Sarah Palin rejects stimulus, DNC scoffs

Apparently, it is alright to take money from Exxon, who has trashed the coast of Alaska. She really is a good "Republican"

She just won the Libertarian vote. Libertarians have been skeptical of her in the past. She just gloriously won their hearts and minds, and sets her up wonderfully for 2012, with this critical voting block.

I do not think these governors are wrong. This federal money is temporary, but the mandate is that the programs it expands must be ongoing.

So, how does the state fund these expanded programs once the federal money is gone?

Democrats usually do got a little upset when Republicans point out the obvious stupidity in liberals agenda plans!

Okay, I'll take some of that money you don't want, Pain-with-an-L. I know you think you're taking some huge moral stance, but really, you're just being pathetic. Go give a few more lectures to the Master's Commission sheeple and do some more preaching about abstinence and stay out of matters you don't understand.

Considering that every one of the red states from the 08 election is a welfare state, taking back more than they contribute to federal government, I'd like to see all of them turn down stimulous money. Let it go to the blue states that have been supporting them all these years.

Palin can now join fellow Repug governors Kenneth "the page" Jindal and Mark Sanford in denying money to their constituents who have lost or are losing their jobs. Apparently staying true to their outdated and flawed fundamental Repug principles is more important to them than actually governing for the good of their constituency.

Good! Alaska certainly doesn't need fereal money. The residents don't pay any taxes and get money for beer and "snow machines' from the state annually.

Good! Alaska certainly doesn't need fereal money. The residents don't pay any taxes and get money for beer and "snow machines' from the state annually.

You morons know that she is not even close to electable in 2012. Pundits consider her a factor due to a rash of star politicians; Jesse Ventura, Arnold. Al Franken, who capitalize on public ignorance.

The reality is she is uninformed, uncouth, and generally considered a buffoon by the American people. Popular vote, electoral vote, whatever angle, she is a bimbo.

It takes a lot more than the daughter dumping the boyfriend and big money "My Fair Lady" education time to make a president. There is no substance; none, zero.

One of two scenarios will play out. Either an educated sensible Republican candidate will take her on and win or the party will sacrifice the 2012 elecfion and let her run for president.

The end result will alter the destiny of this country. The educated Republican opponent will give the party a chance to balance the massive shift in power to the left and benefit the country as a whole.

The more likely scenario is this nitwit wins the nomination and ends up getting pounced by Obama.

The loss wont likely be due to the progress Obama made regarding economic or foreign policy but instead due to the public rejectiion of what most people see now and all people will see later as an unacceptable president, an embarrasment even.

You pick. A competitive election in 2012 based upon issues and concerns that will set the course for America in the 21st century or a walkover that I still think was either an Obama plant or a sacrifical Republican candidate.

QUOTE FROM Eric: "She just won the Libertarian vote. Libertarians have been skeptical of her in the past. She just gloriously won their hearts and minds, and sets her up wonderfully for 2012, with this critical voting block. "

Libertarians are going to be the saviors of the 2012 election for the Republican party? Give me a break. Libertarians are an extreme minority of whack-jobs who hold fringe views. They're typically nothing more than baby boomers who never had children and then whine about paying property taxes to schools that they have no children in. A typical Libertarian will call the fire department when his/her house is on fire, and then not offer to pay them for putting the fire out.

Sorry my initial post was so long but I felt it had to be said. AS a frequent visitor to Alaska for busines and tourism I feel it is necessary to point out that a) she has lost the support of the Alaskan people b) She has no future in Alaska as she will not be re-elected and Senator Murkowski is doing a great job and c) Alaska does need the money.

To break even oil needs to average $70 per barrel. Break even means to cover basic expenses. That will not happen this year. Alaska is headed for a huge fiscal shortfall that may make California look like a good investment unless oil hits $120 per barrel by June 1.

It wont, and there will be hell to pay. It will be at least 5 years before Alaska digs out of the hole they are in and shakes off the effect of the gross mismanagement of the budget and resources,. If you can destroy a cash cow like Alaska imagine what you can do to the entire country.

These governors are smart...only take the money that doesn't have Obama's socialist strings attached to it.

GOOD MOVE SARAH!!!

Paulo

Maybe Alaska really does not need the money. Nice to see someone that does not have their hand out .

This woman is still around?? Ugh, I just got chills up my spine...she is totally putting her career ahead of the people she "governs."

It's not only the fact that Alaska sucks up $1.87 in federal spending for every dollar it contributes. Palin has also asked for nearly $70,000,000 in earmarks for Alaska in the next federal budget.
==
Boy, I bet those starry-eyed Palin fans will just eat this up and claim that Palin is such a conservative hero while ignoring her rampant spending and complete hypocrisy on earmarks.

I thought she was defeated. What's she doing here?

Good for Palin! What kills me is the media and their moronic followers, the Loons on the Left, seem to have a problem with governors who don't accept all the spendulus money. Why?

At least she kept the money for the "bridge to nowhere" that was never built that she first supported, but then didn't.

If you don't want to take the money because it might expand services in the state, then all you have to do is enact legislation that says so !!! If you want temporary them make it that way !!! She is definately posturing politically. I hope all of the people in Alaska suffer now.

I seem to recall that one of Sarah the Pageant Queen's spawn has a learning disability. That's what makes this sick:

The biggest single chunk of money Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students.

When you hate yourself, hate your family, and hate your neighbors, congratulations! You've become Republican

To: Eric:
.
Thomas Jefferson would have rejected all of the stimulus money, and not simply the funds with strings attached. That’s because taking stimulus money of any kind still represents a concession that Washington has a legitimate role as a central dispenser of public funding. Jefferson wholeheartedly rejected that notion. As such, I don’t understand why you think Libertarians should hail Sarah Palin as a great politician for her walk down the middle of the road on this issue.

* * * * *
Posted by: Aaron | March 20, 2009 12:06 AM
.
You know nothing about Libertarians or Libertarianism. Libertarianism is basically the same as the Classical Liberalism of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine. These men believed that individuals are more capable of governing themselves that some external “government,” and that the only legitimate function of an organized government was to preserve individuals’ rights to life, limb, liberty, property and reputation. They also knew from personal experience that overbearing government was the greatest single threat to individual liberty. In the classical “left” to “right” political continuum, despotic autocracy and monarchy represented the far right and anarchy (rather than socialism or communism) represented the far left. They would view our current government, whether controlled by the Democrats or Republicans, as being substantially (and illegitimately) far right of center.
.
Your suggestion that Libertarians resent government functions like fire or police is ludicrous. Libertarians, like everyone else, pay their taxes. If they’ve paid their taxes, they have already paid for the fire department to come out and extinguish fires. Therefore, they don’t need to offer to pay for the service again. If that isn’t true in your community, tell me where you live so I can avoid the place like the plague.

That’s right, Governor Palin just rejected 45% of Alaska’s stimulus money.

The biggest single chunk of stimulus money that Palin is turning down is $160 million for education.

Visit www.themudflats.net for more information on what she turned down and how the people of Alaska feel about Sarah...anyone for more ethics investigations against her?

Caribou Barbie only takes oil company money to spread her socialist gains to her comrades, by golly, you betcha. What a hypocrite.

If dimwit Palin doesn't want the money, fine. It could be put to better use elsewhere. I would bet anyone who posts here that if a Republican administration offered Alaska some money it would be accepted in a heartbeat. It's political posturing at its finest.
By the way, Alaska will soon be in the red.

Keep acting like fools, pug governors, as the days are being now counted down until you are replaced with dem governors. You are screwing over your people, and your excuses of whining abou the attached strings makes no sense, as the strings were put in there to help the people through these tough times. I see you idiots will stop at nothing to insert your favorite word "socialism" into any arguement, but the truth is, is that the pugs days are numbered.

Eric, how can Palin win the Libertardian vote when the last time I checked, Palin is still a pug? Oh wait, that is because there is no difference between the two fractions of pugism, and the two are interchangable, except when you idiots debate about where your boy shrub fits into the labels.

Note to all alaskansfrom Gov. Dsarah Palin:

Screw You. I don't give a hoot what happends to you or your family. Unemployed? Tough. I don't care in the slightest. Education? Who needs it? Go to a private school if you can afford it. If you can't, oh well, too bad, becuause I don't want to improve the public schools. I will happily sacrifice your need to improve my chances in 2012.

This is Government of ME, by ME and always, always, for ME!

Actually you're quite wrong John W about Jefferson's view on federal spending for Public improvements.

Jefferson thought it would be a very good thing. He did not believe the Constitution allowed it, so he proposed an amendment to change that stuation. Reda his Sixth State of the Union Message. He explicitly favors Federal spending on public improvements and education.

I personally think that if Jefferson were a Governor today, he's accept the stimulus money in light of the now long accepted finding that such spending is, in fact, Constitutional. He was no rigid ideologue as you would paint him. You need to look at his actual writings, not just what the Libertarian fantasies about him say. Remeber He was a President who was roundly criticized for expanding federal power for the Lousiana purchase.

Note that the Swamp article above only contains quotes from Mark Silva's fellow Democrats.
Apparently, when a Swamp "journalist" writes about a Republican, they STILL can't bring themselves to talk to that Republican.

Pathetic.

http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2009/03/17/Governor-Palins-Big-Energy-Battles

This is rich!

http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2009/03/17/Governor-Palins-Big-Energy-Battles

This is rich!

* * * * *
Posted by: Kendle | March 20, 2009 9:32 AM
.
I have read enough of the works of Thomas Jefferson to know that he was more of a strict constructionist of the Constitution than any member of the United States Supreme Court sitting during his life. Yes, he believed education should BECOME one of the great objects of congressional power enumerated in the Constitution, along with the power to fund and regulate public improvement of roads, rivers, canals, and similar matters. However, Jefferson believed that it would take an amendment to the Constitution to add these powers to those already exercised by Congress. His sixth state of the union, to which you referred me, said so. That’s because he did not approve of the federal government stealing or exercising powers not given by the Constitution. He was clearly at odds with the view, current among progressives today, that everything that ought to be in the Constitution must be read into it despite a lack of textual support. Nor was he alone among founding luminaries in this position.
.
Therefore, I believe you are entirely incorrect in suggesting that Jefferson, if sitting as a governor today, would accept stimulus money “in light of the now long accepted finding that such spending is, in fact, Constitutional.” Being far more solicitous of the division of power between the States and the federal government than anyone in government today, and concerned that only those powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution be exercised by the same, he would have, I believe, viewed funding of education and improvements as federal usurpations. That’s because the Constitution has never been amended to add the funding or regulation of education or “internal improvements” to Congress’ enumerated powers - as he had proposed. Show me where he advocated the use of federal power in these regards without an amendment to the Constitution and only then would I feel compelled to agree with you.

Libertarians will still be around to vote in 2012? I thought they were all going Galt!

John W, Jefferson was NOT a rigid strict constructionalist. Not by any means. If he was, the Lousiana Territory would still belong to France. In fact Jefferson specifically rejected your brand of strict constructionalism during the debate on Ratification of the treaty making the purchase. I don't believe that he was as intellectually straight jacketed as you believe him to be. For that matter, I don't think he had such great integrity that he wouldn't violate his own views, even if strongly held. (His great capacity for hypocrisy is shown in his relationship to slavery).

However I do believe that Jefferson, while I great intellect himslf, also was enough of a politician, AND was personally humble enough to take the views of others into consideration, He did not consider himself a sole authority. I think a couple hundred of years of jurisprudence would likely cause him to at least seriously reconsider his positions Perhaps you might try the same? Federal spending on internal improvements has been considered widely constitutional since the 1820s, and No Suprenme Court has ever found otherwise.

I don't get it. Isn't it hypocrisy at its finest for Palin and her fellow Republicans to turn down ANY of the stimulus monies for this reason? It's long been a habit of BOTH parties to attach "strings" to federal funds and to make "federal mandates" that they either don't fund or only fund for one year. One reason so many states have so much budget trouble is because there are so many federally mandated but not federally funded things. How on earth is that any different that any possible "strings" or "future federal mandates" that may hide behind the stimulus money?

Considering the above, it can't be anything beyond partisan political posturing of the worst sort. Shame on the Republicans for using some of the nation's most vulnerable people and the programs that help or benefit them as political pawns.

We must spend the Chinese money! It's burning a hole in the governMINTS pocket! Deny borrowed porkulous funds at your own peril. You people kill me. You are enraged if a state doesn't follow the lead of the US government, the lead of complete and utter fiscal irresponsibility. This is the same lead which put us in our present predicament. Until we live within our means as individuals and government, we will forever be mired in economic chaos. Count the days until the majority of Americans are voting themselves bread and circuses. We are almost there.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kendle | March 20, 2009 3:46 PM P.S.
.
Jefferson’s constitutional dilemma over the Louisiana Purchase centered on the fact the Constitution did not explicitly permit the U.S. to acquire new territory by treaty. Fresh in his mind was the portion of the Articles of Confederation that specified how Canada and other territories might have been acquired and added to the United States. Thus, the fact the new Constitution did not provide for the same contingencies weighed heavily on his mind. Many people, including those in his cabinet, did not share his views - precisely because they hampered the full exercise of sovereignty by the Unites States.
.
At the time the Constitution was ratified, it was axiomatic within the Law of Nations that a sovereign nation had the power to acquire or dispose of territory by treaty with other sovereign nations. Thus, the United States, being a fully sovereign country made up of sovereign states, had to possess this power somewhere at the state or federal level. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly grants to the Executive the “Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties . . .” At the same time, Article I, Section 10, deprived the States of the power to “enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.” Thus, the exercise of treaty power was (and is) exclusively a federal power. Furthermore, Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution provided for the creation and admission of New States by Congress, as well as for congressional “Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States . . .” Thus, the Constitution likewise anticipated possession by the federal government of territory that had not yet become part of a State. Moreover, nothing in the Constitution suggests that the treaty power is subject to any greater limitation or restriction than those spelled out as limitations placed on Congress or the federal government as a whole. Thus, between the federal and state governments, the Constitution clearly contemplated that the sovereign power to acquire territory would lie with the federal government. Based on all of these considerations, Jefferson’s cabinet ministers succeeded in assuaging, to some degree, his conscience concerning his strict constructionist views concerning the acquisition of foreign territory.
.
All the same, Jefferson still believed it would have been appropriate to amend the Constitution, even retroactively, to provide for the acquisition of foreign territory. What really convinced him to forego the amendment process was the fact that France might renege on the deal if he took too long to act. So, yes, to some degree, he did go against his own strict-constructionist views in moving forward with the Louisiana Purchase from France. That instance was a rare example of variance from what was otherwise his strict constructionist stance. Remember, he and Madison were the authors of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Constitutional construction never got stricter than that.
.
I also take issue with your claim that “[f]ederal spending on internal improvements has been considered widely constitutional since the 1820s.” Andrew Jackson, who did not become president until 1929, vetoed a number of bills on the ground that appropriating funds for “internal improvements” was not constitutional unless the measures were undertaken for purposes of national defense and/or national benefit. (See Jackson’s Maysville Turnpike veto (May 27, 1830)). Martin Van Buren, Jackson’s successor, continued Jackson’s policy of opposing “internal improvements” which lacked a national or defense benefit on constitutional grounds. President Tyler vetoed bills on the same grounds, as did Presidents Polk. Thus, if they were “considered widely constitutional since the 1820s” it must have been some place other than in the executive branch.
.
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court, itself, did not explicitly recognized the federal spending power as a viable one, or as a power separate and apart from Congress’ other enumerated powers, until 1936. It was only then that the Court ended the debate between the respective positions held by Madison and Justice Story, siding with Story and the Federalists on this issue. (See United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936).) Even in Butler, however, the court imposed restrictions on federal spending, holding that the spending power could not be used to circumvent the 10th Amendment’s preservation of States’ sovereignty. Even that limitation was soon abandoned by “progressives.” In my view (as you might have discerned), Madison’s was the better view because it was more consistent with the language and tenor of the Constitution itself. (See “The Federalist Papers,” Federalist No. 41.)

Bob...I bet you have NEVER been to Alaska as you claim.

The latest poll, released this week has her with a 65 percent approval rating. That's higher than Obama's!

And the last poll on electability, about two weeks old, shows she will win 2:1 over a generic candidate, and we all know incumbents do even better once a candidate is named.

You Obama people don't get it. You can spew misinformation all day long, but the American people aren't stupid.

The more people who check Governor Palin's record out, the more that come to her side of the fence.

Palin-Haters UNITE!
Have a glass of milk, and
GO TO BED!

And to all my Gaia Climate worshiper friends out there..... Happy Equinox!!!

"Obama Lied- People Got Laid Off"
joe

John W, I'm well aware of the history of the purchase, but thank you for your repeating of it. However the point remains, Jefferson was able to move beyond the strict constructionalist view of the time, and actually argued against those who used that very line of attack against the purchase.

Secondly, I carefully chose "widely used" as a phrase exactly in light of Jackson's veto. I did not say "universally viewed" or anything similar. As I'm sure you are aware, Jackson's veto was extremely controversial at the time, specifically becasue his view that internal improvements were unconstitutional were at odds with the majority of people in the Congress, and in other political opinions at the time. In afct, Jcakson was the one who was felt by many to have overstepped his Constitutional bounds in issuing the veto. (Not a poisition I in anyway support, so please don't lecture me about it. I'm just giving the historical background) In fact your summery proves my point. Jackson, Van Buren and Tyler would have had no bills to veto if a majority in Congress did not think such spending was constitutional,. The President is not the sole arbiter of Constitutionality, nor the primary one. Your appeals to authority stressing only the views of Presidents are on shaky grounds.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kendle | March 21, 2009 10:20 AM
.
I must commend you on keeping the discussion both civil and intelligent. This kind of discourse tends to be rare on this board.
.
One last point on Jefferson: He was able to overcome his strict-constructionist views with regard to the Louisiana Purchase, and on that point alone. He remained a strict constructionist with regard to the rest of the Constitution. Recall, for instance, his belief the federal government’s power to criminalize behavior extended only to counterfeiting, piracy, treason and perhaps a few other delicts - because only they were expressly mentioned in the Constitution. Jefferson was Jefferson.
.
With regard to the question of the constitutionality of “internal improvements,” I don’t believe I am on shaky ground, as you suggest, by pointing out the fact that many decades worth of Presidents, before and after 1820, either rejected or severely limited such measures on constitutional grounds. Under the Constitution, the President has a unique gatekeeper role with regard to federal legislation. If legislation doesn’t meet his understanding of the Constitution he has the power, and arguably the duty, to veto it. His veto power is often the final word on such matters, subject only to an infrequent override by the entire Congress. In contrast, Congress is a body which is subject to populist pressures and sentiments and which has, from time to time, enacted very unwise and unconstitutional legislation. It was in recognition of Congress’ nature as a populist body that the framers included the presidential veto in the Constitution. Therefore, in a case where the United States Supreme Court has not spoken, I would not favor Congress over the President in most cases in determining whether a bill is or is not constitutional.
.
I will agree with you that Jackson’s veto of the Maysville Road Bill may have been unpopular, but I disagree that it was in any manner “controversial.” Support for, or opposition to, “internal improvement” has always been perfectly predictable on the basis of party affiliation. The Federalists and Whigs, which took a rather expansive view of the Constitution, favored internal improvements regardless of their national character. Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans, and the Democratic Party in Jackson’s day, were largely opposed to such measures (Monroe being excepted). Thus, when Jackson vetoed the Maysville Road Bill, he had ample support from his own party and substantial precedent in the actions of other Presidents. He echoed Madison’s veto of the Bonus Bill of 1817, which also called for internal improvements. Both veto messages employed the same argument: Making such “internal improvements” would obliterate the distinction between matters of a purely local character and those consigned to the federal government’s care. That would, in turn, make Congress into a general legislature rather than the limited one defined by the Constitution and put at risk the independence of the several States. Jackson vetoed six other bills on the same basis.

why has it always been difficult to get people who support Palin based on real and objective issues rather than sentiments? If she has any substance then lets hear it! We see figures that show clearly that Alaska needs a bail out, and that educational funding could benefit greatly from the money she's rejecting and the other side is reeling with so-called principles and anticidents??? I would have thought the welfare of Alaskans is what's at stake and not posturings