4um: Palin says she'd be honored to help Obama

Title: Palin says she'd be honored to help Obama
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/12/palin/index.html
Published: Nov 12, 2008
Author: CNN
Post Date: 2008-11-12 21:33:19 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 1354
Comments: 157

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday that she would be honored to help President-elect Barack Obama in his new administration, even if he did hang around with an "unrepentant domestic terrorist."

The Alaska governor said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that she would be willing to help if Obama asked her for assistance on some of the issues she highlighted during this year's campaign, such as energy or services for special-needs children.

"It would be my honor to assist and support our new president and the new administration," said Palin, whom Sen. John McCain chose as his running mate in August.

"They would be willing also to seize this opportunity that we have to progress this nation together, in a united front." Watch CNN's Wolf Blitzer interview Palin »

But asked moments later about some of the tough rhetoric she hurled from the stump, she said she was "still concerned" about Obama's ties to former Weather Underground member-turned-Chicago college professor William Ayers.

"If anybody still wants to talk about it, I will," she said. "Because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol.

That's an association that still bothers me, and I think it's fair to still talk about it," she continued.

"However, the campaign is over. That chapter is closed. Now is the time to move on and make sure all of us are doing all that we can to progress this nation." Watch Palin discuss how she could help Obama »

Palin was attending the annual Republican Governors Association convention in Miami, Florida. She was interviewed for CNN's "The Situation Room" -- the latest of several high-profile appearances for the ex-VP candidate. She will also appear Wednesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live." iReport.com: See readers' questions for Palin

There's speculation that Palin, as well as other incumbent governors at the conference -- such as Charlie Crist of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota -- could all have designs on the Republican presidential nomination in the next race for the White House. All three governors were on McCain's list of possible running mates before he selected Palin. As the 2012 buzz takes off, a new poll suggests that just less than half of all Americans have a favorable view of Palin.

Forty-nine percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Wednesday have a favorable opinion of Palin, with 43 percent viewing her unfavorably.

That is lower than a previous poll, suggesting that favorable opinions of Palin are dropping among Americans.

"In early September, just after the GOP convention, her favorable rating among registered voters was 57 percent, and only a quarter of all registered voters had an unfavorable view of her," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

"Palin is less popular than Vice President-elect Joe Biden, with a 64 percent favorable rating, or her boss on the GOP ticket during the just-completed campaign, John McCain, who is seen favorably by 61 percent of the public."

The poll also suggests that men have a slightly more positive view of Palin than women, with 51 percent of males viewing her favorably, 3 percentage points higher than female respondents. Forty-one percent of males have an unfavorable opinion of Palin, compared with 45 percent of female survey respondents. Watch what McCain says about Palin »

"With fairly high negatives and lower support among women, who should be a natural constituency for Palin, she's not starting off from a position of strength," Holland said. "The question is no longer whether Palin was a drag on the McCain ticket but whether her unfavorables could be a drag on a future Palin ticket." See viewers' video questions submitted for Palin »

Among Republicans, though, Palin's rating remains high, with 86 percent of Republicans questioned in the poll holding a favorable opinion of her. That number drops to 48 percent among independents and 27 percent among Democrats.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted November 6 to 9, with 1,246 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Related Stories

Advertisement

Marking a historic shift, Sen. Barack Obama won a majority of Florida's Hispanic vote statewide and nearly tied Sen. John McCain in Miami-Dade, where Republicans had long dominated the Hispanic vote.

No Democratic presidential candidate had ever achieved either milestone since the exit polling of Hispanics first began in the 1980s, pollsters say.

Nationwide, Obama won the Hispanic vote by a wider margin, garnering 66 percent to McCain's 32 percent, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

In Florida, Obama won 57 percent of the Hispanics on Tuesday, compared to 42 percent for McCain, according to exit polling by Bendixen & Associates, a Democratic pollster.

By comparison, President Bush won 55 percent of the state's Hispanic vote to John Kerry's 44 percent in 2004, according to exit polls.

Polls indicate the state's Hispanic vote may now be divided. On one side are conservative older Cuban Americans, who vote reliably Republican. On the other are younger Cuban Americans coupled with an expanding number of non-Cuban Hispanics, who tend to lean Democratic.

"This is a demographic revolution happening in Miami-Dade County," said Fernand Amandi of Bendixen & Associates, which has been heralding a Hispanic electoral shift for years.

According to Bendixen's exit polls, Obama won 35 percent of the Cuban-American vote in Miami-Dade County, nearly 10 points higher than Kerry's showing in 2004. Within that community, the generational difference was stark. For example, 84 percent of Miami-Dade Cuban-American voters 65 or older backed McCain, while 55 percent of those 29 or younger backed Obama.

For evidence of the potential divide among Cuban Americans, consider Miami's Pujol family.

FAMILY DYNAMICS
Alexandra Palomo-Pujol, 24, helped persuade her mother Rose, a lifelong Republican, to back Obama -- but those arguments failed with her grandparents, who emigrated from Cuba in 1959.

"Over three generations, we grew up in completely different places and we all see things differently and it's hard to see eye-to-eye," said Palomo-Pujol, an executive assistant. "It's hard not to have those differences change the most important relationships in your life."

The family's debates over the election at times ended in slammed doors and days spent without speaking, Palomo-Pujol said.

Her grandfather Jose Luis Pujol regularly called into Cuban-American radio shows before the election, telling listeners that an Obama victory would mean that soon the little pioneros would be part of the U.S. education system. The "pioneers" are the children in Cuba's communist education system who are taught to support the revolution with mottoes such as "we will be like Che [Guevara]."

Meanwhile, Rose Pujol, 53, became an enthusiastic Obama supporter, attending the Democratic Convention, volunteering for the Florida campaign and putting up a life-size cutout of Obama in her Coconut Grove offices.

When she went to tell her parents that she and her daughters were backing the Democratic candidate, they were appalled.

"I could see the hair rising up on their arms, even though I kept telling them that it's OK to realize 50 years later that the party you're part of needs to be revamped," Pujol said.

Despite the political divide in families like the Pujols, Cuban-American political observers say this year's presidential election did not signal a departure from the past.

Mauricio Claver-Carone, a leading embargo lobbyist, said the polls suggest Cubans may have simply voted with their pocketbooks in the presidential contest and cast traditional votes for Miami-Dade's three long-standing Cuban-American lawmakers -- Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Balart -- to hold the line on Cuba sanctions.

"The message from the community was clearly a reaffirmation of the Cuba policy. There's no doubt about it," Claver-Carone said. "They were comfortable taking the risk with an unknown president, but they've got the insurance policy, per se, with the members of Congress."

CONGRESSIONAL RACE
But Jeff Garcia, campaign manager for Raul Martinez, Lincoln Diaz-Balart's opponent, said his candidate lost the race among non-Hispanic whites in Broward County -- not Cuban Americans. Although Obama captured 65 percent of Broward voters, Martinez got only half. The congressional district includes Hialeah and southwest Broward.

Yet in all three congressional contests, the subject of Cuba -- be it the decades-old embargo, lifting travel restrictions or Fidel and Raul Castro -- rarely arose on the campaign trail or over the television airwaves.

This was especially true among the growing non-Cuban Hispanic communities that contributed to Obama's victory.

That group has swelled the voter rolls in recent years with largely Democratic or independent voters. Statewide, Hispanic Democrats now outnumber Hispanic Republicans, 513,000 to 445,000.

The stark differences among the communities in Miami-Dade were apparent in a precinct-by-precinct analysis.

Stretching west along Flagler through Sweetwater, and in Hialeah, the mostly Cuban voters came out more than 2-to-1 for McCain. Not so in West Kendall, Doral, downtown Miami and Homestead, where non-Cuban Hispanics dominate. Obama won them all.

"I think ultimately Obama was able to connect with Hispanics because they were able to identify with what he stands for, because his story is the story of every immigrant," said Colombian-American Nelson Hincapie, 35, of Miami.

Hincapie wasn't always an enthusiastic Obama supporter. Like many Latin American immigrants, he was also concerned about how his vote might affect his South American homeland. He was planning to vote for McCain because of Obama's opposition to the free trade agreement with Colombia.

In the end, his doubts about McCain's ability to handle the rigors of the presidency led him to support Obama.

He eventually volunteered for the Democrat's campaign with several of his Colombian-American friends -- voters who had wanted to back McCain.

"The truth of the matter is we live here, our kids are here, and we have to think about that when we're voting," he said.

Miami Herald staff writers Lesley Clark and Rob Barry contributed to this report.

"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

Okay, so older Cubans are considered reliable GOP voters. Younger Cubans and Central/South American Hispanics are voting Dem - younger Cubans are removed from Castro realspeak and Hispanics tend to be socialist leaning and especially so based on shamnesty promises of the Dem Party. I think I read that once Hispanics' income goes up and they become established middle class, they are not predictable Dem voters.

Dont look now but the oldest SOCIALIST PROGRAM in this country is the public school system.

"Capitalists" abandoned core guiding principles and ended up wedded to the state.

Has Capitalism Failed?

[This article is excerpted from Part I of Pillars of Prosperity. An MP3 audio file of this article, read by Dr. Floy Lilley, is available for download.]

Congressional Record — US House of Representatives July 9, 2002

It is now commonplace and politically correct to blame what is referred to as the excesses of capitalism for the economic problems we face, and especially for the Wall Street fraud that dominates the business news. Politicians are having a field day with demagoguing the issue while, of course, failing to address the fraud and deceit found in the budgetary shenanigans of the federal government — for which they are directly responsible. Instead, it gives the Keynesian crowd that runs the show a chance to attack free markets and ignore the issue of sound money.

So once again we hear the chant: "Capitalism has failed; we need more government controls over the entire financial market." No one asks why the billions that have been spent and thousands of pages of regulations that have been written since the last major attack on capitalism in the 1930s didn't prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings. That failure surely couldn't have come from a dearth of regulations.

What is distinctively absent is any mention that all financial bubbles are saturated with excesses in hype, speculation, debt, greed, fraud, gross errors in investment judgment, carelessness on the part of analysts and investors, huge paper profits, conviction that a new era economy has arrived and, above all else, pie-in-the-sky expectations.

When the bubble is inflating, there are no complaints. When it bursts, the blame game begins. This is especially true in the age of victimization, and is done on a grand scale. It quickly becomes a philosophic, partisan, class, generational, and even a racial issue. While avoiding the real cause, all the finger pointing makes it difficult to resolve the crisis and further undermines the principles upon which freedom and prosperity rest.

Nixon was right — once — when he declared "We're all Keynesians now." All of Washington is in sync in declaring that too much capitalism has brought us to where we are today. The only decision now before the central planners in Washington is whose special interests will continue to benefit from the coming pretense at reform. The various special interests will be lobbying heavily like the Wall Street investors, the corporations, the military-industrial complex, the banks, the workers, the unions, the farmers, the politicians, and everybody else.

"The only decision now before the central planners in Washington is whose special interests will continue to benefit from the coming pretense at reform."

But what is not discussed is the actual cause and perpetration of the excesses now unraveling at a frantic pace. This same response occurred in the 1930s in the United States as our policy makers responded to the very similar excesses that developed and collapsed in 1929. Because of the failure to understand the problem then, the depression was prolonged. These mistakes allowed our current problems to develop to a much greater degree. Consider the failure to come to grips with the cause of the 1980s bubble, as Japan's economy continues to linger at no-growth and recession level, with their stock market at approximately one-fourth of its peak 13 years ago. If we're not careful — and so far we've not been — we will make the same errors that will prevent the correction needed before economic growth can be resumed.

In the 1930s, it was quite popular to condemn the greed of capitalism, the gold standard, lack of regulation, and a lack government insurance on bank deposits for the disaster. Businessmen became the scapegoat. Changes were made as a result, and the welfare/warfare state was institutionalized. Easy credit became the holy grail of monetary policy, especially under Alan Greenspan, "the ultimate Maestro." Today, despite the presumed protection from these government programs built into the system, we find ourselves in a bigger mess than ever before. The bubble is bigger, the boom lasted longer, and the gold price has been deliberately undermined as an economic signal. Monetary inflation continues at a rate never seen before in a frantic effort to prop up stock prices and continue the housing bubble, while avoiding the consequences that inevitably come from easy credit. This is all done because we are unwilling to acknowledge that current policy is only setting the stage for a huge drop in the value of the dollar. Everyone fears it, but no one wants to deal with it.

Ignorance, as well as disapproval for the natural restraints placed on market excesses that capitalism and sound markets impose, cause our present leaders to reject capitalism and blame it for all the problems we face. If this fallacy is not corrected and capitalism is even further undermined, the prosperity that the free market generates will be destroyed.

Corruption and fraud in the accounting practices of many companies are coming to light. There are those who would have us believe this is an integral part of free-market capitalism. If we did have free-market capitalism, there would be no guarantees that some fraud wouldn't occur. When it did, it would then be dealt with by local law-enforcement authority and not by the politicians in Congress, who had their chance to "prevent" such problems but chose instead to politicize the issue, while using the opportunity to promote more useless Keynesian regulations.

Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!

To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political parties. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names — Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.

What is not discussed is that the current crop of bankruptcies reveals that the blatant distortions and lies emanating from years of speculative orgy were predictable.

First, Congress should be investigating the federal government's fraud and deception in accounting, especially in reporting future obligations such as Social Security, and how the monetary system destroys wealth. Those problems are bigger than anything in the corporate world and are the responsibility of Congress. Besides, it's the standard set by the government and the monetary system it operates that are major contributing causes to all that's wrong on Wall Street today. Where fraud does exist, it's a state rather than a federal matter, and state authorities can enforce these laws without any help from Congress.

"We are unwilling to acknowledge that current policy is only setting the stage for a huge drop in the value of the dollar. Everyone fears it, but no one wants to deal with it."

– Ron Paul, 2002

Second, we do know why financial bubbles occur, and we know from history that they are routinely associated with speculation, excessive debt, wild promises, greed, lying, and cheating. These problems were described by quite a few observers as the problems were developing throughout the 1990s, but the warnings were ignored for one reason. Everybody was making a killing and no one cared, and those who were reminded of history were reassured by the Fed chairman that "this time" a new economic era had arrived and not to worry. Productivity increases, it was said, could explain it all.

But now we know that's just not so. Speculative bubbles and all that we've been witnessing are a consequence of huge amounts of easy credit, created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. We've had essentially no savings, which is one of the most significant driving forces in capitalism. The illusion created by low interest rates perpetuates the bubble and all the bad stuff that goes along with it. And that's not a fault of capitalism. We are dealing with a system of inflationism and interventionism that always produces a bubble economy that must end badly.

So far the assessment made by the administration, Congress, and the Fed bodes badly for our economic future. All they offer is more of the same, which can't possibly help. All it will do is drive us closer to national bankruptcy, a sharply lower dollar, and a lower standard of living for most Americans, as well as less freedom for everyone.

This is a bad scenario that need not happen. But preserving our system is impossible if the critics are allowed to blame capitalism and sound monetary policy is rejected. More spending, more debt, more easy credit, more distortion of interest rates, more regulations on everything, and more foreign meddling will soon force us into the very uncomfortable position of deciding the fate of our entire political system.

"To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense."

If we were to choose freedom and capitalism, we would restore our dollar to a commodity or a gold standard. Federal spending would be reduced, income taxes would be lowered, and no taxes would be levied upon savings, dividends, and capital gains. Regulations would be reduced, special-interest subsidies would be stopped, and no protectionist measures would be permitted. Our foreign policy would change, and we would bring our troops home.

We cannot depend on government to restore trust to the markets; only trustworthy people can do that. Actually, the lack of trust in Wall Street executives is healthy because it is deserved and prompts caution. The same lack of trust in politicians, the budgetary process, and the monetary system would serve as a healthy incentive for the reform in government we need.

Markets regulate better than governments can. Depending on government regulations to protect us significantly contributes to the bubble mentality.

These moves would produce the climate for releasing the creative energy necessary to simply serve consumers, which is what capitalism is all about. The system that inevitably breeds the corporate-government cronyism that created our current ongoing disaster would end.

Capitalism didn't give us this crisis of confidence now existing in the corporate world. The lack of free markets and sound money did. Congress does have a role to play, but it's not proactive. Congress's job is to get out of the way.

I do that occasionally to see what Nanny Stater panty waist will do exactly what you just did. Good work.

Now, if you look at my post, I don't say 'you should of used,' I prompted with a 'you mean,' so if there was a specific purpose to the way you framed the sentence, you could share it with us.

My point here is you really are wired to fight wherever and whenever you exchange posts with anyone remotely disagreeing with you.

You know, the current breast beating, tub thumping caterwauling WHINING of the right is too much, blame everyone except the prime originators of the philosophy, Milton Friedman and his acolyte Greenspan, who got the opportunity to put their policies into play under Reagan.

Talk show hosts like Limbum make it sound that Bawney Fwank singlehandedly engineered the whole fiasco. Sure he did, aided by both Dems like Biden and Hoyer and the whole cabal of Republicans like Gramm et al. Clinton and the recent dem congress both deregulated willynilly, even outdoing Repubs at times. Hoyer's screwing of Americans with his gifts to the credit industry, and even helped by Biden, who wasn't happy having done the work of the DEA and author of the infamous crack/powder discrepancies and mandatory sentencing.

The current self victimisation (isn't that a hoot - I thought conservative were not into the cult of victimisation, LOL!) invokes in me memories of Communists, their apologists and fellow travelers, who claimed True Communism was never given a chance to work, it was hijacked and waylaid by Stalin or Mao or Hoxha or whoever.

Now we blame Congress, or bureaucrats or the magnetic fields, because true deregulation never took place or was stymied, hijacked by evil powerful forces that left the Republicans, often in power, simply helpless like virginal maidens surrounded by rampaging Vikings.

Funny how today's American economic conservatives exhibit an uncanny resemblance to unreconstructed Communists.

Bingo, your post, envy not only at her looks, poise, demeanout but at her husband too.

That is for sure, rotara...........one only has to read your comments and find that you, for one, did not take advantage of any of it.

Tis how I feel, Chrissie........after I wrote it I was smilin and thinking, something along these lines: "Remember back when all the guys were panting and raving bout AC, and the pic with her/him/it with a guy was really 'turn on' material! That skinny-ass, knockneed, mouthy broad/male/dike is enough to gag a maggot."

Not to mention how, left to their own devices, Capitalism and Communism seem to both arrive at the same miserable destination: A nation utterly looted of productive capacity, with a very few people at the very top of the pyramid having nearly complete control of the entire economy, and everyone else is reduced to serfdom, if they're lucky.

Once again, I look around at the rest of the world, and look at what has actually worked in the real world, and I personally am of the opinion that we could learn a LOT from the governments of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. Yes, that means that I think we should seriously consider embracing Democratic Socialism. For saying this, I have been subjected to the vilest invective from supposedly "God-Fearing" people on this forum. No matter. I've spoken the truth as I see it. If others can't see my point, I'm not going to labor the subject.

You have the right to disagree, and I have the right to call you a fascist. Go stomp around in your jackboots for a while, it will make you feel better.

Just out of curiosity, what part of that paragraph did you not understand before you decided to call me a "commie"? Did I not make it clear enough? Perhaps I should have utilized the writing techniques of Theodore Geisel so that somone such as yourself could better understand? Maybe if I put my arguments in simple rhyme, carefully eschewing multi-syllable words and a vocabulary beyond the ability of a half- bright second grader to understand then perhaps you would better comprehend my point? Really, I'd like to know. Just how dumbed-down do I have to phrase things before people like you can understand what I'm trying to say? Do I aim for the reading level of "Cat in the Hat" or maybe I can aspire to elevate my prose to the level of "Horton Hears a Who"?

Perhaps I need to start writing in anapestic tetrameter. Maybe then people will better understand me.

The muslim scum are flocking to those nations for that very reason: the white man hands out EVERYTHING they need to survive, including nubile white Nordic women for them to rape, beat, and murder. You DID know about that, didn't you??? No thanks, those governments are too gentile and politically-correct to confront the horrible truth of muslim terrorism within their own borders. We give the muslim immigrants to America too much as it is, I wouldn't want to give them any more reason to come here and plague us with their filthy existence.

I knew something was up when the mens clothing department at Macy's got it's own floor. ;)

No, it's for the shoes. Better get a bike lock for your pink feather wedgies as well. hehehehehehehe

I have to say the only wimmens I have seen tearing her apart *in the media* are IMO LIKELY doing so because Palin presented a perceived threat to the dem ticket. Then when she had the gall to trot out kids and a hard working hub, that sent the lesbo's into orbit. Not no but hell no would some heartland, 'g' droppin' you bethcha gal steal the mantle of first wammen VP, or snatch a grand moment in all of Earths history and the entire galaxy from Obongo.

So, if you use crowd size as a measure, she brought life to the parade of zombies. I see they started hocking coins with BO'S face on them a couple days after the election. Gee, the whole thing was such a nail-biter./s

they are much smaller countries, not militarized, and homogeneous. i wish secession were possible.

Ain't it so. She should embrace her Alaskan independence background and tear into the D.C. bunch who crapped all over her. And that includes McCain, she took a lot of heat that should have fell on his shoulders.

Check out the article titled "The Little Pigs in the Village of the Wrecked Economy" that I just posted. I made that just for the "special people" here on the forum.

Very true. As for her future in politics, I actually hope she tends to her job in Alaska, sits through and studies the impending meltdown, stays upwind, and storms the gates another day. I think the 'party' is sucking her in to finish her off.

Yeah, but the burning question is does she have any rich, exuberant, naughty but nice, unattached high I.Q. friends looking for a charming Househusband who knows which fork to use, how to converse at the dinner table, and is not uncomfortable in a Tux?

"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken

I would imagine that the potential househusband should be making contact directly with the governor regarding that matter. I doubt the librals will bring that up, for fear such a potential could turn into a reality, which could mean multipication tables in the future--against them, they'd perceive it to be.

Unless they keep it hidden really well the small countries which are comprised mainly of one race and with one predominant culture have the least crime. At least that is how it appears--polyglot countries are all crime ridden and get worse all the time.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

How about if I drop the tux and go for my preferred Khakis and Safari Shirt? Rich is negotiable - moderately well off and reserved works. ;-)

"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken

Obama Wins Florida's Hispanic Vote

Casey Woods

Has Capitalism Failed?