Sarah Palin

[smc]

The lastest edition of The Boston Phoenix, our weekly "alternative" newspaper here, has an editorial that begins with something worth sharing in this thread, because it made me laugh out loud.

"If Sarah Palin were to smoke a joint while piloting a flying saucer to Cuba, evidence suggests that more than one third of America would approve."

Now that's a great image (see below for the actual image that accompanies the piece in print). The editorial goes on to explain:

"That's not because Palin is especially popular. She isn't. Last month, 71 percent of Americans surveyed for a CBS News poll said they did not want to see Palin run for president and 41 percent said that they had a negative opinion of her. Only 26 percent viewed her positively.

"Given all of Palin's ink and tube time, that is pretty sketchy. But the fact of the matter is that more Americans favor legalizing marijuana (41 percent) than favor Palin.

"More Americans have a favorable view of Cuba (38 percent) than of Palin.

"And more Americans believe in UFOs (34 percent) than think Palin should sit in the Oval Office."

And to put that in the Palin context:

"Professional politicans and news executives consider legalizing pot and normalizing relations with Cuba to be marginal issues (Nobody has ever accused the political class -- or the corporate monopolies that control mainstream media -- of being forward looking. As for negotiating with beings from outer space, we'll leave that to the tea partiers to sort out.) Yet these marginal issues enjoy an average favorability of 38 percent, making them 12 points more popular than Palin.

"Does that mean Palin should fire up a bone, hop into her spaceship, and hightail it to Havana? One can only dream. Sarah in the sky toking away would at least be newsworthy. Talk about woman bites dog."

The editorial's real thrust -- in case you're interested -- is about "TV's conservative bias" (that's the headline from the Phoenix). I won't go any further than that, because I don't want to spark a secondary discussion. I just thought my forum friends would enjoy this bit of the editorial.

[randolph]

Hilarious and an interesting comparison of ratings. Spacey indeed!

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by smc

"That's not because Palin is especially popular. She isn't. Last month, 71 percent of Americans surveyed for a CBS News poll said they did not want to see Palin run for president and 41 percent said that they had a negative opinion of her. Only 26 percent viewed her positively.

"Given all of Palin's ink and tube time, that is pretty sketchy. But the fact of the matter is that more Americans favor legalizing marijuana (41 percent) than favor Palin.

"More Americans have a favorable view of Cuba (38 percent) than of Palin.

"And more Americans believe in UFOs (34 percent) than think Palin should sit in the Oval Office."

Except as you stated at the beginning, the article comes from an "alternative" paper, which will clearly have a political leaning (most likely Left). And I find it interesting that they quote poll numbers, but in the excerpts you supplied it's never stated WHERE they actually came from or how legitimate they are.

So, let's look at actual numbers from a reputable source. As of today, here's what America is REALLY thinking and feeling, courtesy of Gallup...

Obama has a 50% approval rating -- meaning the country is literally split right down the middle. Half of us like him, half of us hate him.

The bad news for Obama and the Democrates? Overall, the current rate of national unemployment and/or under-employed is 19.7%. That means a staggering 1 out 5 Americans need jobs.

Equally bad: 45% of Americans consider economic conditions "poor", while only 9% rate it good. But the biggest blow of all is that 56% -- a clear majority -- say economic conditions are STILL getting WORSE.

Based on a Feb 1-3 poll, currently 44% of Americans would vote to reelect Obama, while 42% -- essentially a statistical tie -- now say they'd vote for ANY Republican candidate, even unnamed at this time, just to unseat Obama.

As with the last election, Independents are the key. But right now, Obama has his work cut out for them. Independents are the fastest growing political affiliation in the country. However, Independents would now prefer a Republican in the Oval Office over Obama, by a 45% to 31% spread.

So, what does this mean for Palin?
Actually, it means she's creeping up, as this LA TIMES article notes...

Not that it matters politically because obviously she's a female Republican dunce
and he's obviously a male Democratic genius.

But Sarah Palin's poll numbers are strengthening.
And President Obama's are sliding.
Guess what? They're about to meet in the 40s.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ers-are-c.html

[smc]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Except as you stated at the beginning, the article comes from an "alternative" paper, which will clearly have a political leaning (most likely Left). And I find it interesting that they quote poll numbers, but in the excerpts you supplied it's never stated WHERE they actually came from or how legitimate they are.

So, let's look at actual numbers from a reputable source. As of today, here's what America is REALLY thinking and feeling, courtesy of Gallup...

Obama has a 50% approval rating -- meaning the country is literally split right down the middle. Half of us like him, half of us hate him.

The bad news for Obama and the Democrates? Overall, the current rate of national unemployment and/or under-employed is 19.7%. That means a staggering 1 out 5 Americans need jobs.

Equally bad: 45% of Americans consider economic conditions "poor", while only 9% rate it good. But the biggest blow of all is that 56% -- a clear majority -- say economic conditions are STILL getting WORSE.

Based on a Feb 1-3 poll, currently 44% of Americans would vote to reelect Obama, while 42% -- essentially a statistical tie -- now say they'd vote for ANY Republican candidate, even unnamed at this time, just to unseat Obama.

As with the last election, Independents are the key. But right now, Obama has his work cut out for them. Independents are the fastest growing political affiliation in the country. However, Independents would now prefer a Republican in the Oval Office over Obama, by a 45% to 31% spread.

So, what does this mean for Palin?
Actually, it means she's creeping up, as this LA TIMES article notes...

Not that it matters politically because obviously she's a female Republican dunce
and he's obviously a male Democratic genius.

But Sarah Palin's poll numbers are strengthening.
And President Obama's are sliding.
Guess what? They're about to meet in the 40s.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ers-are-c.html

Just so there's no confusion, which could be inadvertently sown by your posting CreativeMind, my posting of the editorial from the Boston Phoenix should in no way be construed as my agreement or disagreement with the points it made. I thought it was interesting and humorous and simply wanted to share.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by smc

Just so there's no confusion, which could be inadvertently sown by your posting CreativeMind, my posting of the editorial from the Boston Phoenix should in no way be construed as my agreement or disagreement with the points it made. I thought it was interesting and humorous and simply wanted to share.

No prob, SMC -- that wasn't the conclusion I was drawing, nor trying to infer with my post either. So, sorry if MY post read that way. I realize you posted the excerpts for the reason you stated -- namely, the article made you laugh. Hey, for that matter, a few of the images it called up made ME laugh too!

And, on the flip side, my post shouldn't infer that I'm endorsing Palin either because I'm not. To be honest, I'm the one person (as of now) in the poll who voted in the middle and said he could take her or leave her.

Personally, I think Palin is a work-in-progress and that's what makes her frustrating for me, given the amount of national attention she gets. Do I think she's qualified to run for President? Sure. After all, there's only two rules to run. She's of age and was born in the U.S. So, she's good to go. And I hold that opinion for ANYONE -- rich or poor, famous or not, a background in politics or not -- who decides to run for the office. I think that's part of being an American and respecting that our Founding Fathers wanted the presidency to ALWAYS be a wide-open competition, which is exactly why they DIDN'T put further limitations on "who" can run.

Does she have the background? Sure. She was in regional politics and rose up the ladder to winning a governorship. So that puts her in a semi-exclusive league. Do I think she has the intelligence? Yes -- at times. That's why she frustrates me and I consider her a work-in-progress. Sometimes she totally nails things in a very succinct way...and yet otimes she comes off like the kid in class who got caught not doing their homework, and you're left wondering "Who the fuck prepared her for this interview today?"

As for personality and star power -- she's certainly got that. Historically speaking, for all the attention (at the time) that centered on Obama potentially being the first Black president ever...and for all the hype and hoopla that surrounded his convention speech in Denver, which attracted so many people they had to hold it in a football stadium...let's not forget that ultimately Palin's convention speech actually drew MORE TV viewers and had HIGHER ratings, which was amazing because -- in comparison to Obama -- it was on fewer broadcast outlets. And her fame and popularity was only cemented with her recent book tour, where thousands upon thousands showed up to see her.

Would I vote for her? I don't know. It really depends on how the 2010 midterm elections go and Congress is balanced out. Overall, I'm with the majority in the Gallup poll, who feel that having the Democrats controlling all 3 branches of government right now is a bad, bad thing. So, ironically, if the Republicans get back Congress, I could see Obama winning reelection (since I think people personally like him) and him then having a fairly successful presidency by becoming another Bill Clinton -- where he's literally forced by the balance of Congress to keep things straight down the middle, and thus satisfy the majority of Americans.

[Hedonistman]

her serious religiousity scares me. Seperation between church and state is 1 of our most critical principles,,, Sarah doesn't seem to quite get that. But she's stone cold st8 up honest, and DC sure needs a huge dose of that. There's no way we'll ever have meaningful change from the likes of Obamaman, or any other insider. Say what you will, but it ain't gonna happen.

[ila]

Originally Posted by Hedonistman

her serious religiousity scares me. Seperation between church and state is 1 of our most critical principles,,, Sarah doesn't seem to quite get that. But she's stone cold st8 up honest, and DC sure needs a huge dose of that. There's no way we'll ever have meaningful change from the likes of Obamaman, or any other insider. Say what you will, but it ain't gonna happen.

Separation of church and state does not mean that a politician is not allowed to have any religion at all or that a politician is not allowed to express opinions about and/or based on religion. Separation of church and state simply means that laws are not allowed to be passed that are based on any religion.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

Separation of church and state does not mean that a politician is not allowed to have any religion at all or that a politician is not allowed to express opinions about and/or based on religion. Separation of church and state simply means that laws are not allowed to be passed that are based on any religion.

In the United States, the separation is a bit more complex than just not allowing laws based on any religion. That type of law might be one that requires us all to accept Jesus as our personal savior.

But it also disallows laws that can be construed as limiting any religion in any way. And therein lies the biggest problem, because the "limit" has been defined as restricting taxes on the many of the huge real estate and corporate holdings of, for example, the Mormon Church (holdings that have nothing to do with religion per se, but are financial investments); most of the financial empire of Scientology; and so on.

Just a clarification.

I bet, though, that if a reporter were to ask Sarah Palin to explain this concept, cite the article of the U.S. constitution, or reference even one court case related to it, she would get her "deer-in-the-headlights" look, then wink, and then try to change the subject. Unless, of course, she knew the question was coming and had written the answers on her hand.

[Hedonistman]

Originally Posted by ila

Separation of church and state does not mean that a politician is not allowed to have any religion at all or that a politician is not allowed to express opinions about and/or based on religion. Separation of church and state simply means that laws are not allowed to be passed that are based on any religion.

Have you read her book ?? If not might ck it,, I think you may see what I mean.
She is VERY wrapped up in traditional christian beliefs. I think when a person is dogmatic, as Palin appears to be, they can't help but have their decision making at least somewhat 'clouded' by their belief system...

[buscador]

Ann Coulter...YES YES & YES