See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Palin says she might run for high office again
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph ... CPRCO0&show_article=1&catnum=0
Published: Nov 11, 2008
Author: AP
Post Date: 2008-11-11 11:03:03 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 1258
Comments: 93
WASILLA, Alaska (AP) - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says she wouldn't hesitate to run for the presidency in four years if it's God's will, even though she never thought Campaign 2008 would be "as brutal a ride as it turned out to be." In a series of interviews in the wake of last Tuesday's elections, Palin said she had no problem with Republican presidential nominee John McCain, but that she resents rumors she said were spread about her and her family by the Arizona Republican's aides. She emphatically denied that she was a drag on the GOP ticket. "I think the economic collapse had a heckuva lot more to do with the campaign's collapse than me personally," the governor said in an interview broadcast Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show. Palin also said "There were a lot of times I wanted to shout out, 'Hey, wait a minute, it's not true.' It's pretty brutal." Nevertheless, the relatively obscure governor of Alaska, whose selection for the ticket by McCain last August brought excitement—and controversy—to the 2008 campaign, said she would be eager to do it all again under the right circumstances. "I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door," Palin said in an interview with Fox News on Monday. "And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door." In the wide-ranging interview, Palin said she neither wanted nor asked for the $150,000-plus wardrobe the Republican Party bankrolled, and thought the issue was an odd one at the end of the campaign, considering "what is going on in the world today." "I did not order the clothes. Did not ask for the clothes," Palin said. "I would have been happy to have worn my own clothes from Day One. But that is kind of an odd issue, an odd campaign issue as things were wrapping up there as to who ordered what and who demanded what." "It's amazing that we did as well as we did," the governor said of the election in a separate interview with the Anchorage Daily News. "I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a $10 trillion debt in a Republican administration? How have there been blunders with war strategy under a Republican administration? If we're talking change, we want to get far away from what it was that the present administration represented and that is to a great degree what the Republican Party at the time had been representing," Palin said in a story published Sunday. Palin has scheduled a series of national interviews this week with Fox, NBC's "Today" show and CNN. She also plans to attend the Republican Governors Association conference in Florida this week. Palin has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012. She also could seek re-election in 2010 or challenge Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Still uncertain is the fate of Sen. Ted Stevens, who is leading in his bid for another term but could be ousted by the Senate for his conviction on seven felony counts of failing to report more than $250,000 in gifts, mostly renovations on his home. If Stevens loses his seat, Palin could run for it in a special election. Palin and McCain's campaign faced a storm of criticism over the tens of thousands of dollars spent at such high-end stores as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus to dress the nominee. Republican National Committee lawyers are still trying to determine exactly what clothing was bought for Palin, what was returned and what has become of the rest.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-53) not displayed.
.
.
.
#54. To: HOUNDDAWG (#50)
And, it's a sad fact that the most gifted women don't seek careers in politics. If we want to attract more respected women candidates we'll have to make politics respectable, hear hear! and thank you for the defense and compliments, dawg.
It started with the founding of the Federal Reserve, WWI and the IRS.
Right answer wrong subject
Lott deals in facts for sure.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
—Ann Coulter, Oct. 2 New York Observer Doesn't that sound like the one about the Trojan who says "All Trojans are liars?" If a woman says that women aren't qualified to vote, what does that say about that woman's opinion?
Women vote on emotion it's the same with sex ...women need a reason men just need a place.....I always feel the urge to add "sorry Christine" nothing personal
Gross.
It's a man's !
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
If its not true correct me!
Drag queens with blonde wigs don't count as men, or as women either. The Sioux Indians would have called Ann Coulter a "Berdache."
I have nothing to say cause if I do, you will tattle to the owner.
The facts say "Yes!". That's how it is.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
For centuries only male heirs could inherit property or could expect an inheritance as a matter of birthright. And, there was no shortage of wars, death and destruction, which requires no debate as to their negative effects on society. So, by your logic men created the system for their benefit but it wasn't "abused" until women who could be left to starve for the crime of getting older began to demand protection as a matter of law. Since when is taking care of our mothers, sisters, wives and daughters a bad thing? And, if simple reliance upon the goodwill of others is all that's needed then why do men continue to use legals wills to protect their sons inheritances? And, why do men generally support workplace safety, mandatory overtime and minimum wage laws? If you believe that only women look to govt for financial security and protection then you're simply responding to pre-programmed stimuli. Farmers are a distinct class of socialists with their own govt programs and they are mostly men.
Close enough to "Biotch" for me.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
That's so twisted I would not know where to start in response a little advice to most males on this thread.....ease up on the viagra it effects the other head
That reminds me, my ex used to tell me that I thought with my little head ... I agreed and asked if that was her excuse for not being able to conjure up a thought.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Texas Pastor Challenges Congregation To 7 Days of Sex Beginning next weekend, Fellowship Church, a Dallas-based mega church with over 20,000 people in attendance, continues a controversial teaching seminar called "Leaving Lust Vegas" that skates the razor-thin line between lust, sex, marriage and family. And now Pastor Ed Young heightens the controversy with an unprecedented challenge to married couples: Have Seven Days of Sex beginning Nov. 16.
gross generalization on both
There are no warlike people--just warlike leaders. – Ralph Bunche
Still mad at me I see :-) .... name one bill that contains the term "children" that any congress women/senator has not voted for....as for my own kind we will crawl over broken glass to get a little action we don't need a reason...I'm just being honest sorry if it offends...then again maybe it is the effects of being a bachelor for the past decade PS A little bit of history John Adams to James Sullivan on women, the poor, and voting rights May 26, 1776 [Adams explains why women, children, and the poor are excluded from the vote. — TGW] It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs? But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembled—a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule. But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest… I should think that wisdom and policy would dictate in these times, to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters. Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults. What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification. The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents… Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons. Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level. [From Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, ed., The Founders’
Just plain gross will suffice.
PW
Thank you, dawgie........
rob... I can tolerate your gold bug passions but your gross behavior on someone elses dime is despicable.
I guess you missed the class on the "free speech" thing
I excelled in proper and socially acceptable public speaking. Indeed I did flunk gutter street language. That filthy human habit was a turnoff to most decent people.
Maybe you need a radio show!
No thanks. I had a long, more rewarding professional career.
Then why are you poor?
rob... You are in over your head and digging a deeper hole. Defending your vulgar language and hatred of women by attacking is just another of your many failures. People here read it and it is like an open book, exposing all your human frailties to public scrutiny. Winning friends and influencing people here has been fruitless as we see more and more posters ignoring you. Me included.
Hate to burst your bubble but there are a bunch of women in Scottsdale who would disagree with your statement of my "hatred of women" I most proberly spend more on them in a week then you earn in a month or more!
You are in over your head and digging a deeper hole. Defending your vulgar language and hatred of women by attacking is just another of your many failur They coin salesman guy is a cuckoo clock..totally nuts. TG for the bozo filter. Last person, after listening for a decade or longer on s/w radio, i'd ever think I'd bozo/...but he be GONE. :))
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx Hey it's DH
I do not know how to Bozo but I can ignore like others are already doing. Shame. I like people and learn from most but when posters are their own worst enemy, ignore is the rule of the day.
practise what you preach ....
PW Political Whimp ??? Pussy whip ??? Both !
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Here's what you deserve for your politically correct view of women. (A real Witch).
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Although I generally avoid you (because you may hold the record for consecutive troll posts while pretending that you have intelligent replies but, you aren't really all that anxious for us to see just how brilliant you really are, choosing to appear sophomoric and ignorant until someone throws you a slow pitch then suddenly you're the sage again) let me say this to you. I understand your point of view and may have agreed with at some point in my youth. And, as you see, if I choose to dispute you and your ilk I'll do so with specific points that a gifted intellect could and would respond to. But, so far all I see (once again) are you and another little ratshit enabler clinging to each other like frightened children in a thunderstorm while posturing as, not reflections but shadows of manly 18th century men! Believe me, the instant you metamorphosed from the pseudo-intellectual, faux philosophical to the childish and insulting you not only lost the debate but you forfeit any reasonable expectation of respectful treatment from me or any other member who isn't here to lash out at mommy. Now, you may surprise me and actually write something original instead of quoting some long dead guru that you would have us believe agrees with you instead of you pretending to understand and agree with him! (hah!) but, I don't believe that you have the intellect to stand toe to toe and argue this or any other point. And that is why you are forever destined to be a troll. And, just as you refuse to see that sitting on a stack of phone books while typing mediocre troll posts won't change a demented dwarf into a superman, you refuse to take an honest appraisal of your amoebic persona and see what I and others clearly see. In fact, people at your level usually sit quietly when I speak publicly, and you wouldn't even exist if not for the anonymity and seeming equality of the internet. In a public gathering you'd be too embarrassed to stay until the end, choosing to drop out through the restroom window before any have the chance to corner and identify you and the specific name of the med you refuse to take for your condition, or asking the name of your probation officer. The best you can hope for is to be mildly irritating, and I shouldn't ever expect you to really set me straight the way my betters (some of whom are women) sometimes do. Pity. I was so looking forward to that. Here's a hint: When you cherry pick a four word post to throw Adams up in response while trolling all others that would require an investment of time and intelligence, you reveal yourself in such a way that as a thinking man with sons I'm actually embarrassed for you. And you reinforce the old axiom that stupid people don't know that they are stupid. It's your turn. Another witty Viagra quip, perhaps?
Gee, I wished I'd said that! And his reply is to heave up something about free speech, completely missing the point that he's posting on the property of another, not standing in the public square where he can lay claim to speech as a matter of right. He's actually easy to ignore because unlike some trolls he doesn't actually write anything that requires rebuttal. It's not as if he'll confuse anyone if a response doesn't follow.... "Duh, did Viagra make you say that?" It won't take too many more of those demands to "exercise his goddam right!" and chris will educate him about the difference between free speech rights and posting privileges. And, he doesn't even see it coming.
You mean the man regarded as one of the most influential Founding Fathers of the United States ....I take it you are a offended women...deal with it! PS That was my last post,so see you guys don't want to upset Christine any more we have our differences but on this issue I don't back down it's her sand box it's been fun ....bye!
Free speech is just that... Projecting ones free speech does not allow them to intrude on others. Free speech has ALWAYS had boundaries as to HOW, WHEN and WHERE you may exercise it. Exercising ones "free speech" in my living room by calling all women vulgar names will get the person a very bad beating. (That would be administered by my wife) Then I would enjoy shoveling the human filth out the door into the street.
BUT, if women do run things someday we'll probably be healthier, happier and less likely to lose sons and daughters in foreign wars.
#55. To: robnoel, HOUNDDAWG (#51)
I'm sorry but history says the opposite the suffragette movement used this same argument to win the passage of the 19th amendment a few short years later WW2 broke out and if you want to trace the explosion in government spending on social programs it may be a coincidence but it started in 1920
#56. To: bluegrass (#55)
#57. To: robnoel (#53)
#58. To: robnoel (#53)
(Edited)
"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen."
#59. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#58)
#60. To: robnoel (#59)
#61. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#58)
If a woman says that women aren't qualified to vote, what does that say about that woman's opinion?
#62. To: Cynicom (#60)
#63. To: noone222 (#61)
(Edited)
#64. To: robnoel (#62)
If its not true correct me!
#65. To: robnoel (#62)
Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?
#66. To: robnoel (#53)
#67. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#63)
The Sioux Indians would have called Ann Coulter a "Berdache."
#68. To: HOUNDDAWG (#66)
#69. To: robnoel (#68)
ease up on the viagra it effects the other head
#70. To: noone222 (#69)
This is going a little to far....I wonder if they have spiked the water in Texas with the little blue pill
#71. To: robnoel (#59)
Women vote on emotion it's the same with sex ...women need a reason men just need a place
#72. To: christine (#71)
(Edited)
#73. To: christine (#71)
#74. To: Cynicom (#73)
#75. To: HOUNDDAWG (#66)
#76. To: robnoel (#74)
#77. To: Cynicom (#76)
#78. To: robnoel (#77)
I guess you missed the class on the "free speech" thing
#79. To: Cynicom (#78)
I excelled in proper and socially acceptable public speaking.
#80. To: robnoel (#79)
#81. To: Cynicom (#80)
#82. To: robnoel (#81)
Then why are you poor?
#83. To: Cynicom (#82)
Defending your vulgar language and hatred of women by attacking is just another of your many failures.
#84. To: Cynicom (#82)
rob...
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of its very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#85. To: IndieTX (#84)
#86. To: IndieTX (#84)
#87. To: Cynicom (#86)
ignore is the rule of the day.
#88. To: robnoel, Cynicom (#74)
Cynicom
#89. To: Cynicom (#82)
#90. To: robnoel, christine, rowdee, Astoria, farmfriend (#68)
(Edited)
#91. To: Cynicom, christine, lodwick (#76)
I can tolerate your gold bug passions but your gross behavior on someone elses dime is despicable.
#92. To: HOUNDDAWG (#90)
(Edited)
instead of quoting some long dead guru
#93. To: HOUNDDAWG, all (#91)
And, he doesn't even see it coming.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest