“If she can’t handle being the governor of the 2nd smallest sate in population”
***********
That “second smallest state” is also the largest state in land mass and the richest in natural resources and the only state with two foreign countries effectively on its border.
One question to the newbie and budding little statist: Is it more difficult to manage a large state geographically or small state with a larger population?
The answer tells a lot about the person who gives it. If you think it is more difficult to manage a large state in population, you are more than likely a nanny stater who wants the government involved in way too many private decisions of the many citizens. If you think it is harder to manage a large state geographically, you are more than likely a constitutionalist. The fact is there are far greater PROPER responsibilities associated with governing a state the geographic size of Alaska which, if it were a country, would be the 17th largest in the world. Its huge landmass is over 50% larger than all of Western Europe (586,412 square miles versus 380,820) and possessed of far more natural resources as well.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_square_miles_of_western_Europe
Unfortunately, 65% of that land is Federally owned which places her former Gubernatorial Jurisdiction into a much smaller category.
In fact, the State of Alaska is mostly supported and managed by the Federal Government and takes a great deal of the burden and responsibility of managing the State off of the Governors shoulders. If anything, it would have made her position all the easier.
Opposing the $700 billion bailout to failed banks and politicians who supported it makes me a statist? I love idiotic logic.
A true nanny stater is one who think that the governor actually controls the land and not the actual property owners. Maybe that’s why Palin had no problem passing a “windfall” profit tax on the oil companies, further increasing everybody’s gas prices in 2008.