They can’t figure it out because they aren’t sure they believe her, not because she wasn’t clear in what she was saying.
Well, I got from it that she is leaving because she is costing the state money having government lawyers defend her against ethics complaints and she wants to see that money go to the state.
Except…
…Almost all the money spent on lawyers would be spent on lawyers anyway since they are salaried employees of the state. If they sate around playing Solitaire the state would be out the money anyway.
Wants to be with her family more?
Well…
…Maybe except nothing in her career to this point seems to suggest this. She wanted to be VP…did she think she’d get more time with her family living in Washington doing that job (or would she have had this change of heart 6 months in had she won and then quit?)? Will she get more time doing book signings around the country? Will she get more time with her family stumping for other politicians and causes as she seems to want to do?
Seems to me staying close to home as Governor would keep her closer to her family.
Protect her family from further mockery?
Hmm…
…Palin has hardly sought the shadows trying to stay out of the spotlight.
So yeah, not really buying her stated reasons.
More than that though, while there are stated reasons, there is no real rationale I can see.
There was also that part about how the troops had inspired her to quit, and how a good point guard always walks off the court in the middle of the game.
Exactly.
I already tried that. Maybe he didn’t follow the thread into Great Debates. Considering his language, that’s probably for the best.
I notice you didn’t actually answer the question, either.
But Whack-a-Mole did.
Teleprompters are for those who pal around with terrorists. Or maybe she just couldn’t find an outlet to plug it in out at Screaming Goose Lake.
=Joe
And an interesting answer it was. But two of us have asked for your answer, and still haven’t gotten it.
Well I pretty much agree with Whack-a-Mole’s answer except the part where he thinks that salaried lawyers being tied up in Sarah Palin hatefests in the courts do not cost the state money. Either way it ties up state resources and makes it impossible to do business, which was the entire point, the hatefest led to punitive filings against Sarah Palin for running for VP.
Is that what they were? Sarah Palin hatefests filed against her for running for VP? We are in GD, care to offer a cite that these were the bases for the lawsuits, and nothing legitimate whatsoever?
On the day after her speech, the transcript that they posted on the Governor of Alaska’s homepage was slightly different from how it is now–it had a lot more exclamation points, and several words (not just acronyms) were written in all-caps (presumably for emphasis, even though they didn’t always sound like they needed stressing–including conjunctions like “AND”).
I can’t find a screenshot of it, but Paul Begala apparently read the same version that I did, and discusses its overall weirdness.
The governor’s office quickly replaced it with a cleaned-up version, with most of the exclamation points and all-caps removed. I still find it funny that they left this sentence intact:
What on earth does that mean? Is she hugging and kissing that phrase? Why even include such punctuation in a transcript? It certainly didn’t sound like a parenthetical comment in her speech.
Do you mean the time that Miley Cyrus agreed to do a photo shoot with world-renowned photographer Annie Leibovitz (and didn’t express any fake remorse about it until the Disney Channel forced her to)? :dubious:
Impossible to do business?
Sorry but cite?
Seems the question is a simple one.
Did the ethics complaints against Palin cost the state of Alaska more than the state would have paid anyway?
Remember this is all for staff time. These workers would have been paid anyway no matter what they were doing.
Of course people can only do so much in a day and Palin people are saying (and I think you are suggesting) this remains a real cost since other work is not getting done.
So, did Alaska state business stop? Did they hire extra staff to cover the work not getting done? Is there any accounting that shows state money lost because of delays in getting other work done?
Mind you there is some funny accounting in her breakdown of the $1.9 million in expenses but whatever…I’ll go with the $1.9 million for now for the sake of argument.
Oh, to keep it in perspective, all this money Palin is saving the state amounts to 0.02% of the state budget (if we go with the notion that this was $1.9 million they would not have spent otherwise and used for other things…which as noted they would have spent it anyway on those same lawyers complaints or no complaints).
So, even in the best case scenario that gives Palin all the benefits of the doubt, her quitting saved Alaska 0.02% of its budget. I wonder how much it costs Alaska to switch Governors? (Change signs such as Governor “X” welcomes you to Alaska, letterhead and who knows all what else.)
Ahh…here’s an interesting bit about that.
So there is a nice chunk of her savings gone by quitting.
Oh, it just occurred to me, all this money she is saving was already spent right? Did she expect another wave of ethics violations? I know another was just filed but did she expect these to keep coming?
Whack-a-Mole I am talking about a cost that is not directly monetary. You nailed it though when you mentioned people working on one thing cannot work on another.
Rubystreak I never said it was undeserved, but the reason these things are happening primarily is political retribution pure and simple. People have made it hard for her to do business in order to fuck her over. It’s pretty simple, and pretty obvious. I mean she’s been irrelevant since November and you’re still participating in threads about her aren’t you?
If it’s deserved, then it’s not “primarily” political retribution, is it? She is the subject of an ethics probe from within her own state, and was before she became a VP candidate. I have to ask you again for a cite that these are spurious law suits based on partisan hatred. If it’s so obvious, surely you can back it up somehow. I’ll read your evidence with great interest.
I’m participating in threads about her because she has been positioned by many as the heir apparent to the Republican party, and possibly a nominee for president in 2012. She has kept herself in the spotlight deliberately, so yes, I’m still interested in her. Lots of people are. And she WANTS us to be.
The two are hardly mutually exclusive. The rest is nonsense because you are just looking for fodder for your Palin hate. I am not interested in absolving Sarah Palin nor have I intimated that I am so the rest of your requests are pointless. The thing is, this would’ve likely gone away by now if not for her Vice Presidential run. I seriously doubt it would’ve gone this far and taken up as much of anyone’s time otherwise.
The idea that she is ‘heir’ apparent to the Republican party is beyond silly. She’s just another celebrity politician that every insider in the Republican party knows is a bimbo. You’re interested in her for the same reason US Weekly would have us believe that Brangelina have been breaking up for the past 5 years.
Asking for a cite for a serious allegation in GD is “just looking for fodder for my Palin hate”? Wow, that’s freakin’ ridiculous. I take that to mean that you are talking out your ass and really have no evidence whatsoever that these lawsuits are spurious and solely partisan. Thanks for answering my question-- you are voicing your opinion and framing it as a fact. Your claims have no merit except as knee-jerk Palin support. I think we’re done here.
ETA: And I’d thank you kindly to stop trying to assign motives to me. You are flat out wrong and you have no idea what you’re talking about. Give it a rest.
No you asked for a cite saying that Palin is innocent. The point is that a podunk politician from one of the most backwater states in the Union is getting far more attention than she would if she were anywhere else.
:rolleyes: Sarah Palin’s not important. That’s the bottom line here.
Clearly state business was still getting done. Maybe the attorneys worked 60 hour weeks instead of 50 hour weeks (I dunno…just saying). Till someone can show us actual lost money due to all of this as opposed to making people who would be paid anyway to work on this I am not convinced of this great loss to the state of Alaska. If we go with the $1.9 million is all of that money out the door of Alaska? Even if it is (which I cannot see how it could be) remember that is 0.02% of their budget. A drop in the bucket.
A new one was just filed but all the rest were behind her so money already spent. How much will she save the state by leaving? How much will she cost the state by leaving (as noted above)?
Here is a list of the ethics violations filed against her.
I have no doubt there were political motivations behind a lot of this. But then every politician has enemies. Why isn’t every politician saddled with endless ethics violations by their enemies? Why is she special (and note a lot of these are by Alaskans and many from her own party)?
While she was found not guilty of those violations are we to assume the whole lot of them were frivolous? I really (really really) do not know. Some look like they might be but some look legit (e.g. #1 in the list seems legit, #12 seems pure harassment although I doubt #12 cost much to defend against).
As for being irrelevant she was irrelevant to most of the country prior to August of last year. Since then she has remained in the spotlight by her own choosing (here’s her Op/Ed in the Washington Post just last week on Cap & Trade). She remains a rallying point for many conservatives, stated her intentions to stump for people she supports, has a book deal in the offing and do not be surprised if you see her has a talking head soon.
If she wanted to be irrelevant then she could easily make herself irrelevant like most of the population. She’d go back below the media radar in no time and no one would think much of her again. She chooses to keep herself in the spotlight and as such makes herself a subject of discussion.
If she does not like that scrutiny it is a simple matter for her to fade back into obscurity.
No, I did not ask for a cite that Palin was innocent. Can you read?
IOW, some evidence that the people behind the suit, say, the ones who filed it, are her political enemies, or an objective outside commentator who believes the charges are spurious, or nitpicky, or excessive etc. You could find a cite if you wanted to. But you’d rather say that it’s “obvious” and that anyone who disagrees with you is a hater, with no evidence. Those claims will be treated with the consideration they deserve.
And we’re only allowed to talk about things YOU consider important, eh? :rolleyes: right back atcha. You don’t get to tell me why I’m interested in her, or dismiss my stated reasons and substitute your own. It’s presumptuous and you are wrong. I repeat, give it a rest. Don’t want people talking about Palin? Don’t feed us by talking about Sarah Palin. Otherwise, it’s a free country and you stamping your foot and wagging your finger isn’t going to make it stop, dig?