Hell, who knows, maybe this stuff with her daughter has brought her some much needed education.
It just feels wrong, and makes it even more personal; she, wanted to continue the tyrant war criminal’s policies.
Republicans are scum of the the Earth. They’ll never undo the horrible things Bush did. They crossed lines. I automatically lose respect for anyone who’d associate with those war criminals.
They’re either stupid or slime to continue in support of that vile organization that licked the war criminal’s ass.
Uh . . . Jeffrey Dahmer once didn’t kill a guy.
So a slim majority of Republicans, believe that someone might be able to imagine a situation in which torture should be CONSIDERED against terrorism suspects.
That’s a pretty strong indictment of an entire group, when a little over half of them won’t rule out a hypothetical.
Well played, sir!
And in those days, a dime really meant something!
Palin has publicly said that she thinks little girls should be forced to have rape babies. She’s afraid of witches. She believes in the Rapture and has said that she thinks Alaska will be a refuge for the Left Behind. She thinks Adam and Eve lived among dinosaurs. She thinks gay people are going to burn in a lake of fire. She’s a religious whacko, nutjob zealot. This OP is ridiculous.
Let’s see her endorse gay marriage or admit that evolution is a fact. That will impress me. Until then, all the signs still point to asshole.
There were many criticisms of Governor Palin. Besides her odd religious view, there was also issues of corruption and that whole thing about throwing out anyone she could that wasn’t completely loyal to her. Perhaps those considerations, in this case, won out over her social conservatism. That is, they would have had to if this Christen was truly liberal on social issues, and we have yet to see whether that is the case.
I’m also quite unclear as to whether social conservatives in Alaska are truly outraged; just because one organization didn’t get their pet candidate picked (Was there really only a choice between two viable people for this?) does not really mean anything. I notice the article also points out that the response from the public to this appointment is not out of the ordinary.
It seems clear to me that people who like Gov. Palin do so because they perceive her to be a social conservative. I am absolutely stumped, based on how she runs Alaska, how anyone can see her as a libertarian.
The other article said the opposite:
If she did in fact pick the most conservative of her two only choices, then you’re correct - it proves nothing. But what caught my eye in the first place was the claim that Palin had actually picked the more liberal of the two choices.
There are a number of fundy web sites hopping mad at her right now, so their perception is that, from their standpoint she made the wrong pick.
Actually the article only says that the Alaska Family Council CLAIMS that she picked the more liberal choice, but refused to say why they thought that:
From Blank Slate’s link, we have this:
So the Judicial council rated Smith as the more liberal choice. A right wing fundy group says Christen is more liberal but won’t say why.
A claim made only by a special interest group, and which appears to have been knee-jerk and uninformed.
Well, since when have fundy websites ever gotten their facts right?
Here’s an update. The Alaska Family Council has backed down.
Just for the hell of it, I checked Free Republic and the Freepers are vigorously trying to debunk any suggestion that Palin has the slightest libertarian bone in her body. As I suspected, the AFC saw the words “Family Planning,” their little empty heads spun around and they started yapping without knowing all the facts.
I’m actually kind of disappointed. I would love to see all the Palin fappers have to take their Sarah posters down.
Remember Bristol Palin’s soon-to-be mother-in-law Sherry Johnston? The one arrested a few months ago on drug charges? The judge presiding over her case, Eric Smith, is the guy who lost out to Christen. Small town, that Alaska.
:dubious: You’re saying that the idea that Republicans support torture is equivalent to the idea that Democrats “hate America, want to turn all school children gay, and encourage them to have sex in the 1st grade”? Show a little intellectual discipline, for chrissake.
I daresay you won’t find 55% of Democrats wanting to turn all school children gay. Good like finding 55 Democrats who want this. Now if Obama starts to support policies to encourage kids to have sex in the first grade, you might be onto something.
Sam, I’m saying this as someone who appreciates your posts and agrees with you the vast majority of the time - you need to detach yourself from the partisan mentality that drives you to support people like Sarah Palin.
I realize that most of the people who ideologically agree with you in US politics have historically tended to be Republican - at least moreso than Democrat. But the Republican party is an odd conglomeration of people who often don’t have that much in common, and at this point in history it’s dominated by people who have little in common with you ideologically.
Sarah Palin is a good example of what’s wrong with the Republican party. She’s the type of person who needs to be purged if the party is ever to return to something good.
I’ve seen how people divide into camps of us vs them when it comes to politics and I think it’s a huge problem. When you start to evaluate a person, or an idea, based on who said them or what political party they belong to rather than the merits you ultimately hurt yourself. I understand why your initial instinct is to defend someone who you view as being part of your camp - but she really isn’t.
You express some libertarian and (economic) conservative ideas probably better than anyone on this board. It’s clear you put great thought into your political positions. Don’t taint your good ideas by voluntarily affiliating yourself with people don’t have to because you (in this case erroneously) view them as being on your side.
My stance is the same as it has always been. She’s a religious conservative wacko, who happens to be really far up big oil’s butt. Given that she had two choices, and she didn’t get to choose who those two choices were, she made the obvious selection. She didn’t pick the ultra-conservationist (warning, 18 page PDF). For those who want to skip loading the PDF, here are the clubs/groups that he listed membership in on his judicial application:
Alaska Conservation Foundation
Trustees for Alaska
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
Alaska Center for the Environment
Natural Resources Defense Council
Alaska Marine Conservation Council
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
Palin would have picked a black, gay, murderous child-rapist before picking this guy.
Well, what say you now?
Don’t get me wrong - I don’t think Palin is the saviour of the Republican party. I don’t think she can hold a candle to someone like Mitt Romney. And in fact, I agree that she’s part of what’s wrong with Republicans. I just thought the attacks against were were over the top. Huckabee made a lot more social conservatism noise than Palin did, and he was actually fairly well liked among a lot of members of the left.
Not claiming to speak for Sam Stone at all, but when you put it that way the actual choice does reveal an immense amount of common sense on Sarah Palin’s part.
Go forth and multiply.Could that be because Huckabee also held some views way to the left of Palin, like favoring a ban on smoking (which he did eventually disavow)?
Probably the only Ann Coulter comment I’ve ever thought was accurate and funny was her description of Huckabee as “a Republican Jimmy Carter”.
IMHO this is the story here. She has a pattern of personal vendettas in hiring and firing.
And one appointment does not undo her commitment to religious nuttery. Although it’s lovely to see her own turn on her for impurity.
Could she also be posturing toward the middle at the advice of her 2012 campaign staff?