How do you know what to like about her? She seems incapable of expressing thoughts or ideas in any coherent manner.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/the-dapalin-cod.html

Actions speak louder than words.

In any case Eisenhower used to talk like that and folks now consider him a pretty good President.

We will soon see if the man with a golden tongue can govern.

Can you expand on the ways she has put conservative economic principles in action during her political career? All I know about it is:

1. The Wasilla hockey rink saga when she was mayor.

2. She opposed the "bridge to nowhere" after at least some locals were led to believe she supported it. And then Alaska got the Federal moneys anyway for other projects.

3. She is governor of a state that balances its budget using resource extraction fees. Which certainly eases the pain of making fiscal choices.

I realize that sounds quite negative, but honestly that is all I've seen that stands out.

Simon

Could you explain what economic conservatism Ms. Palin has demonstrated as either a member of the PTA, mayor of Wasilla, or Governor of Alaska?

That she renegotiated Alaska's oil pipeline contract which enabled her to send state citizens an extra couple of thousand dollars is a testimony of her economic skills. Rather than plunder the taxpayers, being able to send them money? Hell yes! I don't know how 'conservative' that is, but it's certainly more admirable economically than anything Biden, McCain, or Obama has done in public office.

I also like that she seems to have all the right enemies.

Stewart

Wait...so Palin deserves *credit* for taking wealth from private industry and spreading it around to the citizens of Alaska?

Dr. No,

What a facile way to describe renegotiating the pipeline contract. Upping the required contribution to the Permanent Fund demonstrated the free market at work. Palin turned right-of-way renewal into an opportunity to let the market - wait, this is starting to sound "conservative!" - determine the value of the use of publicly-owned right-of-way.

Plundering private industry, it is not.

Rocketeer

Ahhhh, I see. When Palin redistributes wealth and accepts redistributed wealth for her constituents, that's "conservative."

You're obviously a smart fella, so perhaps you could explain to me how the Permanent Fund itself isn't "socialist" by Palin's campaign standards? After all, Alaska's citizens receive the benefit of far more federal money than they pay into the system (something like a ratio of 2-1 last time I checked), yet the state of Alaska still cuts each and every citizen a check every year. Shouldn't Alaska being paying its own way?

If Palin is such a exemplar of fiscal conservatism, I'm not sure how she can support this kind of wealth redistribution from the lower 48 to her state, particularly since a good portion of that money comes from the un-American parts of the country.

particularly since a good portion of that money comes from the un-American parts of the country.

What's more conservative than taking money from socialists so they can't spend it on aborting minority babies or on programs to steal my guns?

Veeshir

"What's more conservative than taking money from socialists so they can't spend it on aborting minority babies or on programs to steal my guns?"

Wow. That would be funny if I didn't think you were serious.

You're obviously a smart fella, so perhaps you could explain to me how the Permanent Fund itself isn't "socialist" by Palin's campaign standards?

Easy, Dr. No. The Permanent Fund is not "socialist" because the transaction between the oil companies and the State of Alaska is a voluntary purchase of extraction rights and right-of-way use. It is not compulsory. There are plenty of oil companies not currently participating in the lease of trans-Alaska pipeline ROW that would have JUMPED at the opportunity to access Alaska's oil. Consortium companies knew this and therefore willingly - again, not compulsorily - increased payments to the Permanent Fund (a managed investment fund, by the way, not your typical state capital budget line - another marker of its "non-socialism") to preserve exclusive rights to the pipeline. Palin knew there was additional value there, and they knew Palin knew.

Next time, don't be so sloppy as to borrow such a shabby, trite argument from our inferiors at DU and DKos.

I don't know how 'conservative' that is, but it's certainly more admirable economically than anything Biden, McCain, or Obama has done in public office.

Anonymous

"The Permanent Fund is not "socialist" because the transaction between the oil companies and the State of Alaska is a voluntary purchase of extraction rights and right-of-way use."

I fully agree that the Permanent Fund is not "socialist" by any reasonable definition. However, we're not talking about reasonable definitions, we're talking about Palin's definitions. And under that standard, you know very well that a public fund that takes money from private business and spreads it around to citizens would be considered "socialism."

And, I don't see the portion of your post that addresses the fact that Alaska cuts a check every year for each of its citizens from Permanent Fund, despite the fact that Alaska continues to receive hundreds of millions of dollars more in federal funds than it contributes.

If Governor Palin is truly concerned about socialism, and truly opposed to spreading the wealth, how can the state of Alaska justify cutting a check for each of citizens, regardless of their contribution to society, while the state is being subsidized by the rest of the country? By Palin's campaign standards, that's not just Socialism, that's Marxism.

Wow. That would be funny if I didn't think you were serious.

Dr. Dynamite, that just goes to show that you have seriously poor reading comprenension skills.

What did I say about you yesterday?
Quote(s)
Roy, did you really just respond to Dr Dynamite's diatribe? Are you really that bored?

And

Poorly reasoned attacks deserve no response. Ever. Unless you're bored or the nitwit is funny. You(sic) last post was funny, the first one? Not so much.

Of course anything I direct at you is supposed to be humorous or rude, you proved yesterday that you're not here to do anything constructive by not answering my question.
Recall that you said that you questioned my comment and I asked you what, in your poorly reasoned attack, was a question. Your 'reply' was that you were questioning others. Tacitly, but not specifically, admitting that you hadn't "questioned" my comment, yet you called me stupid and tried to use a bunch of $10 words to try to overawe me with your scary intellect. That was funny.

So you can assume that anything I direct at you is meant to be humorous or rude because you're not worth anything but humor or rudeness. Quite honestly, if you have a tenth the brains you seem to think you have (which assertion I would dispute), you will ignore anything I write because I believe, and am specifically stating, that all you are worth is poking with a stick so I can laugh at you.

Now if you ever do manage to write something substantive that looks like an honest attempt at dialogue, by all means, I'll note it and might even respond seriously. Alas, I think that's beyond your "reasoning" and "debating" skills.

toronto condominiums

It is certainly admirable from the Alaskan citizens' perspective. They get subsidized by the federal government to a greater extent than nearly any other state, yet they get a check every year from the state for doing nothing.

If an individual had a million dollar trust fund and still received a monthly welfare check from the government, we might refer to that situation as something other than "admirable," however.

Now don't get me wrong--I think it is appropriate for more affluent/populous states to subsidize less affluent/populous states. If it didn't work that way, a large portion of the country wouldn't have paved roads, electricity, running water, or phone service. What irks me, however, is when some doofus like Sarah Palin wraps herself in rugged individualism and cries "socialism" in response to historically moderate tax increases on the wealthy, while simultaneously accepting (and championing) enormous federal subsidies for her own state.

Veeshir

What did I tell you about bringing a spoon to a spork fight? I didn't call you "stupid," I pointed out that you were picking a semantic fight, which is itself rather inane, which you weren't even close to being able to win. If you want to address the topic in the other thread, I suggest you man up and do so. As it is, you're not doing yourself any favors by bringing that up here.

If there are any questions you have put to me that I have not answered to your satisfaction, please point them out and I will happily address them (again?).

If you have difficulty with any of the $10 words I used, just let me know and I will happily explain them to you.

In the meantime, I'll be busy aborting minority babies and hatching plans to steal your guns. With your own hard-earned money, no less!

DND,

You might want to read the State Constitution of Alaska some time. A person of your obvious brilliance might learn something.

All states have extraction fees. In Alaska it is enough to support the state government.

Heck. Even the Federal government has its fees on resource extraction.

You might not agree with the law but what Palin did was follow the law.

I demand to know what Gov. Palin's position is on UFO's. Forget abortion rights and federalism, this shit is serious!

M. Simon

My position is not that the Permanent Fund is contrary to law, or that it is unwise. I actually think it is a wise use of Alaskan resources, and many other state government would be well served to emulate that model, rather than giving away public resources for next to nothing.

My point is that Alaska's use of the Permanent Fund, which issues a check to every citizen in the state regardless of their contribution to society, combined with the massive subsidies that Alaska enjoys courtesy of the lower 48, simply do not square with Sarah Palin's rhetoric, and under her own campaign standards would unquestionably be considered "socialism."

Does anyone have any actual examples of Palin's personal beliefs guiding her governing principles? I mean, obviously she's personally a socially conservative person, but has she governed like that? Does that drive her governance?

under her own campaign standards would unquestionably be considered "socialism."

No it would not be consider socialist, except by socialists seeking to expand the definition to include any use of a public good or public property for fee so as to pervert the true meaning of the word thereby hiding their own intent.

So stop ignoring the obvious. The Fund collects fees from those who choose to use State resources. If companies do not wish to pay fees they do not participate adn their money remains theirs.

Socialism means no choice in the matter - everyone pays regardless of play status. But your own oxymoronic protestations of States 'giving,/i> away public resources for next to nothing' says you do understand the issue and are merely being dishonest in your arguments.

No surprise there though.

ThomasD

If I am not explaining myself clearly, I apologize. If you are choosing to remain wilfully obtuse to the point being raised, I do not apologize.

The Permanent Fund itself is not "socialist" in any meaningful way. It is actually an example of wise governance and use of public resources. The massive subsidies that allow Alaska to function as a state are not "socialist" in any meaningful way. Those massive subsidies, which serve to spread the wealth from rich/populous states to poor/less populous states, are the only thing that keeps a good number of states functioning. Having grown up in one of those states that depends on federal subsidies of that kind, I can say without hesitation that I'm glad it works like that.

Those practices, however, are in no way economically "conservative" and when taken in the context of Palin's ridiculous campaign rhetoric that redefined "socialism" to the point of absurdity, the do fall neatly into Palin's own definition.

I have yet to see anyone on this thread, least of all Simon, explain how Alaskan economics can be considered "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination. Can you help me out with that?

Can you help me out with that?

Dr. No, the answer is quite obviously negative. Several commenters herein have explained it to you in a manner that would be quite clear to an honest interlocuter. That you deny you have received the explanation is evidence of your deep intellectual dishonesty. I'm not long on this site, but it's become quickly apparent that you are lacking in good faith.

You are are not seeking truth. You are seeking an outlet for your agitprop.

Rocketeer

Nope, still not an explanation of how Alaskan economics can be considered "conservative."

Thanks for your input, though.