Posted on 12/02/2010 3:34:22 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I don’t think you read her response and reason. The leftists ramped up their attacks to make her spend more time answering their libelous attacks and their frivolous suits in court. She did the wise thing and resigned so that the Lt. gov. could go on with the day-to-day government tasks and she could answer the court suits. The frivolous suits were aimed at trying to make her spend so much time answering them that she lost public trust. I don’t see her as a quiter in this. Have you ever tried multi-tasking at anything other than eating and watching TV? It can cause you to make mistakes that you’d likely not make if your attention was not divided. The responsible thing was to let someone else carry on the governing and risk the personal loss. People elected her, yes. But court cases, once accepted by by the courts, demand a legal response. It was impossible, with a whole battery of them suing her daily, to keep up with governing and answering/making depositions. Don’t blame Palin. Blame the lame (crappo) legal system that allows frivolous cases to be accepted in the first place!
You don't respect her? If you choose not to support her for President, that's your choice, but no respect for this woman?
I usually understand most of your positions, but what the heck are you blabbering about?
Are you drinking this early in the morning?
I don’t respect her because of her positions on core non-negotiable matters of public policy. What’s so hard to understand about that?
I also don’t respect her because of her willingness to help liberals like John Judas McCain fool the people.
No. She's pro-choice for states on abortion.
In America the rights of the people, ALL the people, are supposed to be unalienable. And the primary purpose of government, ALL government, at every level and in every branch, is to protect that right.
I would no more support someone who holds that position than an abolitionist would have supported Stephen A. Douglas in 1860.
Since Sarah is a ‘state’s rights’ advocate, would returning power back to the states not be a good first step?
States have no legitimate power to alienate unalienable rights. If they did, those rights would hardly be unalienable, would they?
And the Fourteenth Amendment makes it clear that every state has an imperative obligation to protect the right to life of every single person, and to provide for the equal protection of the laws to all. Mrs. Palin seems not to understand that fact.
Her position is also one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase with her own party’s personhood prolife Fourteenth Amendment plank, which was put there by Reagan 26 years ago.
"State's rights" do not trump the unalienable rights of the people.
Pray is all I ask.
By the way do you think it's better for politicians to keep getting their paycheck while running for another office and running around the country not doing the job they were hired for? Personally I think any politician running for another office should be required to leave the office he's ignoring.
Do you remember how nice she was to McCain during his recent successful run, and how many people here condemned her for it? I guess this didn’t convince you of anything.
Let’s wait and see how she handles herself after she jumps in the race and nationally known conservatives begin to voice their opinions. Some will like her. But others will not. How will she handle that? And will she be able to endorse a GOP winner after a bloody primary? We’ll see.
I have always thought that it should be mandatory for office holders to resign their current position if going after higher office, instead of holding on to the security of what they have. In that sense, I really respected Dole for giving up not only his Senate seat, but Majority Leader, to pursue the White House.
There is no way Obama was serving the interests of the people of Illinois who’d elected him to the Senate, nor Hillary the people of NY, nor Bush the people of TX .. and on and on. They owe it to those people to turn over the seat to which they were elected to see that they have full-time representation in those duties.
Earned? *sigh*
OK, I understand that this opinion piece is likely targeted at those who snipe at Gov. Palin, but words like “earned” and “deserves” only serve to drive the discussion of Gov. Palin’s potential candidacy further into the void of inanity.
Gov. Palin has already qualified to seek her party’s nomination vis-a-vis the US Constitution. She will have “earned” or “deserved” the right to seek the highest office in the land when and if she is chosen as the nominee of her party and not before.
The more the GOP allows its language to sink to the level of the PC liberals, the faster it loses its credibility. If it keeps going down this path, someone in the front of the pack will start screaming that Gov. Palin is “entitled” to be the GOP’s nominee. At that point, the GOP begins hammering on the final nail in its coffin.
It is Sarah Palin’s “turn.”
I don’t need to pray about it. The demands God placed on mankind in Genesis chapter 9 are not optional, and they’ve never been revoked.
And our Constitution lines up perfectly with that imperative demand, rightly read according to the simple and clear meanings of words.
I refuse to support any candidate for any public office who won’t line up with it as well.
We’re talking about the very reason we have government here, not some inconsequential policy difference.
yes, I agree. When speaking of inconsequential policy deference, is it wise to look at one's record, all of that record of that one, who another one expects to lead them?
Thus as for me and my house, I will support Sarah. As for you, and your house, the decision in our republic, is yours.
Sorry, but not killing your child does not a pro-lifer make. I suppose you think the Obamas are pro-life? After all, they have two living children, right? Personally, I think holding up that child as some sort of pro-life credential is offensive. I mean really. Since when is not butchering your kid praiseworthy?
I truly don't understand how you can be so short sighted.
I truly don't understand those who think we can somehow rebuild the American house while pretending that we don't need its cornerstone or its foundations.
We didn't get in this mess overnight and no one can get us out quickly either, but we must continue to work toward it, not turn our backs and say “just not quite good enough”
By giving up its most important principles? That makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, it's exactly that sort of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
Stop pretending you can "work towards" something by going in the opposite direction.
As for me and my house, we'll serve the LORD, not politicians.
You sound kind of confused to me, and it doesn't seem to me that your support for this candidate is based on much in the way of substance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.