Sarah Palin: 'Fighter... next fish run'

Question: Is she collecting her governor's salary while out earning money fishing? Isn't that like double dipping or something or is that not a conflict in Alaska?

Re. Sarah's future: I have read she gets bored once she attains a goal she sets for herself. Could she be bored with politics? Did she not want to be on TV originally? I have a feeling she'll be on a FOX station near you before you know it.

We will never know the truth about Palin, she never operates in that cognitive space.

My, my, my, with more Americans turning to Conservative values, as they now begin to actually witness the failures of the big debt spending policies by Obama and the Dems and are now actually questioning the cover stories of hype and misinformation that the adoring, lefty, bias MSM has produced in support of their not so vetted favorite dude, we are again witnessing the great lefty media campaign of distraction from the real issues facing the American folks. Instead of the MSM and the Swamp asking "where are those 3.5 million jobs, Mr. Prez.?" or "why all the broken campaign promises, Mr. Prez.?" or "how could you even consider raising taxes on the middle class, Mr. Prez. when you were so adamant in your repeated mantra that this would not happen?" None of the above, instead we have another Palin bashing. Well, I can tell you what the next fish run will look like; the dead fish Dems. of this Congress, with their 3 AM non-read, spend and tax, legislation mockery, being tossed overboard by a Conservative voting backlash in 2010. Enough said.

For Sarah Palin so loves Alaska that she's sacrificing her valuable TITLE.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/sarahs-sacrifice/

Bubba - Since 2000 you lost 10 Senate seats, 41 house seats, 8 Governorships.

Is that what we are going to go back too?

Why Bubba Why?

As bubba so proudly announces that the world is turning "conservative" but it seems they aren't turning "republican". 21% now identify themselves as republicans. One of the issues? Well as quick as bubba is to dismiss the stories on Palin.....it is the heart of their problem. Here we have one who is considered as a "front runner" of the GOP who just quit her term early(18 months early). Not even her own "party" knows what the heck she is doing. It also seems quite certain....she......has no idea either.

Palin is the most refreshing, dynamic politician on the American scene today, a far cry from the McCains, Obamas, Bidens, and Pelosi's of the country. There's no doubt why she draws tens of thousands of people wherever she speaks. Now, free of the governor's office constraints, she can bring her message of realism to the lower 48. Whatever her future, she obviously strikes fear into the hearts of the leftist media where her only shortcoming is that she is a conservative. With the Obama disaster, her voice is badly needed in this country.

To bubba: What are you talking about? Where are all of these new Conservatives? Big debt spending started before Obama and Obama is only in his first year... Give him a chance to create those 3.5 million jobs. It cannot happen overnight, especially given the disaster left by the former administration. Obama hasn't broken campaign policies. He's working on them. Sheesh. It's only been, what?, 6 months... It's kind of like dieting. You cannot expect to drop 100 pounds of fat that it took you 8 years to accumulate.

So the crackpot diva who says she's not a quiter, quits, justifies it, and questions anyone who questions her. Sounds like a set-up for a talk show on Fox "News".

Too bad she's dumb as a rock--she'll need a staff to read newspapes, tell her which opinions of the Supreme Court are "bad", and at what late night talk show host to fake indignation.

where are those 3.5 million jobs, Mr. Prez.?"

It took Bush eight years of bad management to run the American economy into the ground.

The GOP obstructionists think President Obama should have waved his magic wand and fixed everything in five months.

The GOP just don't allow themselves ever to be confused by facts.

Whether the media are biased or not, Sarah Palin's resignation underlines one big truth: Sarah Palin is a flake.

One might also ask what did Bush and the republicans do for us in this recession...it started in 2007......a whole year to do something and as usual, they do nothing and leave the blame to the next guy. Kinda the reverse of that oh so terrible Clinton recession Bush and Sean Vannity claimed was left to them that we heard about for years.

Sarah Barracuda to Bailin' Palin in record time.

Man, if she can't handle a few FOIA requests and a bad Letterman joke without running from her post in terror, think what a disaster whe would be as President. Think she could handle Putin if she couldn't handle a Letterman Top Ten list?

Sorry, Sarah, you've been tested and failed. Mayor of Wassila is about all you could handle.

I hate Obama so much it makes me speak in irrational sentences and my hate does not allow me to stay on topic. Because of him, I can't keep my facts straight. Usually I just make them up or regurgitate stuff I hear on O'Reilly, Hannity or Rush. That stupid Obama is dumbing down America (21% of it)

Funny that she should be complaining about all the ethic charges....they are coming on the new ethic changes (law) that she herself championed.

I can't believe people like Bubba and Madison who really think Palin is going to be president one day. It's like they are living in an alternate universe. The republican base loves her (21%), but everyone else thinks she is a joke. 21% is not enough to win any presidential elections. You betcha.

What a complete coward. She can dish it out, but she sure can't take it. Typical bully, she talks tough, but if anyone confronts her in any way, she turns tail and runs.

Ahhh, again and as usual the demented loons on the left are running rampant again. Let's put things in perspective with some facts:
1. The biggest troubling fact about Palin's resignation is that it will only empower the Lefty Loons to continue their hate and destruction of anyting they don't like or that gets in their way. Phony ethics complaints, constant haranguing from the Left and Corrupt Media on Palin and her family drove her out. No political family, including babies, have ever been the target the way the Palin family has.
2. In regard to the past eight years that have been noted in the previous comments, yes, bill r., bush did inherit a recession, a recession that could have been much worse than it was. The tech boom went bust in 2000, sending the stock market and particularly the NASDAQ plunging. True stimulus and tax cuts approved by Bush and the Congress helped the economy stay afloat in the summer of 2001 until 9/11 hit. While the economy lost $1 trillion because of that one day, Bush'a policies again stifled the weak economy so that by 2003 we were well on our way to economic prosperity until 2008. The housing bust and rising energy costs largely caused this recession. Yes, Obama did inherit a recession just as Bush did.
But what Obumbles has done with this recession is to only worsen it. Reckless spending on a stimulus that isn't stimulating anything and in which most of its so-called stimulus won't go into effect until NEXT YEAR, is not how you stimulate a bad economy. Obumbles ballooning the deficit from $500 billion to $2 TRILLION in just one year won't work either. Nationalizing the auto industry, banks, energy and health care industry won't work either. Raising taxes on all won't pull us out of recession either, it will only worsen it. Spending and printing money recklessly will only dive up interest rates and send the dollar crashing. Massive inflation will ensue. Aligning himself with left-wing despots like Chavez, Castro, Putin and others will not benefit the U.S. either.
Obumbles and his shaministration have only exasperated the problems, not helped them.
Oh, and Lochness, if Palin can't earn her salary while fishing, then Obumbles should have lost more than half his salary already. This guy is on vacation practucally all the time, and he still manages to screw things up even when not in DC. And his vacations are on our dime. Palin's vacation is on no one'e dime.

Sarah Palin never understood that her position required more of her than being an office worker.

She had a bad day Thursday, thru up her hands and said I quit. She gave her two weeks notice.

Those that think that Palin could win the presidency are unskilled workers who she in Palin someone like themselves. They are so narcissistic they think they too could be president, that they have the skill set. They can identify with her lack of curiosity her lack of a basic knowledge base of an intelligent high school graduate and they think that her being president validates their intellectual inadequacies. When viewed this way, one's anger subsides and you realize what a pathetic existence they have.

Palin is a Frankin with a "T". Frankin is a wit and she is a twit.

John D......Please present the factors that represent a "recession" in the supposed Clinton recession that Bush inherited. Gross domestic product starting in the first quarter of 1999 and ending with the 4th quarter of 2000: 9,066.6 9,174.1 9,313.5 9,519.5 9,629.4 9,822.8 9,862.1 9,953.6 Please tell me where the "recession is? As you can plainly see but not accept...there were no quarters of decline in this period. Have you some new way of defining recession?

"Nationalizing the auto industry, banks,"

Both actions initiated by George W Bush, and left to the next Administration to deal with in any long tem meaningful way. Bush bailed out the banks. Bush bailed out GM and Chrysler. Blame him if you don't like those actions. Would you have prefered that upon taking office that Obama removed all the bailout funds and moved BofA, Citigroup, GM, and Chrysler into immediate liquidation? Would that have helped the economy John D?

And his vacations are on our dime. Palin's vacation is on no one'e dime.

Posted by: John D | July 7, 2009 1:09 PM

Yeah. Right. Palin charges the state a per diem when she stays in her own home.

Not that Obama has spent hardly any time "on Vacation" He's returned home once since taking office. Bush far exceeded that during his fiirst months in office.

Don't let facts or reality get the way of your argument there.

Bill r. here is some info about the recession that begin in 2000:

http://www.davemanuel.com/2008/01/18/what-is-a-recession/

From this website:
Technically speaking, the United States hasn't entered into a recession for quite a while. There were three quarters of negative growth in 2000 and 2001 (Q3 2000, Q1 2001, Q3 2001), but technically this didn't constitute a recession as there weren't two negative quarters of growth in a row. Most economists will throw the technicalities out of the window and say that we indeed had a recession in late 2000 - 2001, which I would agree with.

Technically speaking, the last true recession lasted from July 1990 to March 1991. After that, the US economy had a basically uninterrupted ten year period of growth which finally started to falter with the popping of the dot-com bubble in 2000 and 9/11 in 2001.

Bill r., there were several quarters in decline during the period you say. Even after 9/11, there was no two consecutive quarters with a decline, even though there were job losses until 2003 and most economists agree that from the end of 2000 until early 2002 we were in a "recession."
Ben, Bush was against bailing out the auto companies, not in favor of it. It was pressure from Congress and the Corrupt Media and unions that GM and Chrysler get bailed out. Most of the bailing out took place in December 2008 and January 2009.
The banks were not nationalized under Bush they way they have been under Obama. Half the bail out took place under Bush, the other half under Obama. Under Bush, TARP was to be temporary. Under Obama, it has become the norm and permanent. Obama took over GM, Bush did not. Obama took over Chrysler, Bush did not.
Last fall, conservatives were saying that GM and Chrysler should file for bankruptcy so they can reoganize and negotiate new deals with the unions. Conservatives said the bailouts would not work and those companies would be filing for bankruptcy anyway. That is exactly what happened. So the billions spent went for naught. Just like the billions Obumbles is spending is going for naught.
As far as vacation time, the Corrupt Media and Loons on the Left counted everyn day Bush was away from the White House as vacation time. Obumbles goes to Camp David practically every weekend, or if he doesn't he jets off to wherever on the taxpayer dime to have din din and a trip to the theater. So, if the weekends Bush spent at Camp David were considered vacation time, then Obumbles weekends at Camp David are vacation time too.

John D....show me the facts. Mine come from the BEA.....the U.S. Department of Commerce or the Bureau of Economic Accounts. They show NO decline in GDP thru the end of 2001. Please name your source or paste it.

"Ben, Bush was against bailing out the auto companies, not in favor of it. It was pressure from Congress and the Corrupt Media and unions that GM and Chrysler get bailed out. Most of the bailing out took place in December 2008 and January 2009."
~~~~~
Completely wrong. Just not true. Congress rejected a automaker bailout program and then Bush created one, all on his own, using TARP funds. In case you forgot George W Bush was President in December 2008, and most of January 2009.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/news/companies/auto_crisis/index.htm

"In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action," Bush added."

As to your nonsense that Obama has made the TARP permanent, the fact is that under Obama the banks have started to pay back the money that Bush forced many to take against their will.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124455528999797923.html

Those are the facts. You can lie all you want, but you just make yourself look stupid in the process.

John D.,
In addition to his many Camp David vacations, on the taxpayers dime, Bush took 495 vacation days at his daddy's ranch in Crawford Texas.This 'ranch' was nothing but a photo op. There were very few, if any, animals on the ranch (Bush is phobic of horses) and the brush and hay were shipped in from elsewhere. They wanted to portray Bush as a gruffy cowboy type, even though he is not a Texas native.

*********
*********
Posted by: John D | July 7, 2009 4:09 PM
.

I'm getting tired of hearing Repuglican whining (Jane D) all the time. Almost all of the sane economists (not Conservatives) said that it would be anywhere from 12-18 months before we saw any sort of results from the Stimulus.

The BushCo Republicans left a turd on Obama's doorstep and it's going to take longer than 5 1/2 months to clean it up.

Sarah's still here?...I thought she was leaving.

Wrong again John D. Obama hasn't spent practically every weekend at Camp David.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-md.campdavid25jun25,0,7784086.story

Do you ever get anything right?

Facts are stubborn things, Palin resigns effective july 26 and then makes a big show about being gone fishin now on july 7?. Well, shouldn't the governor still be on the job and not making money on her families commercial fishing operation? She complains about all the ethics investigations but continues to behave unethically. Eitther quit effective immediately and go fishing, or stay on the job until you quit and don't charge the state for your fishing trips. Maybe this is what passes for ethics for Palin and her ilk, what is good for me is ethical. Palin claims to be interested in working for others but her actions show her to be only interested in herself and her families narrowest interests. A piker is as a piker does. At least Senator Stevens served his state for 40 years before he got his free house. Palin was just the mayor of Wasila for a couple of years when she got her house. Oh well, at least she realizes she isn't really a national political figure anymore, fish slime indeed.

She thrives on challenge. This could mean a number of things including a person who creates a mess inorder to challenge herself. It's not enough being a gov meeting the challenges of the evil media. It's an even bigger challenge not being a gov and meeting the challenges of the evil media. It's not enough being gov and helping people with the right "values principles." We should jump ship and then help out people with the right "values and principles." Like I said, the type to get elected POTUS get us into WWIII with Russia to resign mid-term so as to better effect the war out of office. She's one tough fish, or it's like having a pilot who likes to fly planes on the ground.....

Ben, nice try. The reality is that the Bush administration did not want to use any TARP money for the auto bailout and if there was to be a bailout to use money from the Dept of Energy already set for the auto companies. Bush originally did not want ADDITIONAL taxpayer money used on the auto companies. This link from PBS proves that:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec08/congress_11-17.html

Bill r. I provide a link for my source. Just because the GDP grows from the beginning of the year to the end of the year does not mean a recessio or economic downturn occurred. GDP grew in 2000, but unemployment began rising in 2000, the third quarter was down, the fourth quarter was relatively flat and the first quarter of 2001 was down. Please read the link already provided as well as the information cut from that link.
And Doogie R., as ranch does not have to have animals on it to be a ranch. Hay was not flown in. It is not "daddy's ranch" either.
Here is one for you and the rest of the demented, cracked up loons, the Bush house in Crawford is oodles and oodles more eco-friendly than the Gore mansion. Bush is more eco-friendly than Gore. In fact, sludge is more eco-friendly than Gore.

BillyR,

Here you go pinhead:

http://wwwdev.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

Notice the 73 month expansion right after that.

This is the scariest statistic I've seen in some time, 7-in-10 republicans would vote for her for POTUS in 2012. Unbelievable!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/07/poll-palin-decision-doesnt-change-minds/

Bleeeeeeerg.

Why is Sarah Palin out fishing? Isn't she supposed to be "governing", preparing for the transfer of power? I too want to know if this is not "double-dipping". Isn't she still being paid to be the governor of Alaska? Why wait? Boot her out now if she is not going to earn her salary.

Nick is so right.

Is she wearing designer wading boots?
Did the $150000 wardrobe include the boots?

I sense even she is surprised by the recoil from her amazing resignation.

Deep down, as with most Replicans, for her it's all about the money.

Her party's answer to Miss Piggy.

Don't rule out an impending indictment.

FBI doesn't have to tell what investigations are ongoing. For that matter, they can even deny there's an investiation. Usually it's a ruse to make their prey drop their guard.

In Chicago, sometimes they agree to drop an investigation if and when the target agrees to relinquish a public office.

Is that what happened here?

Nick is so right.

Is she wearing designer wading boots?
Did the $150000 wardrobe include the boots?

I sense even she is surprised by the recoil from her amazing resignation.

Deep down, as with most Replicans, for her it's all about the money.

Her party's answer to Miss Piggy.

Don't rule out an impending indictment.

FBI doesn't have to tell what investigations are ongoing. For that matter, they can even deny there's an investiation. Usually it's a ruse to make their prey drop their guard.

In Chicago, sometimes they agree to drop an investigation if and when the target agrees to relinquish a public office.

Is that what happened here?

friendly, Ok, let us be patient. If that is the case why was it hyped to rush (remember it was not even read, let alone debated) a so called "stimulus" when only 10% of the money has been spent as of today (in a real hurry, huh) and most will not be spent until 2010 (note; just before elections) which appears to be more politically motivated than stimulating. And only a small % of the money is allotted for job creation, like infrastructure, mostly going to fund "nanny" state programs and gov't. jobs, many temporary. But to op this whole "stimulus" debate off, it was Obama whole repeated told us 3.5 million jobs would be created and he did not say that they would come after 2010 or 2012 because average folks would have responded; that does not sound to stimulating to me if these jobs take years to be produced. So in essence the average folks were misled. If it was such a grand idea, why are we hearing about a necessary 2nd "stimulus". Maybe the first one was all wrong, just like conservatives predicted and the economy is revealing. Anyway you cut the pie, Obama and the Dems. policies are just spend borrowed money and then tax everyone and our economy to death, with more gov't. control and that is a recipe for Obamageddon.
billy, we will allow your confusion since you are in mourning over the "king" of pop. How is your anti-war Prez. doing with his new "surge" or is that Bush's fault too?

John D, lousy try. The fact is that the Bush Administration chose to use the TARP money for the auto bailouts all on thier own. They could have easily refused to after the Congress blocked the proposed bailout (most of the no votes being Republican). They did not. That's the reality friend. George W Bush, of his own free will, gave GM and Chrylser money from the TARP. To say otherwise is a complete fabrication. But then you seem to trade more in lies than facts.

John D...and Terry pind88k...John you supply a link to some Joe and an article that offers no proof just opinions. There are not even numbers to back this clowns claim. Terry....read the following from NBER:
The committee believes that the two most reliable comprehensive estimates of aggregate domestic production are normally the quarterly estimate of real Gross Domestic Product and the quarterly estimate of real Gross Domestic Income, both produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis........this is the very same agency I provided the numbers from. Not one of those quarters shows a decline in GDP nor show any for the following year.

It seems funny also that Bush who failed to identify this as a recession was all so quick to identify a false one arriving in office 2001.

Facing the avalanche of grim news Monday, the White House still refuses to use the term "recession" to describe the economic calamity that Barack Obama will inherit from George W. Bush. Two months after press secretary Dana Perino claimed, "I don’t think anybody could tell you right now if we’re in a recession or not" and one month after he himself rejected a question as to whether the U.S. was in a recession as "irrelevant," Bush spokesman Tony Fratto today said of the slowdown, "What's important is what is being done about it."

Of course, back in 2001 the new Bush administration and its amen corner in the right-wing media weren't shy at all when it came to blaming a sluggish economy on Bill Clinton.

While the NEBR determined the George W. Bush's first recession actually began in March 2001, the history of U.S. GDP shows that the traditional definition of recession - two straight quarters of GDP decline - was never met during either the last year of the Clinton presidency or the first of Bush's tenure:

Undeterred, the Republican Party and its echo chamber have for years continued to perpetuate the myth that President Bush "inherited a recession" from Bill Clinton. As Media Matters detailed, the sound bite was introduced before George W, Bush even took the oath of office. On December 3, 2000, Dick Cheney told Tim Russert "I think so" when asked if "we're on the front edge of a recession." Within days, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich ("the Bush-Cheney administration should be planning on having inherited a recession as the farewell gift from Clinton") and House Majority Leader Dick Armey ("this new president may inherit a recession") followed suit. By August 2002, Mitch Daniels, Bush's head of the Office of Management and Budget, announced on Fox News

bill r.,
The echo chamber you speak of won't even admit that Bush inherited surpluses. And the "expansion", that T.Trickle brags about only benefited the already wealthy. Add in the $3 trillion Iraq war of choice (cost of which he left off the budget and borrowed to pay), more tax cuts for the rich, trillions more added to the national debt--that was W's gift to the American public. It will cost trillions to keep our consumer-driven economy from completely imploding, money we don't have, so we're pretty much screwed. We could let it implode (say goodbye to your pensions and what's left of your 401"s), as the free-market absolutionists would have us do, so take your pick, never-ending debt or Soylent Green. It's kind of like the scene in Platoon, where Captain Harris replies to his air support:
Snakebite leader, Bravo Six, for the record, it's my call. Dump everything you got left ON MY POS. I say again, I want all you're holding INSIDE the perimeter. It's a lovely fu@#ing war. Bravo Six Actual and Out.
*
Yeah, it's a lovely f'ing economy. Thanks Dub'ya.

Billy,

"The committee believes that the two most reliable comprehensive estimates of aggregate domestic production" - Key word there is TWO.

If you read further on their website - obviously the first time you have visited it, you will see their analysis is much more comprehensive then TWO indicators.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html

I appluad you effort for trying though - it is more than what 90% of the flatliners do in here.

Speaking of the majority, here is dts,

Bush inherited a projected surplus. Low unemployment during teh 2001-07 expansion - how did that just benefit the rich?

Three trillion on Iraq - you loons just keep expanding these numbers. Provide evidence that we were spending $500 billion/yr on average on the War on Terror in Iraq.

$3 trillion war:
http://librarykvpattom.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/the-three-trillion-dollar-war-the-true-cost-of-war-in-iraq/

Wages were stagnant for the "little people", come out of your bubble, Trickle T.
http://www.epipolicycenter.org/blm-stagnant_wages_and_rising_inequality.pdf

dts,

As long as I am clear that you mean the cost includes the unepended future costs, I won't argue with your method, although the numbers for these types of studies can be squishy.

What was the "total cost" of FDR's WW2, Truman's Korean War, JFK-Nixon's VietNam. Put those wars' costs into 2009 dollars and you will probably see even larger numbers since there were a lot more soliders.

Since you are now looking at total future costs, please tell me the total cost of FDR's Social Security plan, LBJ's Medicare plan, and Bush's Perscription Drug plan. The cost of the war on terror in Iraq is a drop in the bucket compared the cost of these programs.

I owuld think the "little people" as you call them would take their "stagnant wages" during the last 8 years over their "no wages" of 2009.

I owuld think the "little people" as you call them would take their "stagnant wages" during the last 8 years over their "no wages" of 2009.

Posted by: Terry | July 10, 2009 8:12 PM

Which administration saw the unemployment rate go from 4.8% to 7.6% in 2008?