General Music Chat

Oh, come on Phil.
Dont hold back - tell us how you really feel.

I'm not sure you could handle it, Zip!

I am enamored of her, because of all of the above comments, as well as the facts, that she was encouraged by her local community to run for city council in the first place. Her community needed her, and she answered the call. She rose to meet and succeed in EVERY challenge she faced. She ran her state FOR THE PEOPLE'S interest, and even lodged ethics charges against HER OWN PARTY ELITE who were operating like the typical "good ole boys" club, and giving away bad government contracts to their friends and allies. She changed all that in Alaska, and I think she would change what she could in Washington D.C. too!

Ok, thats fair I guess.
Doesnt seem to warrant that much devotion though.

Your feeling that god spoke to you about her... I suppose if I had the same kind of experience I might be on her bandwagon.

I just don't see the excitement with Palin. Was mayor of a small town and governor for a hlaf term, kind of the same amount of experience as Lame Duck Obama, and you see what we're getting with him.

What you meant to say, I'm sure, is "look what we're getting with a bunch of Republican obstructionist babies in congress who just want to take their ball and go home."

I'd like to see what Obama could actually get done if he had some people in the Senate and Congress who were willing to solve problems instead of trying to score political points with Rush Limbaugh.

Politics in D.C. isn't a one-man show you know...

Presidents have to, by definition, play the game of poitics. That means dealing with "obstructionists" and being able to negotiate with them effectively in order to get things done. Obama I'm afraid doesn't have the savvy that comes with experience to get things done. I admire him for trying to get healthcare legislation done. We need to do something. But in order to do something you have to do some serious politicking, which Obama is a neophyte. Maybe they can get something passed by reconciliation, maybe they can come to an agreement of some kind, but that's going to be tough without the necessary experience which Obama I'm afraid lacks...

...as does Palin...

The American ppl have really got themselves in a pickle, haven't we?

In order for anything at all to get done, we have to eat the pork that comes from these negotiations.

What will we sacrifice for anything that actually works for the ppl? How much have we sacrificed that we don't even know about?

What you meant to say, I'm sure, is "look what we're getting with a bunch of Republican obstructionist babies in congress who just want to take their ball and go home."

I'd like to see what Obama could actually get done if he had some people in the Senate and Congress who were willing to solve problems instead of trying to score political points with Rush Limbaugh.

The only problem with this view, is that the Dems had a filibuster proof majority. They could have passed, and had the President sing, ANYTHING they wanted.

Why didn't they?

Because the public backlash was against these politicians haphazardly toying with 1/4 of the nation's economy, with 3 weeks to debate it's merits. Enough Dems in congress began to be scared about the net election, and worried about their own asses and futures.

Want to blame someone?

The only ones you have to blame are the Democrats themselves.

They had the votes and power to pass ANYTHING they wanted to.

Doing family time Phil.

I'll address your points later bro.

The only ones you have to blame are the Democrats themselves.

They had the votes and power to pass ANYTHING they wanted to.

So your recommendation Craig is that they Dems should have just ramrodded the legislation through without any regard for public opinion?

So your recommendation Craig is that they Dems should have just ramrodded the legislation through without any regard for public opinion?

You can't have it both ways bro.

If the Dems really believed in the bills, regardless of what their constituents wanted, then that is what they should have done. When it all worked out later (if it did) then they get to be heroes. It's about your balls matching your beliefs.

I prefer public OPEN debates, with several parties represented, and a watchful electorate throwing their two cents in too!

But if the Republicans don't agree with the bills as they stand, they should do everything they can to block them, until a rational and reasonable consensus, or compromise is reached.

You want to blame Republicans for the legislation not going through, when they don't agree with the legislation. If you are going to blame Republicans for NOT accepting bills they don't support, then you should, in fairness, back up further, and blame the Dems for not passing the bill they DID believe in.

You want to blame Republicans for not supporting bills they DO NOT believe in.... rather than blaming the Dems for not passing the bills THEY DO believe in, when they had the majority to do just that.

Explain that reasoning to me... if you can.

Oh c'mon Craig! You go after anyone who says anything bad about her like you're her big brother or something.

I disagree. I go after COMMENTS that are irrational or unfair. I have agreed with some of the criticism against her, when it was fair and reasonable. And I can respect a point of view, if it is given untarnished by emotional rhetoric. I haven't criticized Bob harshly that I recall. He simply believes she is unqualified. He hasn't been extreme in his opinions, calling her "stupid" or a "bitch" or any other of the pejorative and unfair terms many others have used.

Whenever a female subject comes up, you go too far. Are you overcompensating for things in the past, maybe?

To some degree you could say that. But I was always respectful of women all my life, just not the one I was married to. The most important one to be that way with. But that was alot of years ago, and my mistake changed my life and made me a better man. So, I wouldn't call it "overcompensating". Instead I would call it being more sensitive to such things. It's a more personal thing to me. Just as making jokes about a down syndrome child would be more personal to Palin. I believe the charge is reasonable though, or I wouldn't have stated it.

Realize Phil, that there are supposedly professional news agencies, who have dropped to new lows, and called her "stupid" or "bimbo" or "idiot" and even "bitch" and "whore", with the worst coming from bloggers, but not your average bloggers, PROFESSIONAL bloggers, who are often journalists or former public servants.

If those words aren't sexist, than I don't know what is.

STILL... no one can answer why she is DESERVING of such hatred and slander.

Not taking her husband's name is definitely NOT a Rep trait,

That was Hillary Rodham, not Palin.

Add to that the fact that she quit her gov job. David didn't quit. MLK & Gandhi didn't quit. SHE quit, yet now she seems to want to set herself up for a return to politics?

Quitter... That charge is lame, when you know the facts.

Remember that she had lodged SERIOUS ethics charges against the good ole' boys in her party. There were real penalties for their misdoings, not to mention that it harmed their political careers. How better to get back, then to FLOOD her office with DOZENS of ethics charges against her? 99% of them were dropped after investigation, with I think one resulting in a verbal slap on the wrist. Nothing of merit, yet she has to defend against EACH ONE, on a weekly, and even daily basis.

Her claim is that not only was her office being FLOODED with interview requests, every time any political issue came up in the news (dozens of such calls PER DAY) that her staff was already spending TOO MUCH TIME, handling those calls, and then add to it, the unmerited ethics charges, filed just to tie her hands and give her administration grief, yet they have to be treated as REAL CHARGES, and investigated, which means her being questioned by investigators constantly, as well as her staff being questioned regularly for EACH ONE.

Palin claims, that she had already decided not to run for a second term, and this, being the last year of her term, she felt that it was burdening the taxpayers of her state to fight these charges with THEIR MONEY as well as that this tied the hands of her staff, making it virtually impossible to do the people's business.

Her last year would be a lame duck session, because as long as she was Governor, they wouldn't stop lodging the ethics complaints, to tie up her staff and FORCE her to deal with each complaint, wasting tax payer's money.

What was her solution?

Resign now, and the ethics charges stop, and her Lieutenant Governor takes over, and because he is aligned with her politically and philosophically, then HE WOULD be able to accomplish things for the state in this last year, WITHOUT wasting tax payer's money to do so, and if he has a good year in office, who knows? Maybe he gets elected to his own full term, keeping the state in Conservative hands.

What you call QUITTING, I call BRILLIANT!

She is a MUCH SMARTER strategist than you give her credit for.

Aside from all those RATIONAL and INTELLIGENT reasons, she also felt that she not only served her STATE by doing this now, but she could then be free to serve the LARGER CAUSE, which is bolstering Conservative principles and values on the NATIONAL LEVEL. And you have seen her do just that, having stumped on the campaign trail for maybe half a dozen candidates, as well as making personal appearances in many venues, as well as becoming a host on a national Fox News program, and meeting voters across the nation on her book tour in the middle of it all.

And even with all THAT, she apparently still loves her state, and is promoting it nationally, as I just discovered that she has been making the rounds with famed producer Mark Burnett, and they are together, pitching a new reality show to be set in Alaska. Which I think DOES serve her state, as many people in the contiguous states, seem to think everyone in Alaska are backwoods fir traders, who have no clue what is happening in Washington D.C. and because Alaska is so far removed from the contiguous states, low population has always been a problem for their ability to grow in anything but single digits, over long periods of time. It is so bad, that a few years back, Alaska was actually giving 5 acre plots (something like that) away for FREE, for a written promise to build a house there, that would be for a family dwelling, and not merely a vacation home. A reality show of this kind, may very well show what family life is really like there, not to mention the untouched beauty of one of our last frontiers, and could very well encourage families to move there, and help increase the population, which gives them a stronger economy, and more representation in Washington D.C.

A best selling book. A national TV host on Fox News. Keynote speaker at the Tea Party Convention. Politico claims she is working on her second book. A political stumper for many Conservative politicians. Nationwide book tour, and on and on!!!!

She has accomplished a HELL OF ALOT in the past year, being such a dumb clueless bimbo, don't you think?

And you wonder why I find your offensive charges sexist and absurd?

Seriously?

What did you accomplish over the last year genius?

She doesn't have the wit.

The facts I already laid out, prove that statement ABSURD!

She doesn't have the backbone.

She must be the MOST MALIGNED public figure in recent memory, even more so than "W" Bush. Yet, she has maintained poise and composure, and accomplished a great deal, for herself, her state, and her party, in the midst of ALL OF IT. How is that not showing backbone?

Really. Your accusations are baseless and absurd.

She doesn't have the knowledge or the drive to get the knowledge to do the job.

Absolute BULLSH*T!!!

She is flooding her resume as we speak. She has brilliantly positioned herself, as an enduring public figure, that holds real weight in the Republican party. Just at the POSSIBILITY of running in 2012, she is steering the ship, and living in the best of both worlds. If public opinions shifts, she is in the perfect position to be a front runner. If it doesn't, she has a HUGE say, in who the next Republican candidate will be. She is in an idyllic position, of not being RESTRAINED by public office, and yet having the clout of someone WHO IS. She is a big dog in politics right now, but doesn't have to worry about polls or the next election. She gets to BE HER OWN PERSON, while remaining an important political figure. She gets to help strengthen her own party, without ANSWERING to the old timers in it. And aside from ALL THAT, as a bonus, she is setting her own family up for life, with the big book deals, and paid TV job, etc...

She is ready to do what?

What should a candidate be, if not BELIEVE IN CORE VALUES, and BE SHREWD enough to deal with the political tricks of politics? She has proven herself to be a person who PROMOTES her positions and political philosophy, is true to her CORE VALUES, and can masterfully handle, not only the shrewd politicians around her, but also handle vicious media attacks while remaining poised and composed.

This woman is a FAR MORE formidable force than you understand.

She's a bad loser, & I suspect that she would be an even worse winner.

Bad loser? HA HA HA HA!!!

Everything she warned the nation about concerning Obama, is coming to pass. Turns out, her "accusations" were spot on! And queen of TV, Oprah, who SNUBBED HER during the campaign, yet stumped for Obama personally... well gee... Wasn't it Palin, that accepted an invite from Oprah AFTER the campaign was lost? And Palin went on, and was gracious to Oprah, and even said publicly, how much she respected Oprah, and the good she tries to do through her show, and what she has done to empower women.

Yeah, sounds like a sore loser to me too.

The nation was warning the candidates that we're sick of nasty politics, but she ignored us & lost.

Yet another DUMB assertion.

NO REPUBLICAN could have won in that political climate. It was NOT POSSIBLE! The media had spent YEARS seeing to that. And the public bought into it, and threw Republicans out of office in not only the White House, but a significant portion of Congress as well. We did the same thing, after Nixon, remember? Brought Jimmy Carter in, because after the LIES of Nixon, we needed to TRUST someone. Who better that a born again Christian. Sadly, no one told the populace, that just because you can TRUST a President, doesn't mean he will be a GOOD president. It is a BACKLASH against the current order. It happened after Nixon, and now, after Bush as well.

But the electorate is wise to Obama, after more than a year in office, and they are VERY likely to turn out the Democrats in BOTH spheres, President and Congress, this time around.

Palin did not LOSE the ticket for McCain.

She was the ONLY THING keeping it alive, which is EXACTLY what the Democrats HATE about her, and STILL FEAR about her NOW!

John McCain himself admits this.

And he knows more about his campaign than YOU do!

So...let me make sure I got this straight...quitting the gov'ship was, in your eyes - a "brilliant" strategy, & nothing more nor less?

Lemme axe ya in my cumpleet dummnis, Craig - if this is how she handles things at the state level, then how the hell can we expect her to handle the even larger "good ol' boy" network if she gets to be pres? Would she walk out on us, too, with all of her "brilliance" when the national media & her opposition question or attack her? Sorry, Craig, but that answer just doesn't fly with me.

A good way to handle it might involve lawsuits against those who are cluttering up the courts with false claims (if, indeed, they ARE false), but just walking out? No, my man. You give her way to much leeway.

Moving on - so now, she is "serving a larger cause?" How? By nit-picking? By continuing the downright silly attacks on Obama that she began in the election? Listen to what she SAYS, Craig! Her topics range from his use of a teleprompter, to the continuation of pandering to the uneducated & trying to rile them up over health care with nothing less than scare tactics, to continuing to poke fun at his name. All of her value seems to be in the negativity she spouts against the Rep opposition.

At this point in time, she has become a female Rush Limbaugh, in effect. She has managed to frighten the public & helped Dem's shy away from legislation that the majority of this country believes we need. She has become a speed bump in our political process. Nothing more or less.

If she had had the wit to stand up to her opposition in Alaska, I might have some respect for her. She didn't.

If she had the wit to give me actual possible alternatives to the course we're on, I might have some respect for her. She doesn't.

If she had actual complaints that have merit against the administration, I might have a little respect for her. She prefers to pick at nits, because she hasn't the wit (or the reason?) to attack BHO for anything he's actually done against the greater good.

If she had had the backbone to step up & prove her innocense while she ruled, I might have more respect for her. She didn't.

To date, she has not given the party any useable guidance, other than to continue the attacks against the new administration. She has no alternatives to Obama's ideas to solve these problems. She has thought up no answers to the problems that face us. She hasn't even shown me that she has done her homework well enough to do a simple interview - one in which she pokes fun at BHO for using the teleprompter while she looks at her hand to remember what she wants to say in just a few minutes' time. She made herself look rather foolish - AGAIN - yet still had it in her to push her hatred. Yeah, THAT's the kind of leader I want! The hypocrite with NO ideas, who pushes insignificance as if it's substance.

So, tell me again how she's shown any leadership qualities? She's a one-trick pony, Craig. A hater & a spoiler who wants to rule.

Doing an Oprah interview to push her book...yeah, that shows me how very gracious she is as a loser. Who you trying to kid, Craig?

If McCain had distanced himself from GWB well enough, & presented good ideas, he may have had a chance, provided his running mate wasn't just spouting hatred. He fell into it almost as badly as she did. The sad fact is that he had no idea what to do. He was at sea as much as GWB had been, on how to solve the problems that GWB (& his predecessors) had created. All they could do was attack trivialities, & they even did that poorly, evidently.

And that is all Palin's doing now - attacking trivialities. She's still campaigning. Yeah, she's "brilliant" at pointing out the trivial & at inciting ppl against the administration. She's just another Limbaugh, Craig.

When will she give me something of substance?

Until she does, I can only look at her as negative fluff. She's the political equivalent to belly-button lint, unnecessary & rather distasteful in her essense. The great unwashed masses, however, are likely to relate to her bitching & whining, because that's about all they have to do, & they can relate to belly-button lint. It doesn't make them OR her "brilliant."

So...let me make sure I got this straight...quitting the gov'ship was, in your eyes - a "brilliant" strategy, & nothing more nor less?

Correct.

Why is this surprising? If she left the Governorship for higher office, you wouldn't be criticizing her. Think about that for a moment. Why is it not just as worthy, to leave office for a higher PURPOSE, rather than just a higher POSITION in government?

All her policies are being carried out by her former Lietenant Governor, as if she were still in office, and they get carried out, WITHOUT wasting tax payer's money.

If you can't understand the value of that, what can I say? You are just locking onto something, and reframing it, so you can judge it.

Becoming a National figure of prominence, she realized that she needed to seize the opportunity NOW, while the iron was still hot, so she could help influence Conservatives NATIONWIDE as opposed to primarily Alaska.

She served 14 years in public office.

Calling her a quitter, displays a serious lack of facts.

Lemme axe ya in my cumpleet dummnis, Craig - if this is how she handles things at the state level, then how the hell can we expect her to handle the even larger "good ol' boy" network if she gets to be pres?

In that role...

1. She is already on the National Stage, and in the strongest position to effect the change she seeks.

2. She will not be fighting frivolous lawsuits as President.

3. She has far greater resources at her disposal, than in Alaska.

4. She served 14 years, in 4 different government poisitions. This is the first time she resigned any of them, in all those roles and in all that time. I think that is a good track record, you don't?

Again... she left the Governorship in order to remain a prominent National figure, serving the larger purpose. Her policies are being maintained in Alaska, without wasting tax payer's money, or staff time.

She feels RIGHT IDEAS are the important point. Not "WHO" gets to carry them out. She did right by her state, in making this move. Her policies still get carried out, and she is free to effect change, and help her party return to Conservative principles on the NATIONAL STAGE. She continues to serve Alaska even now, only on a National Stage.

This was the right move. She didn't want to be an absentee Governor, effecting change on a national level, while being paid by her local state, though she wouldn't have been there for much of the year.

It's a sacrifical move.

A bold move.

A BRILLIANT strategy.

A good way to handle it might involve lawsuits against those who are cluttering up the courts with false claims

Yeah, it's always a good move, to save tax payer money, by spending MORE of it. No wonder you are such a fan of Obama! LOL

It's not one person cluttering up Alaska courts Phil.

If she goes on the offensive, she wastes MORE tax payer money, and MORE staff time, rather than doing the people's business. Her way of handling things, allowed her pollicies to CONTINUE, while saving the tax payer's money, and allowing her in the midst of all that, to SEIZE the momentum she currently has, and which may not be there, if she were to wait more than a year to take advantage of it.

You say she has no plans or policy, and speaks a few minutes at a time, but in her Keynote Address for the Tea Party Convention, she covered a wide range of issues, and spoke for nearly an hour, following it up with a question and answer segement from the audience.

Some of the journalists at the Washington Post (very liberal newspaper, and probably second behind the New York Times in status) take her much more seriously than you do...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021002451.html

The Washington Post
Sarah Palin displays her pitch-perfect populism
by David Broder
Thursday, February 11, 2010

The snows that obliterated Washington in the past week interfered with many scheduled meetings, but they did not prevent the delivery of one important political message: Take Sarah Palin seriously.

Her lengthy Saturday night keynote address to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville and her debut on the Sunday morning talk show circuit with Fox News' Chris Wallace showed off a public figure at the top of her game -- a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself, even with notes on her palm.

This was not the first time that Palin has impressed me. I gave her high marks for her vice presidential acceptance speech in St. Paul. But then, and always throughout that campaign, she was laboring to do more than establish her own place. She was selling a ticket headed by John McCain against formidable Democratic opposition and burdened by the legacy of the Bush administration.

Blessed with an enthusiastic audience of conservative activists, Palin used the Tea Party gathering and coverage on the cable networks to display the full repertoire she possesses, touching on national security, economics, fiscal and social policy, and every other area where she could draw a contrast with Barack Obama and point up what Republicans see as vulnerabilities in Washington.

Her invocation of "conservative principles and common-sense solutions" was perfectly conventional. What stood out in the eyes of TV-watching pols of both parties was the skill with which she drew a self-portrait that fit not just the wishes of the immediate audience but the mood of a significant slice of the broader electorate.

Freed of the responsibilities she carried as governor of Alaska, devoid of any official title but armed with regular gigs on Fox News Channel and more speaking invitations than she can fulfill, Palin is perhaps the most visible Republican in the land.


More important, she has locked herself firmly in the populist embrace that every skillful outsider candidate from George Wallace to Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton has utilized when running against "the political establishment."

It doesn't always win. There are more John Edwardses and Mike Huckabees than I can count. But it wins more often than you'd guess and for a greater variety of people, especially when things are not going well for the country.

Palin's final answer to Wallace showed how perfectly she has come to inhabit that part. When he asked her what role she wants to play in the country's future, she said:

"First and foremost, I want to be a good mom, and I want to raise happy, healthy, independent children. And I want them to be good citizens of this great country.

"And then I do want to be a voice for some common-sense solutions. I'm never going to pretend like I know more than the next person. I'm not going to pretend to be an elitist. In fact, I'm going to fight the elitist, because for too often and for too long now, I think the elitists have tried to make people like me and people in the heartland of America feel like we just don't get it, and big government's just going to have to take care of us.

"I want to speak up for the American people and say: No, we really do have some good common-sense solutions. I can be a messenger for that. Don't have to have a title to do it."

This is a pitch-perfect recital of the populist message that has worked in campaigns past. There are times when the American people are looking for something more: for an Eisenhower, who liberated Europe; an FDR or a Kennedy or a Bush, all unashamed aristocrats; or an Obama, with eloquence and brains.

But in the present mood of the country, Palin is by all odds a threat to the more uptight Republican aspirants such as Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty -- and potentially, to Obama as well.

Palin did not wear well in the last campaign, especially in the suburbs where populism has a limited appeal. But when Wallace asked her about resigning the governorship with 17 months left in her term and whether she let her opponents drive her from office, she said, "Hell, no."

Those who want to stop her will need more ammunition than deriding her habit of writing on her hand. The lady is good.

"She will not be fighting frivolous lawsuits as President." On what do you base that assumption? Who's to say that the past won't rear its ugly head like it did for Nixon's 1st VP? Spiro Agnew was kicked out of his VP position due to his racketeering when he was gov of MD.

I suppose as pres she could pardon herself, huh?

She still remains a Wash outsider with no connections that will help her get anything accomplished...that is, if she actually HAS any sort of plan to solve our myriad problems. How many more of our freedoms will we likely lose to yet another outsider, who must make "strategic compromises" to solve our problems?

She seems to be forgetting that, like Huckabee, she's liable to lose political points by being too funny.

I don't really think that she was being all that noble in quitting, Craig. I think she lacked the strength to carry on through that which faced her. Just a different take on the same facts, I suppose, but how often in those 14 years of public service did she face this sort of trouble? None, I'd wager, & the 1st time it happened, she jumped ship, supposedly "to save the taxpayers money?" How naive are you?

Yes, she now has a national stage from which she can spout her message, which has not changed. It's a message AGAINST the administration, AGAINST health care reform, AGAINST anyone trying to oust the illegals or keep jobs in the USA (not that the current administration has any desire to do those last two things, either), & AGAINST anything or anyone who wears that awful badge that says "liberal."

Again, you have failed, like Palin, to give me any clue as to what she actually would implement as a leader. I'm tired of her campaigning. She didn't give me any substance back then, either. In fact, NONE of the Rep's did, nor are they giving me anything of substance now. I won't be fooled by negative BS, Craig. If you can't show me a plan that I could follow, get the hell out of the picture, cuz all you're doing at this point is spoiling those efforts that ARE being made, & cluttering up my view of the progress that might be going on.

If she did actually "sacrifice herself for the common good" in her actions in Alaska, well, I would be impressed. But I find that hard to believe when her message to us all is simply "hate Obama the teleprompter-reading guy with the moslem name & the terrorist affilliations who's such an elitist." THAT, sir, has been the gist of all her ranting since her first days in the campaign.

The Tea-Party movement is based on that very message. It has had nothing to do with making anything better, it's just been to STOP THIS MAN WHO'S TRYING TO DO SOMETHING!!!! I have no reason to sign up for that kind of BS.

Yeah, she likes to use all the conservative buzz-words & -phrases, like "conservative principles and common-sense solutions," but she fails at every turn to tell us exactly what they are, or how we may apply them to solve our problems.

"I want to speak up for the American people and say: No, we really do have some good common-sense solutions. I can be a messenger for that. Don't have to have a title to do it." She doesn't hafta be in office in the future to do that, either. 'Twould be nice if she told us what those solutions are, but, like so many of the Limbaugh/Beck types, she hits us with buzz-words designed to trigger knee-jerk responses without backing them up with any sort of plan of action, preferring to look as though she holds the high ground, when, in fact, she's standing on sand over yet another sink-hole that threatens to swallow us all.

Look, when all you hear from a candidate is how bad his opponent is, don't you think you best ask yourself what the hell he stands FOR? We know what she's against, but I doubt that even YOU could tell me what she would implement as a leader, much as you seem to love her.

Gimme some SUBSTANCE!!!!

I'm a simple man. I would jump on any band-wagon that actually used "common sense solutions," but I really doubt that she has any, & her usual rhetoric is making me sick to my stomach.

"She will not be fighting frivolous lawsuits as President."

On what do you base that assumption?

The Constitution, our laws, and previous precedent.

Presidents are shielded from prosecutions both civil and criminal, while in office, for alleged crimes committed WHILE IN OFFICE. In the event of civil cases brought, they are deferred until the President leaves office. In criminal cases too, the President must be removed from office first. That is why we have an impeachment process, which CAN remove a President from office.

Before 1997, it was assumed that ALL cases, even for acts committed BEFORE becoming President were deferred, but against Clinton, the Supreme Court allowed a case to go forward, basically inferring that the office was not a shield for acts committed BEFORE becoming President. But it took the Supreme Court to make that determination.

But in general, these well founded doctrines are in place to PROTECT the office of President, from burdenous and frivolous lawsuits, which would tie a President's hands and effectively disable him from doing his job.

But even in situations where a Supreme Court may allow a case to go forward, against a sitting President, the President has a virtual ARMY of legal teams handling everything, so as not to leave a President vulnerable to politically motivated assaults.

Where being President is concerned...

Membership has it's privileges! ;-)

I suppose as pres she could pardon herself, huh?

Theoretically yes! Amazingly enough.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, allows for a Presidential pardon power in all cases, EXCEPT impeachment. So, in order to pardon one's self, the President would have to have pardoned himself BEFORE impeachment occurred.

The founding fathers created this provision, to avoid the Executive branch from coming under complete control by the Judicial branch.

But in our history, the only President to have ever been "pardoned" was Richard Nixon, who was pardoned by Gerald Ford, after assuming his office.

I don't really think that she was being all that noble in quitting, Craig.

I understand. And you may be right, that it wasn't a "noble" purpose, but not for this reason you give...

I think she lacked the strength to carry on through that which faced her.

No way. The woman is a veritable fortress of strength. Hillary Clinton broke down under pressure, and cried publicly, but you never saw Palin do so. Granted, Hillary had more at stake than Palin, but still.... Palin endured a grueling and savage beat-down, by the press, on a daily basis, and she continued to fight for McCain's ticket, even when they went after her down syndrome son. There were supposedly professional news organizations trying to suggest that her daughter's child, was actually Palin's, and all kinds of other nasty and absurd comments and accusations. She was given some nice clothes to campaign in, and then SHE was blamed for the amount of money spent on them. Then she was accused of keeping the clothes after the campaign was over. She was mishandled by McCain's people, and when she sought to be her own person and break out of the poor advice they were giving her, they shot her down, with claims of being "rogue" and "uncooperative" when she KNEW, that things they were FORCING on her were wrong.

One example was the revelation that Bristol was pregnant, and how to handle it. She was pressured to issue a statement that the Palin's were PROUD of the fact. Which flies against Palin's religious beliefs. Palin insisted that she be allowed to state the real case... that as parents, they were VERY DISAPPOINTED in that reality, but still loved her daughter very much, and as a family, like many families facing similar situations in America, teen pregnancy, they would deal with it, and Bristol would HAVE the baby, because of her own pro-life beliefs. When Palin drafted her own statement, the McCain mishandlers, took all that out, and altered the statement, which INFURIATED Palin, and set in motion, her keeping these people at a distance from then on.

Talk about pressure! Not only being thrust onto the national stage in a twinkling of an eye, but dealing with very intimate family issues, being revealed IN THE MIDST of the campaign itself, then being undermined about her own beliefs by McCain's mishandlers!

The topper of all this, was in McCain's concession speech. Palin assumed she would be allowed to make a small introductory speech herself, and yet, the McCain mishandlers told her that she would not be allowed to speak (they were angry at her) but if I am not mistaken, they basically told her this, just before going up to the podium.

A lesser human being, would have broken down at that disappointing climax, considering all she had just been through for many months, and yet Palin maintained her composure through it all, and was gracious and STILL supportive of McCain himself.