Missed the edit but FTR my post above (#79) was written before I saw all the other posts preceding it so was not trying to re-ask questions already covered.
You’ve said that the dislike for her is because we disagree with her politically, that the hatred has brought about the ethics complaints, and that those have hindered her efforts to the point that she has to step down. But the man who will replace her is also a Republican. Won’t he pursue the same policies, leading to the same hatred, etc.? So how does her resignation change anything?
She said she doesn’t want to serve out her term as a lame duck, but she passes the job on to someone who hasn’t even been elected to it once. How does that serve the needs of the people of Alaska?
Those are the sorts of things I had in mind when I said the speech was lacking in substance.
Aside from the stuff Whack-a-Mole posted, there a new ethics probe under way. Note the first sentence:
Bolding mine. I’m sure that independent investigator is just full of Palin hate, though. He even sympathized with her need for money to defend against ethics charges, but stood behind his finding that she took improper gifts of money for her legal defense.
In any case, Palin has engendered a great deal of dislike in her home state. As W-a-M noted, much of it is from within her own party. It’s hard to imagine that she’s the innocent victim and everyone is just a big, mean jerk picking on poor old Sarah.
Well considering the highly readable, erudite, clear and well structured books that Obama written I don’t think you really want to go down the road of comparing his writing abilities to those of Ms Sarah Vacuous Doesn’t Have A Clue Palin.
And that’s not to mention that Obama is an acutal, ya know, Univeristy Professor. Meaning he had to “impart knowledge” to students.
Do you really really want to go down the road of comparing Obama’s speechwriting skills to Palin’s? Isn’t that just a teeny bit like comparing a Ferrari F40 to a Fiat Bambina? (and these comments are made quite independently of politcal philosophies of the relevant parties)
I yearn for the day when Sarah Palin becomes irrelevant. And the sooner we convince people that she’s incompetent, corrupt, and otherwise a really bad idea, the sooner that day will come. In the meanwhile, though, she still has a real chance of being the Republican candidate for President in 2012 or 2016, and I can’t figure how the Presidential candidate of a major party can be considered irrelevant.
Haha, seriously?
I mean… okay, I know in your tribal partisan brain, you have to think “at no point can I concede that anyone on my side shows weakness or inadequacy, nor anyone on the opposition side shows anything positive” - but can you actually pass this thought through your brain and not have alarms go off?
You may not like Obama. You may disagree with everything he says. But you are so ridiculously partisan that you can’t admit that he gives speeches that are more meaningful than the scatterbrained and meaningless speech she gave? A speech so rambling and bizarre that no one can even figure out what the narrative was?
Seriously?
My favorite part:
Except when it comes to abortion. Or who a person wants to marry. Or smoking marijuana. Or using stem cells to research possible cures for horrible diseases . . .