The Note
Washington's Original and Most Influential Tipsheet

Rick Klein is ABC News' Senior Political Reporter and author of The Note's morning look at the upcoming day in politics. Throughout the day, ABC News' political team contributes to The Note with the very latest news and analysis from the nation's capital.

To email Rick Klein, click here.

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

« Previous | Main | Next »

The Note: Palin’s Gone Fishing -- for a Future Role

July 07, 2009 8:13 AM

Klein By RICK KLEIN

Maybe there’s a path for the Republican Party where Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, goes away and never comes back.

Maybe, with the only thing in Washington greater than the Democratic whip count being the president’s approval rating, that GOP comeback is ready to finally, belatedly, begin.

Or maybe the Palin phenomenon will fade out, and the party will look to new voices and new faces after this bizarre, sometimes insane stretch.

But salmon swim upstream for a reason (we presume). And sometimes the point guard gets the ball back.

Palin pulls up for some (parting?) shots with ABC’s Kate Snow.

She’s a touch philosophical for a fishing trip -- but doesn’t sound like she’s ready to pack in any gear for good.

“Politically speaking -- if I die, I die. So be it,” Palin told Snow in remote Dillingham, Alaska, in an interview on “Good Morning America” Tuesday.

On 2012: “Don’t know what the future holds. I’m not gonna shut any door. That -- who knows what doors open. I can’t predict what the next fish run’s gonna look like down on the Nushagak. So I certainly can’t predict what’s gonna happen in the next couple of years.”

“I’m extremely happy.”

More on why she’s resigning: “You don’t just embrace the politics of usual of a lame duck session… milk it the way most politicians do… say, it’s a paycheck and I get to travel around. No! That’s politics as usual,” she said. “I’m being honest with the people whom I looooove.”
 
“I don’t need a title to be the one to usher in what it is that needs to be done in our state or our country,” she said.

(Asked whether she’d be subjected to the same “political bloodsport” if she went for national office, Palin told Snow she’s confident that the “department of law at the White House” would protect her from baseless allegations.) (Is she adding to the bureaucracy?)

How about a shot at the media, in what may be her last round of interviews as governor: “The double standard that's applied here is a bit perplexing. ... Didn't Lisa Murkowski leave office to go take her dad's seat? [Jon] Huntsman left, [Janet] Napolitano just left . . . ,” Palin told the Anchorage Daily News, referring to governors who took positions in President Obama's administration. 

Sean Cockerham reports: “Palin said she is embarking on a ‘different, more effective path’ than finishing her term. Asked how, she said she didn't know at this point, other than to campaign for political candidates who represent the values she supports.” 

With that, the post-Palin era will have to wait for a while. Reports of her political demise have been vastly exaggerated. And we’ll all have Palin to kick around for at least a while longer.

But is it time to retire the party’s biggest rock star?

David Brooks is in search of “dignity,” and doesn’t find it with Gov. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., or Palin: “Here was a woman who aspires to a high public role but is unfamiliar with the traits of equipoise and constancy, which are the sources of authority and trust,” Brooks writes of Palin.

“But it’s not right to end on a note of cultural pessimism because there is the fact of President Obama. Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity. The cultural effects of his presidency are not yet clear, but they may surpass his policy impact. He may revitalize the concept of dignity for a new generation and embody a new set of rules for self-mastery.”

National Review’s Rich Lowry: “Sarah Palin’s words served only to throw a tissue of rationalization over a calculated choice made in her personal self-interest. In all likelihood, Palin is going to embrace her political celebrity with gusto, freed from the burdens of the geographic isolation of the Alaska governorship and its (relative to national politics) petty distractions. Her decision wasn’t particularly public-spirited, but neither was it crazy. She has seen her opportunities, and she’s going to take them.”

Lowry: “Whether she becomes more seasoned and more policy-oriented is the key to whether she cashes in her charisma for something more meaningful. As for Alaska, it will be a beloved afterthought.”

“All I know,” said Rush Limbaugh, per the New York Daily News’ Michael Saul, “is that she is going to continue to fire-up people in the conservative Republican base as often as she speaks to 'em.” 

Intriguing nuggets, as the back story comes together: “In the weeks before Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announced her resignation, she spoke privately with a range of prominent Republican officials – including former Vice President Dick Cheney and former mayor Rudolph Giuliani,” ABC’s Justin Rood reports

In Russia -- with love? ABC’s Jake Tapper sits down with President Obama.

“Ultimately, you know, we’re going to have to see whether a country like Russia, for example, is willing to work with us to apply pressure on Iran,” the president said. “That’s not something we’re going to know the results of, probably for several more months, as we continue to do the hard, diplomatic work of putting this coalition together to tell Iran, make the better choice.”

And on Vice President Joe Biden’s admission that the administration “misread” the economy at the beginning of the year, the president sounds skeptical on a second stimulus.

“There’s nothing that we would have done differently,” Obama told Tapper. Regarding what’s next: “This is something that we wrestle with constantly. . . . It is at a certain point potentially counterproductive if we’re spending more money that we’re having to borrow.”

Not that the pressure won’t be there. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., on the possibility of a second stimulus: “I think that it is probably needed,” he said on ABCNews.com’s “Top Line” Monday. “We’re going to need to have some further discussion. It will probably take place towards the end of the year and we want to take a look at the economic conditions at the time. But it certainly should be on the table at this point.” 

Outside pressure: “A group of unions, including the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said they will start pressing lawmakers for a jobs bill. They said the $787 billion economic stimulus approved earlier this year, though helpful, wasn’t big enough and didn’t include enough government spending,” The Hill’s Walter Alarkon reports

Inside pressure: “The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was ‘a bit too small,’ said Laura Tyson, an adviser to President Barack Obama,” per Bloomberg’s Shamim Adam. “The current plan ‘will have a positive effect, but the real economy is a sicker patient,’ Tyson said in a speech in Singapore today.” 

Compromise? “There may be room for a middle ground,” Gerald Seib writes in his Wall Street Journal column, on the possibility of a second stimulus. “Let's say, for example, that the administration pushed later this year for a bill extending unemployment benefits that otherwise would expire. That would be a form of stimulus. And perhaps lawmakers would choose to attach a few additional doses of fiscal or tax stimulus to that bill. Whether that amounted to Stimulus II would be a question of labeling, but the effect would be pretty much the same.” 

Movement on health care: Vice President Joe Biden is set to announce an agreement with hospitals that puts some of their skin in the game.

“The nation's hospitals agreed last night to contribute $155 billion over 10 years toward the cost of insuring the 47 million Americans without health coverage, according to two industry sources,” Ceci Connolly writes in The Washington Post. “The agreement that three hospital associations reached with White House officials and leaders of the Senate Finance Committee is the latest in a series of side deals that aim to reduce the cost of revamping the nation's health-care system and to neutralize influential industries that have historically opposed such reforms.” 

Love these voluntary agreements: “If an agreement is finalized, it would be the latest step in an on-going effort by the White House to win concessions from major health industry groups to help pay for legislation aimed at providing health insurance to all Americans. Democrats are hoping to keep the cost of the overhaul at about $1 trillion over 10 years,” The New York Times’ David M. Herszenhorn reports

A concession -- and maybe a much bigger development -- from the White House: “It is more important that health-care legislation inject stiff competition among insurance plans than it is for Congress to create a pure government-run option, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Monday,” per The Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler and Janet Adamy

“The goal is non-negotiable; the path is” negotiable, Emanuel told them.

Paying for it: “House Ways and Means Committee members are likely to propose a surtax on high-income Americans to help pay for an overhaul of the health-care system, according to people familiar with the plan,” Bloomberg’s Ryan J. Donmoyer reports. “The tax would be similar to, yet much smaller than, a surtax proposed in 2007 by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a person familiar with the committee’s talks said. That plan would have added at least a 4 percent levy on incomes exceeding $200,000, and was projected to reap as much as $832 billion over 10 years.” 

Maybe it all doesn’t have to be voted on by the August break -- but it has to be close: “If Senate Democrats can get their act together just long enough to marry those two [committee] proposals into something the president can get behind, a popular Obama could fill the inevitable August political vacuum with his trademark, high-minded rhetoric and rally the country behind whatever Congress comes up with,” Roll Call’s Emily Pierce writes

Your day in Russia: “In a polite atmosphere where both men seemed reserved, President Obama met Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin this morning at his dacha in Moscow, Novo Ogaryovo, for a working breakfast that marked the first meeting of the two leaders,” ABC’s Ann Compton and Karen Travers report

Said Obama: “We may not end up agreeing on everything, but I think that we can have a tone of mutual respect and consultation that will serve both the American people and the Russian people well.”

On the speech: “President Obama today called on Russians to put aside their former roles as Cold War foes of the United States and join together to work to curb nuclear weapons and to improve the economic and social lives of people around the globe,” Christi Parsons and Michael Muskal report in the Los Angeles Times

Change: “You get to choose where change will take us,” the president said. “Because the future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground -- the future belongs to young people with the education and imagination to create.”

Agreement on nuclear weapons, but maybe not much more than that: “The progress reflected an effort to re-establish ties a year after Russia’s war with Georgia left the relationship more strained than at any time since the fall of the Soviet Union. The two sides agreed to resume military contacts suspended after the Georgia war and sealed a deal allowing the United States to send thousands of flights of troops and weapons to Afghanistan through Russian airspace each year,” Clifford J. Levy and Peter Baker report in The New York Times. “They remained at loggerheads over American plans to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, which Washington describes as a hedge against an Iranian nuclear breakthrough and which Russia vehemently opposes as a threat in its backyard.” 

“The biggest achievement touted from the summit -- and the only document the two men signed -- was a nonbinding ‘joint understanding’ setting target ranges for a new round of nuclear arms reductions,” Politico’s Gosh Gerstein reports. “But a look at the fine print shows the deal is less than meets the eye, experts said. The two presidents punted on how to count total weapons or total warheads -- a crucial detail in the mathematics of arms reductions. And they committed in writing only to finish the deal ‘at the earliest possible date.’ ” 

Back in Washington, Senator-elect Al Franken, D-Minn., gets sworn in Tuesday -- and reporters commence efforts to try to make him crack a joke.

“One of the things Mr. Franken, who will be sworn in Tuesday as Minnesota’s new Democratic senator, is working hardest at -- both for his constituents and everyone else -- is proving that he is no longer a comedian,” Mark Leibovich writes in The New York Times

Dana Milbank, in The Washington Post: “The author of ‘Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot’ did his best to deliver this pleasant surprise. He wore a serious navy pinstriped suit and a serious navy striped tie. He unfolded a wrinkled piece of loose-leaf paper and placed it on the lectern. His brief speech was so boring it was laughable.” 

The National Republican Senatorial Committee welcomes senator No. 60 to the Democratic caucus. “It’s finally here,” says the new Web ad from the NRSC. “ With 60 senators, the Democrats have total control. . . . No checks. No balances. . . . They own everything . . . and have no one to blame now. . . . In 2010, you can hold them accountable. Vote Republican. 2010.” 

The Democratic Governors Association has some numbers to be proud of: $11.6 million raised over the first six months of the year. The old record, $11.2 million, came in the first half of last year.

(One of their targets, gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell, R-Va., is the guest on ABCNews.com’s “Top Line” Tuesday -- at the funeral-friendly special time of 10:45 am ET.)

Censure for Gov. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., from the South Carolina Republican Party: “Whereas, Governor Sanford’s conduct, in addition to falling below the standards expected of Republican elected officials, has breached the public’s trust and confidence in his ability to effectively perform the duties of his office; and
Whereas, a formal admonishment by the South Carolina Republican Party is appropriate and necessary and, barring further revelations, will be the Party’s last word on the matter;
Therefore, be it resolved, that the South Carolina Republican Party does, with great regret, censure Governor Mark Sanford for his recent conduct.”

The censure “makes it likely the GOP governor will be able to weather the storm surrounding his extramarital affair and remain in office,” Politico’s Jonathan Martin and Andy Barr report. “Though Monday’s vote does not have had any binding effect on the governor, it serves as a sign that even many of Sanford’s enemies among the state party establishment may no longer have the will to continue calling for his resignation, barring any unforeseen or additional disclosures about the governor’s personal life.” 

Trouble for an Obama ally, in Massachusetts: “State Treasurer Tim Cahill this week will change his political party designation from Democrat to unenrolled, the first step in mounting an independent challenge to Democratic governor Deval Patrick in the 2010 general election, two advisers said today,” Andrea Estes writes in The Boston Globe. “Cahill, a lifelong Democrat who has served as treasurer since 2003, would not comment on his plans, but campaign advisers said he will make the switch at Quincy City Hall sometime this week.” 

Banks get organized, against a key Obama plan: “As part of their efforts to roll back the Obama proposal for a consumer financial products regulator, several lobbying organizations representing banks are developing a ‘Harry and Louise’-style ad campaign,” per The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber. “The ads will emphasize the intrusiveness of the proposal -- of the government ‘telling you what you can and can't buy,’ according to the source. The hope is to run them sometime in July, when House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank plans to move the measure through his committee.” 

Labor gets organized, against an old enemy: “Labor unions and other progressive organizations are taking aim at the nation’s premier business lobby: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,” Politico’s Jeanne Cummings reports. “One effort is being led by the Service Employees International Union, which is attacking the Chamber’s history of opposing legislation aimed at helping the working class. Its campaign has two goals: to counter the Chamber’s messages and its motives.”

On the Hill Tuesday: House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Darrell Issa, R-Calif., will release a report on the causes of the financial crisis: “The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.”

Per an aide, “The report chronicles how Fannie/Freddie’s unique relationship with the federal government created an environment in which the market viewed them as an extension of the U.S. government and therefore ‘too big too fail.’ The fact that they directly answered to the federal government and its elected officials created an environment of ‘crony capitalism’ similar to that of Russia or China.  The politicization of Fannie/Freddie paved the way for today’s financial crisis.”


The Kicker:

“Hmm . . . I don’t really remember. But he’s a funny guy, as you’d expect.” -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked what he laughed about during his private meeting with senator-elect Al Franken, D-Minn. 

Today on the “Top Line” political Webcast, at a special time of 10:45 am ET: Gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell, R-Va.; GOP strategist Carl Forti.

Follow The Note on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote

For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/

July 7, 2009 in GOP, Gov. Sarah Palin, Obama Agenda, President Obama, The Note | Permalink | Share | User Comments (89)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dems HATE Palin because she's a real Christian (unlike Obama who just says he is), doesn't fit the mold of an inside the beltway type, she's prettier than ugly liberal women, doesn't care what people think, and can raise millions of dollars for campaigns in the blink of an eye. She has both the Republican and Democrats angry. In other words, she's a real outsider and many average Americans find that very appealing. We don't need any more millionaires from both sides telling us how to live; we want Joe or Jane six pack who's come up from nothing to great success as a model to follow.

Posted by: afkbrad | Jul 7, 2009 8:52:27 AM

It is so scary that anyone dumber than me would hold a political position nationally.
good bye Scary Palin

Posted by: joe plumber | Jul 7, 2009 9:07:48 AM

Never thought I would say it but I kinda feel... sorry for her. Granted she should have said "no" when McCain asked her to be his running mate; and granted, her ambition far out-weighed her abilities; but she has been utterly microwaved by the media and reviled by her own party. She's entitled to be burned out!

Posted by: DaveM | Jul 7, 2009 9:13:39 AM

No, JoePlumber, she's not dumb. In fact, she's very smart, which is what scares a lot of people. And she didn't have to attend some uppity richie-rich school like Obama in order to make the world think she's smart. Not that going to an elite school has proven any good for Obama judging how he's sending this country to hell in a handbasket, but I digress.

Posted by: Aaron | Jul 7, 2009 9:28:01 AM

As long as we have socialist, anti-American leaders ravaging our economy, there will ALWAYS be a place for someone like Palin. She is self-made, honest, incredibly charismatic, and she actually believes in putting the American people above her own political aspirations. Not to mention that she believes in precisely what our country's forefathers believed in...
small gov't, small taxes, strong personal responsibility, and individual liberties.
BO on the other hand, believes in a gov't controlled nanny state. He is karl marx with a teleprompter. That's it.
Without the adoration from the liberal idiots in the media, he would still be a happy member of rev racist's church and going to bill ayers' house on sundays to watch football.

Posted by: Dave | Jul 7, 2009 9:31:35 AM

The right-wingers may love her, but Palin has no future with real Americans.

Posted by: Matt | Jul 7, 2009 9:33:32 AM

Go Sarah! The crazy left wing wackos, including almost all of the MSM are going absolutely nuts. They thought you were safely bottled up in Alaska, where they could chip away and eventually destroy you. Now you have broken free and they are in a panic. But.. But.. she's not doing what we thought she should... No Fair!

Posted by: Terry | Jul 7, 2009 9:43:07 AM

Another article today lists Alaska as one of the ten top states facing real economic problems. At least Sarah doesn´t have to face that, but what would happen if the governors of those other states (California, New Jersey, Oregon, etc.) also decided to resign?
Her excuse about not wanting to be a lame duck really is insulting to all other office holders who keep working until the end of their terms.
And what is this "department of law" within the White House that would supposedly protect her from baseless allegations? She really is off in her own world if she thinks that. Basically, the woman can dish out the insults, the insinuations, but can´t take them. She hasn´t been victimized any more than Hillary Clinton has been. Many of her supporters who protest the language used against her aren´t reticent in employing insulting, even scatological, language about President Obama and even Mrs. Obama.

Posted by: BachisBest | Jul 7, 2009 9:46:39 AM

David Brooks confuses arrogance with dignity!

Posted by: Terry | Jul 7, 2009 9:49:14 AM

Hi BachisBest.

Actually the governors of the states you mention SHOULD RESIGN, along with the entire legislature. There is no excuse for the sad state of California, for example.

Posted by: Terry | Jul 7, 2009 9:52:33 AM

Its amazing a half of a million dollars in debt for fighting false charges ,I want to know who these people are bringing these complaints and another was charged just yesterday let me ask you this. Could you keep going further in debt .How many of us could pay these bills.Shes not rich probly not even above middle class.Its another case of politics gone wild.19 complaints shes 18-0 all of them found to be untrue who knows about number 19 but im sure it will turnout to be false like the others.

Posted by: school_bus_yellow | Jul 7, 2009 9:56:53 AM

She did the right thing.....with all that the media throw at her and all the blogs throwing ethic lies about her it was getting hard to do the job she was elected to do.....for those on the left ask Bill how that feels. She is doing what is best for her fellow Alaskans. Unlike BO, Hillary and McCain who for 2 years ran for President while holding Senate seats that never even got warm...the people from those states were cheated. It should be law that is you are running for a office you MUST resign your current positions. It would take a lot of the BS out of campaigning. It would show committment rather than "I'll run but if I don't make it I still have my old job".

Posted by: Adam in VA | Jul 7, 2009 9:58:07 AM

When she says there is a "higher calling" for her, she means the White House. Let's read between the lines. She talks about fiscal responsibility, less government, etc. That can only mean..first lady president. For anyone who wants to achieve this goal, one does not run away from his/her responsibilities. To leave as governor of Alaska is not what someone who wants to go further in politics does. Her analogy to basketball "keeping the basket in vew" to her means the presidency. Basketball players never quit when things get hard. However, someone who abandons her commitments and cannot take the heat, does not deem well for any further reponsibilities. She had a taste of popularity during the campaign and Alaska seemed dull in comparison to what she had. She should have thrown herself into completing the projects which where already started and made a success of them. However, since her campaign trail, she has neglected Alaska and they are not doing well financially. The pipe line is not fully approved and many other things have been ignored. I don't feel she is qualified and I don't mean this as a bash but as a plain fact. As far as the press, yes, they are hard on her but some of it she brings on herself. No one took more than Hillary and she stood up to it and never backed down from a problem or a commitment. That is the difference between these two women. Hillary kept her daughter out of the limelight and she turned into a fine person leaving her job to help her Mom. Sarah likes to parade her family in the spotlight. Sarah likes to respond to criticism with sarcasm and Hillary responds with facts. No comparison with these women. If Sarah were fat and not attractive....she would be toast.

Posted by: talmag | Jul 7, 2009 10:36:28 AM

"politically speaking IF DIE SO BE IT?" What a ridiculous DRAMA QUEEN! Pom Pom Palin quits her job for her own selfish interests and leaves the people of Alaska in the lurch at a very difficult time. If she were fair and ethical, she'd at least pay for the special election she's dumping them with. But this chick has a history of not even paying for her own clothes or tens of thousands for make-up artists (It cost a LOT to play a soccer mom apparently)... Not paying till after she's caught doesn't count. As I recall Palin did a similar drama queen act when she tried to lie about those expenses -- But it was hard to hide the truth about expenses Palin herself had reported on her own financial report.

Palin should also pay the taxpayers of Alaska back for breaking her promise to save them money in salary. When Palin ran for gov, she promised the voters if she was elected, she'd save them $$ by taking a couple thou less in salary-- then as soon as she got the job, she immediately hired an assistant to do all her work. The defrauded taxpayers were stuck w/ losing tens of thousand beause of con job.

This opportunistic immature perpetually dishonest airhead has put her own selfish interests above her children and her constituents at every turn. For her to carry on about dying like Joan of Arc .. if her latest self-interested gamble doesn't serve her purposes? Excuse me while I search for a barf bag!

Posted by: sandy | Jul 7, 2009 10:40:17 AM

It never ceases to amaze me that liberals bash Palin for all of these make believe "ethics violations" that have ALL turned out to not only be baseless, but have also cost the state of Alaska incredible amounts of tax payer dollars.
These liberals are the same idiots who turned a blind eye to BO being in bed with convicted felon and slumlord Tony Rezko, who helped him illegally purchse a 2 million dollar mansion when he was a senator in chicago.
BO also enthusiasitcally supported Rev Wright who now claims that "those Jews won't let Obama talk to me anymore".
BO surrounded himself with anti-semetic, anti-American whackhjobs and the liberals love him for it.
Palin became the gov and got rid of the private jet and fired the private chef, and the obamas spend $10,000 in tax payer dollars to have their favorite pizza flown in.


Posted by: Dave | Jul 7, 2009 10:54:45 AM

Palin-more karma than victim

She also quit the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission after only 11 months in office.

What did she do then? Well, she started a series of ethics complaints against her political mentors:

"Palin filed a formal complaint against Oil and Gas Conservation Commissioner Randy Ruedrich, also the chair of the state Republican Party, accusing him of doing work for the party on public time and of working closely with a company he was supposed to be regulating. She also joined with Democratic legislator Eric Croft to file a complaint against Gregg Renkes, a former Alaskan Attorney General accusing him of having a financial conflict of interest in negotiating a coal exporting trade agreement, while Renkes was the subject of investigation and after records suggesting a possible conflict of interest had been released to the public. Ruedrich and Renkes both resigned..."-Wiki

Sound familiar?

Posted by: joe plumber | Jul 7, 2009 10:57:32 AM

Here is how I see it with no spin involved: Governor Palin was elected to her public office, and should complete her full term. Anything less is either self-serving or an indication that she cannot take the pressure of the job.

Posted by: J Simpson | Jul 7, 2009 10:58:57 AM

It's the political middle that decides elections and appropriately so. The middle is the majority. Maybe, hopefully, these are the labor pains of an emerging third party. America doesn't need change so much as it needs to define itself. As the old adage goes, "He who tries to please everyone ends up pleasing no one". That's what the Democratic Party is attempting in the interest of collecting blocks of votes. The middle of the roaders are upset with both parties. It's time for a new party to emerge.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | Jul 7, 2009 11:05:15 AM

To all who think she's so smart and the Democrats are so afraid of her:

THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW? Where is that located Ms. Palin, in the country of Alaska? You betcha.

This woman is a freakin'idiot, and anyone who thinks otherwise is dumber than she is.

Posted by: Carlo | Jul 7, 2009 11:13:31 AM

What state is more socialist than Alaska? Every single Alaskan gets a share of oil production.

Posted by: Kenneth | Jul 7, 2009 11:16:15 AM

Post a comment