-highest position in our government. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/163 "2008-09-03T16:22:45Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > It’s certainly fair to suggest that Barak’s race was a strong influence over his selection as keynote speaker. But if someone said “he was chosen because he’s a … “, irrespective of the merit of their claim the sentiment would be repulsive—in fact, it would do their underlying point a strong disservice. Another reason was that, at the time of his selection to speak, he was embroiled in a tough senatorial election to win an open seat. That Jack Ryan’s campaign would implode, allowing Obama to cruise to victory, was not anticipated. Had it been, someone else who needed the exposure might’ve been selected. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/164 "2008-09-03T16:51:52Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > It was a terrible decision. She is not qualified. Sexist pig! (there - see how that works?) ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/165 "2008-09-03T17:09:25Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Another reason was that, at the time of his selection to speak, he was embroiled in a tough senatorial election to win an open seat. That Jack Ryan’s campaign would implode, allowing Obama to cruise to victory, was not anticipated. Had it been, someone else who needed the exposure might’ve been selected. Certainly. I didn’t intend to equate the degree Barak’s race played in his choice with the degree gender played in Palin’s, nor suggest that both were egregious and insulting. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/166 "2008-09-03T17:23:13Z")
I think Sarah Palin, to be honest, can be fairly compared to Obama '04, before the keynote address. Except for some of us junkies who noticed him in regards to the Jack Ryan videotaping mess, nobody ever heard of him. (I only did as 'A clean politican in Chicago? Beating Jeri Ryan’s husband who wanted to take her to wifeswapping clubs? Man, I love politics.) The differences are, A: Obama killed on the keynote, B: Palin isn’t showing up clean, and C: most importantly, we had four years to watch him develop. As of '04, he was a rising young star. Maybe the first black president someday. But nobody expected him to pull it off so soon. If he’d been pulled up for veep, he would have been blamed for Kerry losing. (Maybe Kerry woulda won. Who knows?) But yeah, if they picked Obama in '04 for VP, we’d have the same kind of situation we have with Palin. I think. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/167 "2008-09-03T17:36:13Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > The differences are, A: Obama killed on the keynote, B: Palin isn’t showing up clean, and C: most importantly, we had four years to watch him develop. A: Tonight’s her chance. I really hope she rises above the initial impression I have of her. B: Not _quite_ clean, but not quite unclean enough (so far) to suggest her being asked to step down by those who have invested quite a lot of face in bolstering support for her. I asked upthread what it would mean if Troopergate allegations were true. Not that CanvaShoes speaks for all of conservativism, but it doesn’t seem like its outcome will have an impact on her polling. C: Sure, there’s just a couple months 'till the election, but maybe we’ll have four years to watch her develop. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/168 "2008-09-03T17:37:49Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > But yeah, if they picked Obama in '04 for VP, we’d have the same kind of situation we have with Palin. I think. You think? No, absolutely. And I’d be on the sidelines trying to come up with reasons why he was a good pick. I don’t envy those Republicans who are only in it for lower taxes and less government because Palin is an odd, even a very bad, choice. And Ron Paul hauled in 10,000 people to his counter-convention. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/169 "2008-09-03T17:44:11Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > A: Tonight’s her chance. I really hope she rises above the initial impression I have of her. The chances of her actually writing her own speech [seem pretty low:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090301176.html?hpid=topnews) > [@](#): > > Not anticipating that McCain would choose a woman as his running mate, the speech that was prepared in advance was “very masculine,” according to campaign manager Rick Davis, and “we had to start from scratch.” It’s hard to shine when you’re told what to say. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/170 "2008-09-03T21:58:24Z")
OK, I have this wild and byzantine theory (this is fun! - stay with me): John McCain wanted either Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge as his VP. But he was told he’d get a major floor fight if he picked either of them. So his people did vet Sarah Palin. They knew that all this stuff would come out about her in the first week or two, and that in the meantime, she would really energize the base and raise some money for the campaign. So sometime after the convention, Palin will tearfully resign from the ticket, claiming that Democrats (and maybe a little the press, but mostly the Democrats) made her family the issue rather than her self, and she’s resigning to protect her family. John McCain then chooses Tom Ridge as his VP. THe RNC is so relieved that he didn’t pick Joe Lieberman that they let it go - after all, in every other area, Ridge is a solid conservative. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/171 "2008-09-04T00:05:46Z")
> [@](#): > > **who IS Sarah Palin** Sarah Palin is [Bush in disguise:](http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/02/bushies-come-to-palin-s-rescue.aspx) > [@](#): > > The McCain team has hastily assembled a team of former Bush White House aides to tutor the vice-presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, on foreign-policy issues, to write her speeches and to begin preparing her for her all-important Oct. 2 debate against Sen. Joe Biden. > > Steve Biegun, who once served as the No. 3 National Security Council official … > > Matt Scully, a former Bush White House speechwriter who helped draft some of the major foreign-policy addresses during the president’s first term, is working on Palin’s acceptance speech to the convention Wednesday night. > > Mark Wallace, a former lawyer for the Bush 2000 campaign who served in a variety of administration jobs including chief counsel at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and deputy ambassador to the United Nations, has been put in charge of “prep” for the debate against Biden. > > Wallace’s wife, Nicolle Wallace, the former White House communications director, has taken over the same job for Palin. > > Tucker Eskew, another senior Bush White House communications aide, is serving as senior counselor to Palin’s operation. > > Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former chief economist at the Council of Economic Advisers who has been serving as top economics guru for the McCain campaign, has moved over to serve as Palin’s chief domestic-policy adviser. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/172 "2008-09-04T00:34:14Z")
For the record, I called her “Governor Cupcake” because the name fits. A cupcake may look pretty and fairly substantial from a distance and at first glance, but once you bite into it you realize it’s just cloying sweetness with no actual substance and you just know when you get done with it you’re gonna want something real to eat. I could have gone with “Governor Terrorist,” for her involvement with the [Alaskan Independence Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Independence_Party)–there’s a frightening bunch for ya. Didja hear that the founder of the party, who disappeared a year and a half ago was just discovered dead and buried, wrapped in tarp and duct tape? [Apparently he was murdered in a "plastic explosives deal gone wrong.](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?es=940CE3DB153CF936A25753C1A962958260) Huh, one wonders what would have happened in a deal gone right? Of course, Obama’s connection with Ayres is much, much worse–why, that university professor’s a known unidicted terriss!! OMG!! ONOZ!! Of course, now she’s trying to claim she [never had anything to do with them, in spite of her hubby being a member of the party up until 2002, per voter registration records. So, hey, “Governor Pants-on-fire” would work too. Heck, that last one would work too–[Sarah Palin’s first child was conceived out of wedlock,](http://www.americablog.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-and-children-conceived-out.html) by probably seven weeks or so. So maybe we could also go with “Governor Hypocrite,” for her stance on abstinence only sex education–for everyone else except her and her family, of course. Of course the [20% reduction in funding for a home for teen mothers](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot)she lined out in the '08 budget just underlines that particular name for her. So, no funding for the pregnant girls whose mother’s don’t pull down a governor’s six figure salary, yeah, just fuck them Governor Hypocrite. Or would “Governor Heartless Bitch” work better? Fiscally conservative small government, anti pork? Riiiiiight… [McCain himself had “Mayor Porkbarrel” on his infamous list for several of her pet projects in Wasilla.](http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story) Man, she’s even shitty at that–she got 27 million in earmarks for her itty bitty town of 5500 residents (annual budget of 5 million) [but left it over 20 million in debt.](http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/an-wasillan-on.html) The town didn’t (still doesn’t) have a sewage system or decent roads, but thanks to “Mayor McDebt” it has a spiffy hockey rink! Oh look, she raised taxes too! On fucking FOOD, no less! While encouraging the town to borrow money! Yes, this is JUST the person I want in charge of the federal budget! Gosh, is it terribly sexist of me to point out that “Governor Spendipants” sure knows how to waste other people’s money? How about [“Governor Bookburner?”](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?bl&ex=1220587200&en=a5543a98005b8c75&ei=5087%0A) > [@NY Times](#): > > And for some, Ms. Palin’s first months in office here were so jarring — and so alienating — that an effort was made to force a recall. About 100 people attended a meeting to discuss the effort, which was covered in the local press, but the idea was dropped. > > Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question. > > Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said. > > The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article. > > In 1996, Ms. Palin suggested to the local paper, The Frontiersman, that the conversations about banning books were “rhetorical.” [How about “Governor God-Warrior?”](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html) [Huh, here’s a new one–how about "Governor Milkmaid?](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/3/9330/95523/364/584429)" Sounds a little better than “Governor Cronyism Costs Taxpayers Shitloads of Money for Nothing.” Rolls off the tongue a little better. Article written by an Alaskan homeboy, no less. I’m sure that means he knows MUCH less about the situation and the real Governor than the experts here on the SDMB. As for the belief that she was hired because she has a vagina–that IS a little inaccurate. [Olympia Snowe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_Snowe) and [Kay Bailey Hutchingson](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Bailey_Hutchinson) also have vaginas, but the GOP wanted a vagina that was guaranteed to squirt out a sprog whenever a dick got near it–they needed a fanatically anti-abortion vagina, and Snowe and KBT don’t qualify, even though in EVERY OTHER WAY they more than qualify as good, solid, believable VP candidates. As a matter of fact, as a woman and a feminist, I am outraged and disgusted that these women were passed over in favor of that ill informed, ignorant, backwards, regressive, know-nothing, talentless hack of an excuse for a politician, the aforementioned Governor Cupcake. And for anyone who is STILL trying to make the case for this fluffball I ask one simple question–do you, as an American citizen, feel completely confident that this woman is fully qualified to be President should the unthinkable happen and McCain gets elected, then croaks in office? Because personally I think that if there’s anyone here who’s willing to say that, then I also think we have a date in the Pit so I can tell you my opinion of your answer. While we’re there I’d be more than happy to debate my feminist credentials and any allegations of my “sexism.” [Oh yeah, and here’s what Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan have to say about it off the air when they thought the mikes weren’t live.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg) ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/173 "2008-09-04T05:35:48Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Okay **Canvas** at least now we can talk policy issues. > > So it sounds like you believe in trickle-down, in both forms, prosperity and shit. Thing is that giving the wealthiest the biggest breaks has been what’s been tried by the Bush administration and indeed McCain is promising to do the same except perhaps with a bigger hammer. How’s that worked for you so far? Sorry to take so long to answer, when I got on earlier, I could only read, whenever I tried to reply I got a big blank page. Not even a 404 error! 🙂 I’m not sure where you got “…you believe in trickle-down…” merely from me describing how the rich pile onto those below. I am certainly not a believer that the opposite (that is, that they also pass on good money times as well) is necessarily automatically true. Though Ben and Jerry’s are(is?) certainly one exception I can name. As to the “shit rolls downhill” sentiment that’s just plain ole’ human nature, there isn’t anything “policy” about it. > [@](#): > > The wealthiest are actually the least likely to have their spending effected by the marginal tax rate. The middle OTOH are more likely to have spending patterns influenced by the amount left on the pay stub each month. In reality trickle-up is a more realistic model. Prosperity rises. The economic machine is powered by the many more than by the few. Regardless of how much the rich have, or do not have their _spending_ (I’m quite sure they won’t allow more taxes to determine whether they upgrade to a bigger yacht or not), affected, their income will still be affected, and I’d bet dollars to donuts, that loopholes or no, they’ll pass that right on down the hill regarding their companies, the wages they pay, who gets axed and who doesn’t, etc. Based upon Obama’s ideas (obtained thanks to the doper who provided me with his website) and what I’ve heard him say several times throughout this campaign, his plans are to tax the holy hell out of everyone making so much as a crumb above minimum wage. > [@](#): > > Trickle-down has failed. You may want to consider the wisdom of [trickle-up.](http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/dicklee/gGCNPj) I think your link got eaten or something, because there was only one sentence with a short definition, but no explanation of the trickle up theory in this article. Do you have a better link to the rest of it? Or perhaps better eyes, (I looked for a link to a second page, or a “for the rest click here” but didn’t see it). But thanks for posting the link! I did read it. > [@](#): > > Shayna right, because of those skeeeeery “beliefs [of] his wife and other associates”. You know, you blew your claim of non-partisanship the minute you posted that not-so-veiled innuendo based on the ugly and hate-filled partisan email smear campaign. Shayna, your post skates awfully close to calling someone a liar. Your links to one of my posts state how much Alaskans hate the good ole boy network of Republican business as usual, I’m not sure how that is supposed to “prove” my non non-partisanship. The post is regarding why Sarah is so popular here, because she ousted an actual high and mighty, in the pocket of special interests Republican. I don’t remember what she beat him by, but it wasn’t pretty. My support of her over a dyed in the wool pubbie is hardly “proof” I’m not non-partisan. As for the other, Michelle Obama, the pastor, and others have made many very bitter, angry hateful statements. I am basing this upon their own words, not the media’s. How is calling them to task on their poor statements and attitude “hate-filled”? Their attitude and words are wrong. Period. I don’t hate them for being wrong, but it is a serious concern if they really feel the way they say they do, and even more of a concern if Obama also believes the same way. As to hate-filled, if a 20 year advisor and pastor stated such sentiments about others as his preacher did, I’d instantly say "seeya, sorry I’m not going to associate with someone who believes and acts the way you do. When did it become “hate-filled” to call to task those who are proponents of hate? > [@](#): > > Frank Yes, because of course when Obama is sworn in, on January 21st the Red Army will arrive on your doorstep to turn you into the street with nothing but the clothes on your back. To both you and Shayna. There is no reason to be childish and rude. This isn’t the pit. Nor is there any reason to be illogical, of **course** I do not think that I’ll be out in the street, and no one would WANT my clothes (well except maybe for the Pink Panther lounge pants, I’d definitely fight the red army for those!). But at the rate of tax increase Obama is planning, again, based upon all of the programs he wants to put into place (from his own website), particularly in his two most recent speeches, the one in Germany and the acceptance speech), it may very well be enough of a financial detriment to cause many of us to be forced to move to cheaper housing, drastically cut back and so on. I’m single (and wrinkled, ancient, fat, and hideous to boot:D, so likely won’t attract a hubby to help me in the future either!), so I’m already in one of the hardest hit tax groups (the single one, not the ancient hideous one), add in the taxes Obama has planned and life will likely go from finally Okay to markedly unpleasant in no time. And no, I do not believe that the same applies to McCain re: taxes. And I also don’t think this is so because Obama is a democrat, I voted for Clinton, and was doing alright under his administration. Conversely I did terribly financially speaking under George Sr’s, and didn’t vote for him. I don’t believe this is a dem vs. pub thing regarding the tax aspect, I believe, based upon his own words that it’s an Obama thing. And that is the largest part of what has me fearful of him as potential president. Interestingly, I work in an industry that generally does very well under dem rule, the environmental industry (no, not the bunny hugging, diesel powered boat driving morons of green peace, the real ones the ones who actually go sample the contaminated sites and do the cleanup, plant trees where old landfills once existed etc), dems tend to dump tons of money into government programs to spank the evil bad military and oil companies, programs for which we Enviro Sci/tech type companies get contracts. But even with the fact that our industry tends to thrive under dem rule, I am STILL that frightened of Obama as president. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/174 "2008-09-04T06:41:38Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > B: Not _quite_ clean, but not quite unclean enough (so far) to suggest her being asked to step down by those who have invested quite a lot of face in bolstering support for her. I asked upthread what it would mean if Troopergate allegations were true. Not that CanvaShoes speaks for all of conservativism, but it doesn’t seem like its outcome will have an impact on her polling. Nah, it’s just Obama vetted as _squeaky_ damn clean for a Chicago politician. Remember, Jack Ryan had him followed 24/7 by the kid with the camera? But does anyone disagree with my assessment of her as the equivalent of Obama '04? Positioningwise? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/175 "2008-09-04T07:43:05Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Remember how administrators for Iraq were vetted by checking out their views on abortion? Remember how well that worked out? McCain is doing the same thing for the vice presidency. Who cares if you’re qualified so long as you don’t piss off the religious fanatics. Don’t these scumbags ever learn? Yeah they have, they’ve learned they cannot get elected without them. ---
**Author:** ![Rachm\_Qoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@Rachm\_Qoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachm_Qoch)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/176 "2008-09-04T07:59:25Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Nah, it’s just Obama vetted as _squeaky_ damn clean for a Chicago politician. Remember, Jack Ryan had him followed 24/7 by the kid with the camera? > > But does anyone disagree with my assessment of her as the equivalent of Obama '04? Positioningwise? I don’t know. If she continues to make a pattern out of looking a little worse today than she looked yesterday she won’t be in fine fettle four years hence. After pledging to welcome any inquiry into “Troopergate”, she’s now suddenly refusing to cooperate with the legislative investigation. And her claim that no pressure was personally brought to bear upon Monegan doesn’t seem to pan out in light of reports of [emails from Palin’s yahoo account](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303210.html?hpid=topnewshometown%20paper). In her defence, if her ex-BIL is as much an asshole as [Palin claims in new documents presented](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122040990300293917.html?mod=googlenews_wsj), then IMO Wooten shouldn’t be working in law enforcement. Who knows… maybe she can shake all this off and be the shining star in 2012, but this isn’t the best business plan for such an endeavor. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/177 "2008-09-04T09:36:56Z")
As a non-American, the stuff that worries me most isn’t the everyday fundie touchstones like abortion and sex education. That’s the domestic stuff only you 'Mericans have to worry about. What worries me is that speech of hers about Iraq being some sort of nebulous religious war. One of the big picture problems in international relations as I see it is the potential for polarisation of the world into two major religious groups fighting each other with their respective gods at their side. There is too much potential for a never ending war fuelled by religiously motivated minions controlled through an irrational basis and who will consequently put aside any rational basis for stopping. It’s bad enough that there is violent fundamentalism on one side. The last thing we need is a religious reaction to that, spiralling into self-reinforcing dehumanisation of opposing sides. I’m not saying wars about oil or land are good (far from it) but at least they have defined boundaries. It’s the ideological and cultural ones that turn into total irrational neverending bloodbaths. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/178 "2008-09-04T13:33:48Z")
**canvas** please provide a link to that Obama website that shows how “his plans are to tax the holy hell out of everyone making so much as a crumb above minimum wage.” It is simply not true. Here I will resort to the real [factcheck.org](http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html) who point out that the various claims out there about how Obama is going to raise taxes on the Middle Class are just wrong - “false and misleading”, > [@](#): > > …untrue for the vast majority of small businesses, seniors and individual taxpayers, who would see their taxes go down under Obama’s actual plan. He proposes to increase taxes only for those with more than $250,000 in family income, or $200,000 in individual income. My link btw works when I click it. It’s no economic treatise, just a one page blurb and not a new concept. Not a hard concept either. Currently the vast majority of the gains from increased worker productivity have gone the wealthiest 1% of the country and they are the least likely to actually use it ways that grow the economy for the rest of us (despite the claims of trickle-down). Wages are not rising as productivity increases. And wages would not decrease as taxes on the wealthiest go up. Wages will always be instead based on what the market will bear for that worker. Wages will go up if unemployment is down far enough that employers need to compete for the workers or if workers with a particular skill set are in larger demand than the current supply. In short the same amount of shit will be pushed downhill no matter if the marginal tax rate on the richest few is raised or lower by an incremental amount. Its amount is limited only by how much shit those below are in position to have to accept. You want wages to go up you do not get there by letting the richest keep more and the middle and below keep less - you get there by growing the economy as a whole and increasing the demand for skilled workers that cannot be reasonably outsourced - jobs like yours for example. Your company needs ten of you to meet demand and a competitor needs ten of you and there are only ten of you out there? Let the bidding begin. Letting the middle and below keep a bit more of their income turns out to be a more effective way to grow the economy and hence increase employment demand than letting increasingly greater shares concentrate at the very top. The so-called green collar economy also creates jobs that cannot be reasonably outsourced. Make sense? Sorry for the hijack, but your repeating that false claim about Obama’s economic plan needed refuting. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/179 "2008-09-04T13:52:24Z")
And back to the op: who is Sarah Palin? A VP nominee who has the skills to make a formidable attack dog with a smile. Someone who the Obama campaign will need to get out there defining on policy issues and truth-telling issues pretty damn quickly. She is a right wing extremist who is against choice under any circumstance, who believes that bible stories should be taught along side science in public school science classes, who tries to ban books with objectionable language from public libraries. She is a politician who successfully lobbied for pork and who misrepresents her record as otherwise. She has a record of abusing her power. She is proof that McCain is no middle of the road maverick who will be able to work across the aisle but someone who has swung far over to the extreme right, to the very side that the old McCain once was dismissive of, and whose election would represent further polarization of our partisan divide. But now, after a well delivered speech, I can only conclude, she is someone who may actually have a shot at doing that. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/47e85d/32.png) [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Lance_Murdoch)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686/180 "2008-09-04T14:06:15Z")
Here’s what some conservatives think of her [when they think the mic is off.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDBW0SbDxPo) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-again-who-is-sarah-palin/461686.md?page=10)