Sarah Palin and Rio Pinto

[spartonboat1]

Sarah Palin and Rio Tinto

Sarah Palin just gave a speech regarding China and the Asia-Pac area down Hong Kong way. (cool $500k so good for her). So far she hasn't jumped any interns.

To quote the AP "
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin emerged from a two-month absence from public view with a private talk, heavy on foreign policy, to a group of investors in Hong Kong.

Her 90-minute speech Wednesday at an investment conference touched on issues from financial markets to health care, Afghanistan and U.S-China relations. It was generally considered more moderate in tone than those Palin delivered during her 2008 campaign for vice president as Republican John McCain's running mate.

Still, a Democratic congressman chastised Palin for criticizing U.S. foreign policy during her first visit to Asia."

Other reports note that several delegates walked out because it was not a first rate professional speech. What's their problem, since who is giving one of those these days?

China of course, is not to be chastised, since they are warm and fuzzy and are about to become the 2nd largest GDP globally next year. The avg. income per citizen will only be #200 in the world, but they are gaining.

At any rate, after the poor-mouthing Sarah received, I read in the Fin. Times that back in July'09 (this year that is), Rio Tinto (global metal commodities player) found out about what happens when you don't agree to the prices the PRC demands. Well, your management in China gets arrested and charged with stealing state secrets that's what. Talk about a tough bargaining table...and I thought the UAW and Teamsters were tough!

Maybe once Charlie Gibson figures which Bush Doctrine applies, he can explain to Sarah why she should cut the Chinese some slack.

Enough sarcasm for tonight...or was it. She may not be the most articulate, but I think she is on point on what is right and wrong. If a Grizzly or Caribou charges, you don't check your watch, you take action. Iran now has two nuke programs. Who knew? Turns out we have all along, but kept it to ourselves.

yada, yada, ....

 

[Vincentc]

QUOTE: Sarah Palin just gave a speech regarding China and the Asia-Pac area down Hong Kong way. (cool $500k so good for her).

Am I correct in understanding that "a group of investors" paid a potential candidate for POTUS $500,000 to speak? I thought politicians spent money/effort to get people to come and listen to them.

I guess those folks in Hong Kong have an overwhelming desire to learn. Aren't there campaign finance rules to prevent big donations from single entities? "Is this a great country, or what?"

I like Sarah Palin, but the system is disturbing. "if you can't beat em..." But once you join them, where are you?

Vincent

 

[Brian Degulis]

She's not holding public office right now so she can do whatever she wants. Bill Clinton has made a fortune giving speaches.

I liked Palin when she first showed up I like what she had acomplished and I like her common sense earthy aproach. After watching her for a while I've changed my opinion she's to loopy and nutty. The death panel thing was over the top.


Brian

 

[Boatsb]

Come on Brian. caribou Barbie is hot.

Reality is that I think she hurt McCain and his chance to keep the muslim out of DC. She is bubbly and easy on the eyes but I believe her to be too much to the right to be effective.

 

[Vincentc]

Seems the Clintons made fortunes doing a lot of things we do not respect.

As far as right vs effective, if it is a choice between right and wrong, is being less right, better?

Seems to me, the establishment media will attack and ridicule or deamonize anyone who speaks contrary to their standards and appears to have public appeal. A conservative will be accused of being radical right, when their real sin is public appeal. I suspect that if someone today utilized the words of MLK for example, in their speeches and achieved any measure of positive political response, they would be cast as radical conservatives or worse. Judging a man by his character rather than is skin color, is apparently racist in the new order.

Regards,
Vincent

 

[Capt K]

She's hot alright, but I would be very afraid to see her back in public office. She would better "serve" at the local strip bar. Her actions and opinions would be better there!

Just IMHO. (she's a little scary!!)

Capt K

 

[Brian Degulis]

Come on Brian. caribou Barbie is hot.

Reality is that I think she hurt McCain and his chance to keep the muslim out of DC. She is bubbly and easy on the eyes but I believe her to be too much to the right to be effective.

Yeah she's a fine looking woman and there's a lot to like about her and her record. But she's got a nuty side and that just doesn't play well with me. I saw the same thing years ago in Ross Perot. Now I'm not suggesting he was hot but I liked his ideas and record but he to had that nuty side.

Brian

 

[Westfield 11]

Irregardless of her political beliefs, she's a quitter. Why would we entrust the presidency to a woman who didn't bother to finish her only term as governor?

I am also bothered that her first foray into the world of paid speechmaking was to a group of communists....... It's almost as if she just wanted to cash in on her popularity.

 

[Sparky1]

Irregardless of her political beliefs, she's a quitter. Why would we entrust the presidency to a woman who didn't bother to finish her only term as governor?

I am also bothered that her first foray into the world of paid speechmaking was to a group of communists....... It's almost as if she just wanted to cash in on her popularity.

Give me a break, like you would vote for her anyway.

Outside that, find me a politician who doesn't have a nutty side. As for her cashing in on her popularity, find me a popular politician who hasn't done that after leaving office. I personally don't think she would make a good president, but I think she is basically a good person who just got caught up in all the ugliness of politics on a national scale.

 

[Brian Degulis]

Give me a break, like you would vote for her anyway.

Outside that, find me a politician who doesn't have a nutty side. As for her cashing in on her popularity, find me a popular politician who hasn't done that after leaving office. I personally don't think she would make a good president, but I think she is basically a good person who just got caught up in all the ugliness of politics on a national scale.

I think that's exactly correct. I think her nutty side was created by the difficulty she had adjusting to the dishonesty and coruption found in National politics. Remember the first thing she did as governer was to expose and clean out coruption in her own party. Please Westfield tell me all about the times when Obama and Biden did that?

Brian

 

[Westfield 11]

Give me a break, like you would vote for her anyway.

Outside that, find me a politician who doesn't have a nutty side. As for her cashing in on her popularity, find me a popular politician who hasn't done that after leaving office. I personally don't think she would make a good president, but I think she is basically a good person who just got caught up in all the ugliness of politics on a national scale.

Whether I would vote for her or not, isn't the point still valid? About her quitting her job serving the people of Alaska? From some reports, the only reason she did leave office was to cash in, that sort of changes the equation does it not?

If I can't criticize a politician that I am unlikely to vote for, and I think that's part of your argument, then that would mean you couldn't criticize our current President and I doubt that you really want that....

 

[Sparky1]

Whether I would vote for her or not, isn't the point still valid? About her quitting her job serving the people of Alaska? From some reports, the only reason she did leave office was to cash in, that sort of changes the equation does it not?

If I can't criticize a politician that I am unlikely to vote for, and I think that's part of your argument, then that would mean you couldn't criticize our current President and I doubt that you really want that....

So let me ask you this, could it not be argued that the fact she resigned her governorship goes to prove she is indeed a person of character who simply would not tolerate an invasion into her personal life?

That's not what she signed up for when she took the job. I have no doubt she would still be the governor of Alaska had she not been invited to run with McCain. Outside that, I don't see her move to resign as one that was motivated by money. Perhaps you can back up that claim with a link to some of these reports you reference.

 

[Westfield 11]

Of course it could be argued in that way, just as it could be argued in the other way. I am sure that there are links to Fox that would support your side, just as there are links to MSNBC that would support my view. So, what? it's all he said, she said. Time and her actions over the next year or so will show what was in her mind when she quit.
However I don't really see that the "intrusions into her personal life" were any worse than those suffered by other politicians on either side of the political spectrum. The Clintons, for instance with all that Whitewater stuff, or W with the National Guard and drug and drinking stuff. It just goes with the territory in the 21st century media world that they work in.
It's the quitting part that bothers me the most, if she had a serious health condition, or if she had better explained her motives then I might understand. But some vague assertions about it being so that she could better serve those who voted for her from outside of government, well, it just sounds flakey.....
BTW, do you agree that people can criticize politicians that they probably didn't vote for?

 

[Traveler 45C]

Of course it could be argued in that way, just as it could be argued in the other way. I am sure that there are links to Fox that would support your side, just as there are links to MSNBC that would support my view.

The only problem with MSNBC is it most likely would be a lie or a biased distortion. I've seen some of their so called 'reports' exposed as such; therefore, nothing from them can be taken serious. Unless of course, you like the Kool-Aid

 

[Westfield 11]

The only problem with MSNBC is it most likely would be a lie or a biased distortion. I've seen some of their so called 'reports' exposed as such; therefore, nothing from them can be taken serious. Unless of course, you like the Kool-Aid

The only problem with Fox is it most likely would be a lie or a biased distortion. I've seen some of their so called 'reports" exposed as such; therefore, nothing from them can be taken serious. Unless of course, you like the Kool-Aid

Thus my point about "he said, she said" and letting time tell us what is really going on. Of course, since this is a discussion about human motivation it is likely that we will never know what was inside her mind when she made her decision to resign. Still, it's fun to speculate isn't it?

 

[Traveler 45C]

The only problem with Fox is it most likely would be a lie or a biased distortion.

I would very much like to see proff of that.

 

[Westfield 11]

I would very much like to see proff of that.

You can see it nearly every night, but you would have to watch MSNBC to so so. That's why I have never seen the proof of lies and distortions that you speak of: I never watch Fox. Although I will admit to having watched Glen Beck a few times to see if he really was as crazy as he was made out to be; IMHO he was....

 

[Sparky1]

Of course it could be argued in that way, just as it could be argued in the other way. I am sure that there are links to Fox that would support your side, just as there are links to MSNBC that would support my view. So, what? it's all he said, she said. Time and her actions over the next year or so will show what was in her mind when she quit.
However I don't really see that the "intrusions into her personal life" were any worse than those suffered by other politicians on either side of the political spectrum. The Clintons, for instance with all that Whitewater stuff, or W with the National Guard and drug and drinking stuff. It just goes with the territory in the 21st century media world that they work in.
It's the quitting part that bothers me the most, if she had a serious health condition, or if she had better explained her motives then I might understand. But some vague assertions about it being so that she could better serve those who voted for her from outside of government, well, it just sounds flakey.....
BTW, do you agree that people can criticize politicians that they probably didn't vote for?

Of course I agree that people can criticize politicians they didn't vote for, but my original point was that you were implying you wouldn't vote for Palin because she was "a quitter". You wouldn't have voted for her if she finished her term as governor. Let's face it, she wouldn't have finished her term had McCain been elected, so it's really a matter of semantics. Would she have been a quitter then too?

The scrutiny Palin endured versus that of the Clinton's was very personal. There's a big difference between being implicated in numerous illegal activities versus just being the mother of a pregnant, unwed daughter. The husband thing didn't help her either, but the Dems seemed to have selective amnesia when they were cheering for Hillary.

Maybe Palin saw a lack of support from those she served while in office, so she basically told them to, "take this job and shove it". As a civilian, she can do far more to expose corruption in government than she can when she's a part of that government, don't you think? For that matter, maybe it took this election to show her just how corrupt politics are, and she no longer wanted to be a part of it.

 

[Sparky1]

You can see it nearly every night, but you would have to watch MSNBC to so so. That's why I have never seen the proof of lies and distortions that you speak of: I never watch Fox. Although I will admit to having watched Glen Beck a few times to see if he really was as crazy as he was made out to be; IMHO he was....

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. You would have to watch MSNBC to prove that Fox distorts reality? Excuse me while I walk outside and laugh out loud!

Fox doesn't distort the news, they simply report on things that MSNBC and the rest of the liberal media wouldn't touch. I'm sure in your eyes that means Fox is picking on the chosen one. I don't see it that way at all, instead I see it as showing the administration for what it is, a fraud on the American people. How much coverage of the ACORN scandal have you seen on MSNBC? If not for Fox, this would have never been investigated, much less made public.

 

[Westfield 11]

As a civilian, she can do far more to expose corruption in government than she can when she's a part of that government, don't you think? For that matter, maybe it took this election to show her just how corrupt politics are, and she no longer wanted to be a part of it.

I guess we will have to wait and see how much corruption in Alaskan government she exposes in the next year or so to see if you are correct. I think your second point is probably correct though. She really liked running for President and I think she will also really like being a high paid speaker or pundit. Those limos and 5 star hotels can be quite habit forming and are a big change from the perks allowed a governor. At that point you will have to agree that she will no longer be a "hockey mom from Wasilla" and is then just another member of the "establishment". We will have to wait and see which way she goes.