Can you believe this guy? (I mean that in a NICE way)

Sorry not to have posted today. Aside from doing the work I usually do to get the opinion pages out, I'm dealing with a lot of e-mails and phone calls related to my personal and professional news — mostly very kind and thoughtful (although not quite all — hey, you know my public).

When I came in this morning, I was going to write something about our governor's latest, which is pretty wild and crazy and outrageous. I decided the headline was going to be, "Can you believe this guy?" I was going to say, he only wants the stimulus on his terms? Oh, yeah, it's all about him, all right, yadda-yadda…

But before I could write it, I got a call from the governor himself, in which he was very kind and gracious — which actually didn't surprise me a bit. On a personal level, I think he's a fine person, even though I wish he weren't our governor. Can you follow that (because a lot of people have trouble with it)? I said so here on the blog back when we endorsed his opponent in 2006:

If we went on the basis of who we like, I'd probably have gone with
Sanford. I know him, and I personally like him. I really have to force
myself to look at what he's doing (and not doing) as governor and shove
aside the fact that I like the guy.

I mean, I was kidding around a little when I said I was willing to put my life in his hands back here, but I was also being serious. The fact is that on a personal level he is a fine gentleman. Hand in hand with the fact that he places WAY too much faith in the private sector is the fact that in his private LIFE I see him as a good father and husband and so forth.

Anyway, he was very gracious in saying this morning that while we have had our differences, he had a certain respect for me and my colleagues, and he went on to pay us a compliment that you might find curious, but which I appreciated.

He cited the Teddy Roosevelt saying that "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena." Now, if I stopped there, you would think he actually meant to malign me and aggrandize himself, because here is the context of that portion of the speech TR delivered at the Sorbonne in 1910:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

As you can see, it would be easy to cast me and those like me as the "critic," and the governor as the man in the arena.

But his purpose in saying that was to say that he sees me — and my colleagues on this editorial board — as also being in the arena, as among those who take risks, who strive valiantly, "who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause." I thought that was very generous of the governor, and perceptive, too — in that it's smart of him to know that I would LIKE to be described that way.

When I was 22 years old and starting out in this business, I wouldn't have wanted a politician to suggest I was in the arena. I was filled with all that J-school stuff about detachment and objectivity, and would rather have been cast as the critic. But along the way, I started to CARE about what happened to my community, my state, my country, the world — which ruined me as the kind of journalist I once aspired to be, but which I truly hope made me more useful to society. I have worked hard with that goal in mind — that of being useful, of trying to make a difference.

And I truly appreciate the governor recognizing that, and taking the time to tell me.

So, can you believe this guy? Only in this case, I mean that in a nice way.

50 thoughts on “Can you believe this guy? (I mean that in a NICE way)

  1. KP

    In deference to Lee, I wasn’t going to be the first to post obsessively. But the Titanic is going down, so I’ll have my say.
    Here’s what I think. If Sanford has a headstone, it should read like this: “Ideologically pure, practically disastrous.”
    If you’re a purist, it might make sense to take $700 million and apply it to a future debt we don’t yet have.
    If you need a job — in a poor state, where no one in a leadership position has been attracting jobs for the past seven years, where unemployment benefits cost more than we have, where (even suffering) schools have absorbed more than $350 million in cuts, where prisons and roads and the highway patrol have been woefully underfunded since Sanford was elected — maybe not.

    Reply
  2. Randy E

    Brad, I think you have a talent for compartmentalizing personal and professional aspects of your career.
    Sanford may very well be a nice person. When he wants “stimulus” money directed away from spending, he’s making a decision that will hurt people. I guess this is compassionate conservatism, a tried and failed policy that the majority soundly rejected the past two elections.

    Reply
  3. Lee Muller

    The state constitution forbids government debt, yet the state, counties, cities, school districts, water districts and industrial parks issue hundreds of millions of dollars of bonds, quite illegally.
    Sanford is right to pay off this illegal debt, which will eliminate billions in interest payments, and lower taxes for everyone.
    Blowing the Pelosi Pork money on some government jobs for 2 years would be like a sugar buzz: over quickly, with no long-term nutrition. The poor saps in these make-work jobs would be back on welfare, or state taxes would have to be drastically increased to continue another burned out federal spending spree. We don’t need to fall for that trap.

    Reply
  4. Greg Flowers

    Article X of the S.C. Constitution provides the conditions under which debt may be incurred by both the State and its political subdivisions. I have worked in this area, bond lawyers are very careful people and they would not do anything without clear legal authority. In addition there is statutory authority for each type of debt “fleshing out” the Constitutional authority.

    Reply
  5. Bill C.

    It’s amazing to read Randy E’s comments. He still doesn’t get it. He’d rather the governor go on a shopping spree with the stimulus money than pay off existing debt. Is this how he would handle things in his house? The state is the governor’s “house”. I realize reckless spending is how Democrats like to operate (just look at what Obama signed today and Pelosi suggesting that we need a 2nd stimulus package before the first one is signed into law) but you’d think they would at least make an attempt to throttle back a little considering the current economic situation.
    Had the state legislature listened to Sanford in the boom years we wouldn’t have this serious problem in the bust years. We’re paying for it now and liberals are screaming because Sanford won’t give them a handout. It’s like these people don’t have a clue or ever had to balance a checkbook.

    Reply
  6. Rich

    Our governor is preparing this state for a Democratic landslide in the next election. Push come to shove, people vote their pocketbooks. Besides, you can’t have a stimulus package without spending.
    I am not convinced that handing money to banks is the way to do it. I do support increased government spending on social programs, schools, infrastructure, health care, etc. We need these things and government is uniquely positioned to rationalize the process of service delivery at a modest cost and without competition. Take health care, for instance, if we had a federal insurance system and could take health care away from employers as a responsibility, think of the savings to private firms. True, the health insurance industry would be effectively nationalized. But why is having a corps of modestly paid government bureaucrats running a firm inferior to having rapacious executives being paid huge salaries running their companies for their own personal aggrandizement?
    We’re in the pickle we’re in because of capitalism run amok. Unregulated, the system does not do anything except suck money from the poor and middle classes to give it to the wealthy.
    As for the S.C. constitution cited above, I don’t think there could be a more contemptible document. The only basic law that counts is the U.S. constitution.
    Just let S.C. ever try and secede again. Not only would a huge percentage of South Carolinians of all backgrounds rise up and crush the rebellion, federal troops would be employed to finish the job.
    This is not the Soviet Union. We’re not about to go down the road we went down in 1861. My loyalty is to my country. The state in which I live is nothing more than a geographical expression and a political subdivision of the larger state to which I owe my loyalty and respect: The United States of America. Period.
    The sooner we lose governor Numbnuts, the better!

    Reply
  7. Johannesdesilencio

    Brad,
    Sanford likes you just fine now that you’ve finally and belatedly been fired. I feel the same way, though I won’t be as gracious as Governor Sanford. I am optimistic that maybe someone will take over with greater sensitivity to local sentiment. It has been disturbing to watch you support crooks and cronies while lambasting principled people. My guess is that you’ll find a high-paying job with one of the crooks. All in the name of “service” of course.

    Reply
  8. mark g

    I sincerely believe Sanford has a personality disorder of some kind. He can’t get along with anyone in government. He is against everything, and proposes nothing. Except cutting of course.
    His two terms have been a disaster for the state. SC’s economy was in a downward spiral before this recession hit. During Sanford’s terms, unemployment grew higher– among the highest in the nation, and no significant business development occurred.
    Now he is on an ego trip on national TV, making a laughingstock of SC. He can’t talk about any innovative ideas or accomplishments– because there really aren’t any. So he does what he does best– criticizing and posturing.
    It’s really swell that he called you and wished you well. But he’s a spoiled rich guy who has never worked outside government, and who doesn’t have a clue about the average people in this state.

    Reply
  9. Weldon VII

    We’re in the pickle… because of capitalism run amok.
    Naw, Rich, we’re in this mess because Democrats have had their hand out so long they’ve lost their grip on reality.
    As for the S.C. constitution cited above, I don’t think there could be a more contemptible document.
    Almost every post you’ve ever made on this blog exceeds our state constitution in contemptibility, Rich. Your federalist, anti-religious, Marxist ululations find support neither in the U.S. Constitution nor in practicum.
    The state in which I live is nothing more than a geographical expression and a political subdivision of… The United States of America.
    Not so, Rich. The Constitution delegates certain powers to the states and not to the federal government.
    Any history teacher ought to know that.
    Why don’t you?

    Reply
  10. Ralph Hightower

    It was nice of Sanford to call Brad and offer goodbyes.
    However, being an outstanding family man does not qualify one to be a great governor. I would even classify Sanford as a mediocre governor. I classify Sanford worse than Beastley or Hodges.
    Sanford can’t even get along with members of his own party in South Carolina. If he can’t lead South Carolina, why does he think that he could lead the nation?
    The State needs to collect all of the Sanford articles, positive and negative, including members of his cabinet and put it on the web in the unlikely event that Sanford runs for president.
    If Sanford can’t lead SC’s General Assembly, he won’t be able to lead Congress.
    I learned much about Sarah Palin from the Anchorage Daily News that was not in the media.
    However, Wall Street doesn’t read The State; they see and hear what he thinks and believes from the Cato Institute, Club for Growth, and CPAC.
    Camden’s own syndicated columnist, Kathleen Parker, is in their circle. Sanford’s smoke and mirrors doesn’t fool her.
    Only six hundred and seventy-one days to go for a new day in South Carolina.

    Reply
  11. Randy E

    He’d rather the governor go on a shopping spree with the stimulus money than pay off existing debt. – Bill C
    Bill, stimulus means SPENDING! How will paying off debt be a catalyst for spending? It’s supply and demand. People spending money creates demand. SC now has the 2nd highest unemployment rate in the US and the fastest growing unemployment rate. Paying down the debt does not address this. Your continued insensitivity towards those who are unemployed is sad but at least you were able to post without a racist statement this time.
    Let’s see you address this issue with an economics context and not a platitude.

    Reply
  12. Bill C.

    Randy E – So we should just let the existing debt keep accruing interest and run to the mall with a fist full of money? This stimulus money is “one time money”, once it’s spent it’s done… unless Pelosi gets her way and the Treasury will fire up the printing presses one more time. What Sanford is doing is called being fiscally responsible. It’s a shame that people like you don’t see it. The stimulus bill is a sham, period. It was a way for the politicians (note that every Democrat in Congress voted for the bill) to ramrod their pet project through. Obama is upset (or so he says) but signed the bill anyway. Before the ink was even dry Pelosi is suggesting a 2nd stimulus bill. Randy, answer me this… and maybe I’ll admit that I was wrong, “Where is this stimulus money coming from?”. Is fixing potholes and building courthouses going to create jobs… around SC maybe for the Greencard holders that will ship most of it back to Mexico or spend it on Made in China items at Walmart. I guess buying banks in China and lending money to companies in Dubai to fund construction in their own country is going to put Americans back to work. If more politicians were as fiscally responsible as Sanford we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
    Give the race card a break Randy, you’ve used it so much lately the ink is barely noticeable anymore.
    As far as being insensitive toward the unemployed, I’ve been there… for three weeks until I went out and found a job. It wasn’t what I wanted to be doing, but I was working and not leaching off the government. I worked it for two years before I got back into the line of work I wanted to be doing. I could have easily filed for unemployment extensions, sat on my butt watching Oprah or on the front porch and complaining but that’s not how I was raised. I was raised with the philosophy of “work if you want to eat”.

    Reply
  13. Randy Ewart

    Bill C, let’s review your comments:
    Do blacks not view making it to the professional ranks as successful?
    By attributing this value to African-Americans as if were exclusive to them, you are making a racist comment.
    In response to Brad’s news:
    I hear the Free Times might be looking for a liberal blogger.
    Petty and small.
    There are plenty of others and you’ve had others criticize you for this. Why not post your entire name if you are so certain about the reasonableness of your posts?

    Reply
  14. Randy Ewart

    Is fixing potholes and building courthouses going to create jobs… Bill C
    As a matter of fact, YES Bill, they will. On the news this week they talked about “survival jobs” which are jobs overqualified people are taking in abundance because of desperation.
    Of course, this will not be the case in SC because of the Governor. He’ll pay off part of the debt while 10%+ (and growing the fastest of all states) of the state looks for work. Meanwhile, they don’t pay taxes; they lose health insurance and must rely on the emergency rooms – the defacto universal health care we already have; they don’t have money to spend so demand for SC products and goods decrease so they lay off people and the vicious cycle continues. It’s supply and demand.
    Bill C, let’s assume Sanford pays down the debt as you want. What happens to the economy? How does it get better? My bet is you have NO IDEA which is why you avoid answering this.

    Reply
  15. bud

    I was raised with the philosophy of “work if you want to eat”.
    -Bill C
    What if you can’t find work? Millions can’t. With 10.4% unemployment I would say upwards of 200,000 folks in SC who want to work are unable to find work. Paying down the deficit will do nothing to help those people and in the end they are likely to be joined by even more. Now is not the time to arrogantly flaunt your work ethic. If I’m out of work and can’t find it it doesn’t matter how willing I am to work hard.

    Reply
  16. Mab

    Ralph said —
    “If Sanford can’t lead SC’s General Assembly, he won’t be able to lead Congress.”
    Who can herd cats?
    Fat cats at that?

    Reply
  17. ElizabethAnne

    To you guys that say or imply that Brad is a Liberal: News flash! There are no real Liberals at The State Paper, nor in any other political/media arena. You make me laugh! There certainly are a lot of Dems( both Liberal and moderate) and moderate Republicans in the general population, and God bless all of them. But if you think that Sanford has done marvelous things for the people of SC, you are off your proper medications. And to The State paper, are those people you laid off and their family and friends going to buy your paper? I think probably not. So, your income has deceased. Maybe you will start printing the real news and things that we need to know. Brad, you have the right to like whoever you wish, but how you can really like Sanford is beyond me. At least you realize his politics are so off base!

    Reply
  18. Welodon VII

    To the tune of (pardon me, Sam Cooke) “Bring It On Home To Me”:
    When the race card is all you’ve got
    You might just find you ain’t got squat
    Oh, oh, give up on it
    Give up on that race card
    It just don’t suit no more.
    Look up on top and see who’s there
    So now the race card gets you nowhere
    Oh, oh, give up on it
    Give on on that race card
    It just don’t suit no more.

    Reply
  19. bud

    More GOP family values. What a sham. The teenagers stayed together for the sake of the Republican Party and now it’s over. The Limbaugh led party is nothing but a lunatic asylum.
    A source close to Bristol Palin, daughter of Sarah, mother to Tripp and her fiance, Levi Johnson, father of Tripp, told People the couple broke up a few weeks ago.
    -Politico

    Reply
  20. Doug Ross

    Bud,
    I think I put an open invitation for bets on whether the marriage would occur once McCain lost. It was a lock.
    And to think Bristol went on with Greta just a short while ago and lied through her teeth while Momma looked on.
    How people can’t see through Palin’s shtick is beyond me.

    Reply
  21. Mab

    Bud…Doug…
    Would you guys really pride yourselves today, on decisions you made at age 18?
    Some of our better ones only bought us a ride in the paddywagon. 1st class ticket to jail.
    Give the girl a break!

    Reply
  22. Doug Ross

    It’s not the girl who has the problem, it’s her mother.
    The girl is just caught up in her mother’s web of lies.

    Reply
  23. Doug Ross

    And I’m 100% sure that if my daughter was in the same situation as Palin’s, I wouldn’t put my own personal ambitions ahead of her needs.
    Maybe her third kid will actually make it through high school. She’s 0-2 so far.

    Reply
  24. Mab

    Like I originally thought, the baby may have been a planned ‘accident.’ To keep her and, hopefully her mother, out of the White House and living large in AK.

    Reply
  25. penultimo mcfarland

    Bud, is telling lies about Republicans all that turns you on? You’ve sent this thread veering off into one of the sickest sets of ridiculum I’ve ever seen on this blog.
    Have you no shame?

    Reply
  26. Lee Muller

    Mr. Flowers,
    Bonds are debt instruments. All the legal justifications are just that, excuses to get around the blunt fact that the the state of SC is forbidden to run a deficit. So they play legal games, move money back and forth between accounts. It is all dishonest.
    Buying government bonds just enables irresponsible politicians, and it wastes taxpayer money. Governments should not pay interest. They should pay cash. That is a primary rationale for government – to let people pitch in a little money together to provide for what they cannot do on their own. If you are going to borrow the money, you can do that with a corporation or association, without government.

    Reply
  27. Randy Ewart

    As I predicted. Bill C won’t explain his understanding of how the economy would be fixed.
    Bill C, what plan do you support for fixing the economy? Tax cuts? Tap our ruby slippers together?

    Reply
  28. Doug Ross

    Bill C. says:
    > Doug and Bud – You sound like two old
    >ladies.
    Somebody’s got to bring some values to the table. It ain’t Sarah Palin.

    Reply
  29. Greg Flowers

    I do not necessarily disagree with your statement that governments should pay cash but, incurring bonded indebtedness is not, contrary to your assertion, violative of the State Constitution. And yes, bonds are debt instruments, thank you for pointing that out to me. Industrial parks are not political subdivisions in this state or anywhere else I am aware of.
    I am not making legal justifications, as I point out Article X expressly provides for bonded indebtedness. Even if one were to take the prohibition against deficits to include bonded debt, which it was not included to do, the debt portions of Article X have been amended more recently than the deficit provision giving them precdence (if there were indeed a conflict). In addition, our state supreme court has considered public debt in this state on many, many occasions and has not found it to be illegal (certain types of debt have been but not bonded debt in general). When the highest court has signed off on something it is legal whether it agrees with your political preferences or not.

    Reply
  30. Greg Flowers

    I have been unable to locate the section of the Constitution prohibiting a deficit. Please direct me to it.

    Reply
  31. Greg Flowers

    The General Assembly shall provide by law for a budget process to insure that annual expenditures of state government may not exceed annual state revenue.
    This may be what you are talking about. What this means and was always intended to mean is that annual revenues (including reserve fund monies) cannot be exceeded by annual expenditures including debt service.

    Reply
  32. Bart

    Beijing Hugs Ronald Reagan by Monica Crowley
    Ah, the irony.
    The Chinese Communist government is teaching us a thing or two about the free market.
    Feeling the effects of global economic downturn, the Chinese put together a relatively modest stimulus package that reduces individual tax burdens and cuts wasteful spending.
    It did something else as well.
    The government cut taxes in half on small cars. The result? Car sales surging by 25 percent, the first gain in four months.
    What do you know?
    China cut taxes, and auto sales spiked.
    China cut taxes, and a part of its economy started to boom.
    Cutting taxes equals economic growth.
    The Chinese Commies get it.
    Billy Idol gets it.
    Still waiting for the American Democrats to get it.

    Reply
  33. Marie

    Regarding the pork–
    If SC takes the money, we’re on the hook for brand new bureacrocies and state employees far into the future, with no funds to pay for either. The “stimulus” is a thinly veiled bribe to commit economic suicide.
    I’m sad that some folks are out of work but that’s when the rubbber meets the road. Find something here, be willing to relocate, whatever one has to do. But don’t put all us taxpayers on the hook for your next job.
    Good luck on the job hunt, Mr. Warthen.

    Reply
  34. Marie

    Regarding the Palins–
    There’s no logical reason for the vitriol displayed on this site concerning the Palins. Perhaps if any of you had shown similar outrage over John Edwards, Jesse Jackson, or anyone else with less-than-stellar family situations I might take you a bit more serious. As it stands, you guys are one step below “Entertainment Weekly” and the “National Enquirer.”
    Perhaps a good hard look in the mirror would do you all good.

    Reply
  35. Randy Ewart

    Marie, Palin’s issue is HYPOCRISY, that’s why it’s different.
    Regarding the money, think about this. If you lose your job and have to support your kids you wouldn’t borrow any money? You’d let your kids go hungry? If it were me, I’d use a credit card to buy my kids groceries.
    The unemployment in SC is 10.4% and rising the fastest in the nation. That’s lots of people who don’t have money for the basic needs! One unemployed SC citizen called into CSPAN when Sanford was interviewed. Sanford told the guy; sorry to hear your troubles, I’ll say a prayer for you.

    Reply
  36. Marie

    “Marie, Palin’s issue is HYPOCRISY, that’s why it’s different.”
    Hypocrisy?? About what? Does that mean that Gov. Palin recognizes that morality and standards exist and thinks they’re good things, although her daughter may not yet understand that? If that’s “hypocrisy,” every single person on the planet may be guilty.
    The only sin in the liberal bible is “hypocrisy” and it has an automatic absolution built in for liberals. That I will never understand. Geither is a criminal hypocrite, Obama is a hypocrite, Pelosi is a hypocrite–but somehow Palin’s DAUGHTER’S actions make Gov Palin guilty of “hypocrisy?”
    The congnitive dissonance required to connect those dots is beyond my ken.
    “Regarding the money, think about this. If you lose your job and have to support your kids you wouldn’t borrow any money? You’d let your kids go hungry? If it were me, I’d use a credit card to buy my kids groceries.”
    The better option is to have a savings account available and cut the non-essentials like cable, cell phone, etc. Only if and when all else fails would I use a credit card.
    But when Sanford was telling the legislature to create the savings account they all whined about it and spent like your average subprime mortgagee.
    “The unemployment in SC is 10.4% and rising the fastest in the nation. That’s lots of people who don’t have money for the basic needs!”
    Then it’s time to do something–move, take a job you may not like, whatever it takes. The answer isn’t the State accepting the bribe from the Feds that is going to prolong the problem.
    “One unemployed SC citizen called into CSPAN when Sanford was interviewed. Sanford told the guy; sorry to hear your troubles, I’ll say a prayer for you.”
    What is the Gov. supposed to do for this person? Since when is it the Governor’s job to fill out job apps and resumes for anyone? His job is to create a climate that results in more business coming to the state. It’s the individual’s job to manage their personal circumstances.
    Obama is trying to outlaw the company in which I and 14,000 other South Carolinians work, so I won’t be surprised if I’m in the unemployed ranks before the end of the year. But the LAST thing I’d think to do about my lack of a job is call the Governor expecting him to make it all better.
    We’re a state of spoiled babies, sad to say.

    Reply
  37. Marie

    I’m curious–just what makes Gov Palin guily of “hypocricy?”
    Seems to me she’s demonstrated just the opposite. When confronted by an unexpected pregnancy with a Downs Syndrome baby, she followed her convictions rather than killing the baby. If she had aborted, she’d be guilty of hypocricy.

    Reply
  38. Doug Ross

    Marie,
    Did you happen to watch Bristol and Sarah Palin’s puff piece on the Greta Van Sustern show just a couple weeks ago? The one where they talked about what a great father Levi was and the marriage plans(even though now we know the couple had already broken up)?
    Palin is what’s wrong with politics.

    Reply
  39. Randy E

    Palin’s hypocrisy stems mostly from her attempt to take the moral high ground while taking the low road in many areas.
    1. She takes an extreme position on social issues; life (with which I happen to agree), censorship, gay marriage, abstinence. So these issues pertain to other households but not her own. For example, it’s ok that her daughter is an unwed mother but unwed mothers as a whole is a problem in this country (see posts by Lee and Bill C for such vitriol).
    2. She railed against earmarks and was dishonest about the “bridge to no where” yet her state has the highest per capita intake of federal funds and she still TOOK THE MONEY that was originally designated for the bridge. She also received a special consideration in construction on her house. She also billed the state for the nights she stayed in her OWN HOUSE.
    3. She uses specious arguments about Obama “palling around with terrorists” and talked about “real America” which were determined by her yet. If she wants to question Obama’s judgement about Ayers, fine. Present an HONEST case. She knows there was no palling around. In the broader context, she was attempting to be divisive while championing ideals of the UNITED States.
    4. She blamed McCain handlers for putting her in a position to fail with Couric. A candidate for the vise presidency of the United States was blaming others because she couldn’t handle questions like “what do you read?” (She then went on to blame Couric for being condescending in asking that question. Imagine what Putin would do to her if she had to face him one on one.)
    Marie, keeping making the case for her. As Plouffe stated, she’s GREAT for the democratic cause. She’s also pulling the GOP towards a cliff to the far east.

    Reply
  40. Marie

    “Did you happen to watch Bristol and Sarah Palin’s puff piece on the Greta Van Sustern show just a couple weeks ago? The one where they talked about what a great father Levi was and the marriage plans(even though now we know the couple had already broken up)?
    Palin is what’s wrong with politics.”
    No, I don’t have TV in my home.
    Frankly, Bristol Palin is an adult who made her own decisions. That you choose to judge the Gov based on her daughter is telling.

    Reply
  41. Marie

    “Palin’s hypocrisy stems mostly from her attempt to take the moral high ground while taking the low road in many areas.
    1. She takes an extreme position on social issues; life (with which I happen to agree), censorship, gay marriage, abstinence. So these issues pertain to other households but not her own. For example, it’s ok that her daughter is an unwed mother but unwed mothers as a whole is a problem in this country (see posts by Lee and Bill C for such vitriol).”
    Uh, where did anyone say that it ISN’T a serious problem? Especially Sarah? Drugs are a serious problem too, and if your kid starts doing them I suppose we can skewer you for it, right? Because obviously you’re a hypocrite for not raising your kid right.
    “2. She railed against earmarks and was dishonest about the “bridge to no where” yet her state has the highest per capita intake of federal funds and she still TOOK THE MONEY that was originally designated for the bridge. She also received a special consideration in construction on her house. She also billed the state for the nights she stayed in her OWN HOUSE.”
    My brother and sister-in-law know her personally, have for years, and they say the media lied about all of that. Now I haven’t followed Alaska politics much, but I know my brother and I’d believe him over the alphabet soup networks any day.
    WRT “her own house,” she saved tons of money shutting down the governor’s mansion, dismissing the staff and working out of her house. The citizens of Alaska appreciated that.
    “3. She uses specious arguments about Obama “palling around with terrorists” and talked about “real America” which were determined by her yet. If she wants to question Obama’s judgement about Ayers, fine. Present an HONEST case. She knows there was no palling around. In the broader context, she was attempting to be divisive while championing ideals of the UNITED States.”
    No “palling around” eh? I see it very differently. One doesn’t launch one’s political career in the home of a distant acquaintance. No one talks about Ms Michelle and Bernadine Dorn’s close friendship, which makes the “distant acquaintance” claim utter nonsense. It matters not now, though.
    “4. She blamed McCain handlers for putting her in a position to fail with Couric. A candidate for the vise presidency of the United States was blaming others because she couldn’t handle questions like “what do you read?” (She then went on to blame Couric for being condescending in asking that question. Imagine what Putin would do to her if she had to face him one on one.)”
    Given Obama’s recent history with Putin, I’m surprised you’d throw that bait out. All yours is speculation. All mine is last week’s news.
    I was underimpressed with her media performance to be sure, and I thought she needed to tell McCain either she says what she thinks or she goes home. But let’s face it, the media was out to neutralize her and they did it quite well. I for one would have cheered if she’d have told Couric to go to hell when asked if she could be a mom and vice president too.
    “Marie, keeping making the case for her. As Plouffe stated, she’s GREAT for the democratic cause. She’s also pulling the GOP towards a cliff to the far east.”
    If that were the case, the Dems and their media pals wouldn’t still be trying to destroy her 6 months post-election. They must fear something about her, because they–and a lot of standard Dems–keep bringing it up. Perhaps they need something—anything—to distract from the disaster that is Obama?
    Thus far I haven’t seen anything to support the claim she’s a “hypocrite,” except perhaps your second claim. If that is true, however, may we then conclude that Obama is hypocrite-in-chief?

    Reply
  42. Randy E

    My brother and sister-in-law know her personally, have for years, and they say the media lied about all of that. They have first hand knowledge, eh? I smell heresay.
    Define “palling around”. Being in someone’s house is “palling around”? Lol, I have lots of pals that I didn’t know I had.
    The media was out to neutralize her Yes, the “what do you read” question was an insidious attempt to do just that. Her “I can see Russia from here” response was also the handiwork of MSM, eh?
    Her position on the earmarks and bridge to no where most certainly qualifies as hypocrisy. Obama stated earmarks can be useful but he takes issue with the unbridled use of these. That’s profoundly different than the posturing of Palin.
    Her conservative posturing reminds me of Rush. He decries the immorality of others while abusing drugs.
    Dems are out to destroy her? LOL, I’m game. Share your evidence. She is in a rush with Jindal and Sanford to lead the GOP off a cliff. The last thing the dems want is to stand in her way. Enjoy the elections Marie, it will be more of the same.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Randy E Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *