Skip to comments.New York Post: Truman, Ike, Reagan: Next Up, Sarah Palin!
Posted on 03/17/2010 7:46:25 AM PDT by MaxCUA
click here to read article
I think she actually did say it, and the libs and Tina Fey made a big out of context deal out of it. I could be wrong, but I think I remember hearing Sarah say it.
Nope. Sarah never said it. It was written for a comedy skit for SNL.
Hammering palin? Asking relevent questions is hammering her? Man you kids are soft.
“Well, I believe I was sticking up for you...”
I caught that, Thanks
Palin did say that you could see Russia from Alaska (when talking about her FP experience). SNL morphed that into I can see Russia from my house.
Thanks for the more accurate recollection. :-)
You can see Russia from Alaska. You can even walk there from Alaska when the Bering freezes over in one spot.
No kidding. What exactly does that have to do palin’s suggestion that this equates to FP experience? Please be specific.
Alaska has extensive contacts with Siberia and Russia for trade purposes.
She still is.
Do your GD homework!
Look in a mirror.
Notice the silence. They can’t admit WHY Palin left he Governorship either. She left because the legal attacks on HER were costing the State she was responsible for big money and the State had no protection in law against legal terrorism — harassment by lawsuit after lawsuit.
Sarah knew the pockets financing those lawsuits had spent many 100’s of millions first attacking GWB and then electing the fraud, Obama. With no ‘shielding’ under Alaskan law, she could no longer subject Alaska to such expense.
The deranged — here and elsewhere — seem to believe that Ronald Reagan would have bankrupted California had he needed to defend himself against such unchecked legal terrorism. But more likely Reagan would have done the same thing Palin did.
You are female, right?
It has been documented that Palin did not meet with thr Russians regarding trade or any other issues during her time as Governor or before. So, what is your point.
Why, you lonely?
Horse manure. She claimed costs to the state of $1.9 million, most of which turned out to be salaries that would have been paid regardless. That was out of a budget of about $7 billion dollars.
Even if you buy into the absurd $1.9 million figure, that's approximately 0.03% of the state budget.
Are you calling Sarah a liar?
I got you kids hangin’ old man!
The absurd $1.9 million dollar figure included her time estimates on how long she spent answering questions. That's pretty "creative" accounting.
Great opinion you have since you were the gov. in waiting!
Is English your second language?
does it matter?
Only if you’re interested in constructing a sentence that means something...
What’s ridiculous is putting the corrupt, leftist, incompetent (sound familiar?) Truman in the same sentence as Ronald Reagan. Truman wasn’t fit to sell Ronald Reagan a suit.
Maybe you would like to enlighten me on how you came to the assumption that Sarah sandbagged on her estimation on possible costs that would be incrued by her remaining the Governor of Alaska as opposed to her resigning? Please steer me in the correct direction oh wiser than most!!!
Is Sarah Palin not a realist if she decides to run ?
I must have missed your most enlightening response!
I believe she is a Christian Woman. and I believe God brought her on the national stage at the right time for the right reasons. Time will tell..
Palin administration officials provided the Daily News with a breakdown of what it says are $1.9 million in costs. Most if it is a per-hour accounting of the time state employees, such as state attorneys, have spent working on public records requests, lawsuits, ethics complaints, and issues surrounding the Legislature’s “Troopergate” investigation last summer of Palin.
“Is it a check that we wrote, no, but is it staff hours, yes,” Sharon Leighow, spokeswoman for Palin, said of the expenses related to state employee work.
Those state employees would have been paid regardless.
Don't beat yourself up. She's taken in a lot of gullible people.
That sound you hear is the rolling of my eyes. Do you folks even read what you write? "Ever?" You have GOT to be kidding.
No, actually ... in their haste to play the "hate" card, they sound more like far-left Democrats.
Waiting also for your detailed explanation of how Palin is going to persuade 70 million Americans to agree with you.
If you can't then maybe you might start to understand that those of us who ask the questions do so not out of "hate" as so many Palin supporters claim but out of our own thought-out position that she is not qualified and is not electable.
You look like Hedy Lamarr, right?
I suggest that you might want to find a more gratifying forum for your homo-erotic fantasies.
“and I believe God brought her on the national stage at the right time for the right reasons.”
Please enlighten us. What is the “right time” and what are the “right reasons”?
Or are you afraid to tip your hand? God said to not hide your lamp under a bushel...now is your time to bring the lamp out into the room.
Or are you frightened?
So you don’t look like Hedy Lamarr then?
Maybe more like Kathy Bates in Misery, eh?
Why is it that the biggest Palin supporters are the most ignorant about her and her history?
You really have nothing, do you? If all Palin’s ardent supporters are of your caliber then she’s done for.
Notice that when pushed to support their claims they sink to utterly adolescent insults...anything to avoid an answer.
Dominionism tactics are a lot like Alinsky tactics, wouldn’t you say?
Truman is perhaps the closest point of comparison ... but unlike Palin he had the advantage of military experience and a long political career at the national level . . . His record as president was spotty at best, but he did have the wherewithal -- not to mention a couple of eventful and formative years as President -- to engage in the Cold War in 1947 when it became obvious what was happening. But he badly bungled Korea.
Your second of those two statements is quite right. As for the first, I can't really imagine that an examination of the record as it was would really inspire even the most diehard of Palin diehards to want to imagine her as any kind of new Truman. I said as much to another poster here a few months back (I wish I could remember which post and which poster), when said poster wrote: Sarah is a female Harry Truman. The similarities are amazing. Harry was part of the KC/Pendergast political machine, but he did not do their bidding. He took care of the taxpayers' money.
I couldn't resist launching my reply then with the famous line from the Old-Timer in the ancient Fibber McGee & Molly radio show: That's pretty good, Johnny, but that ain't the way I heared it!. Because, machine politics aside (I don't recall anyone, even her worst enemies actual or alleged, suggesting Sarah Palin was in any way, shape, or form a machine politician),
* Harry Truman took such good care of the taxpayers' money that his administration was the most severely-accused of influence peddling (read, specifically: government loans to significant enough Democrats, not to mention the infamous "five percenters"---old war pals of Give 'Em Hell Harry who benefitted rather large from Truman-inspired largesse) in the years between Teapot Dome and Watergate.
* He took such good care of the taxpayers' money that he tried to marshal every last kilowatt of his political power toward thwarting the postwar economic boom and sticking it right down the taxpayers' throats. He sought, according to numerous sources and the record as it is, nothing less than a full-out barrage of wage controls, price controls, credit controls, confiscatory taxes, state allocation of investment capital, continuous money printing, low-rate borrowing, a major Federal housing program, tax hikes even up from the levels already high enough from the war, a national health insurance program (!), and tax loopholes on behalf of industries he favoured. Most of which were presented in September 1946. All of which equaled the famous Republican landslide of two months later. ("Had enough? Vote Republican!" was only the most famous campaign slogan of that season.)
* He took such good care of the taxpayers' money that, in November 1947, after the new Congress had scuttled most of the rest of the price controls he'd begun to surrender very grudgingly, Give 'Em Hell Harry tried again (Harry was often enough slow on the uptake, as you alluded elsewhere yourself): new price controls, new consumer credit controls, federal spending on certain industries, and consumer goods rationing. Having been ignored there, and ever the steward of the taxpayers' money, Truman ordered a special session of Congress eight months later during which he sent a boatload of bills to the Hill knowing in advance they were going to be spurned soundly enough, yet allowing him to prattle about "that good-for-nothing, do-nothing Eightieth Congress" on the 1948 campaign trail. Want to know what this steward of the taxpayers' money wanted through those spurned bills? How do price controls (are we beginning to see a pattern here?), expansion of federal housing programs (which were turning merely poor neighbourhoods into slums already), national health insurance (stop me if you've heard that before), federal regulation of school boards, federal water projects for subsidised electricity, grab you?
That's what that good-for-nothing, do-nothing Eightieth Congress thwarted. Pity they couldn't have stayed in power long enough to thwart Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, which is exactly what Give 'Em Hell Harry's bid at taxpayer stewardship was, a decade and a half before Johnson gave it a name.
* He took such good care of the taxpayers' money that he didn't have to do the Pendergast machine's bidding in the White House---ever the steward of the taxpayers' money, Give 'Em Hell Harry took care of the cronyism and favouritism all by his lonesome.
* He took such good care of the taxpayers' money that, after his unexpected re-election in 1948, Harry sent just about the same program to Capitol Hill yet again, throwing in a repeal of the Taft-Hartley Law just to break up the monotony. (That's a joke, son.) And again his plans got ignored, even with a few less Republicans on the Hill, though our faithful steward of the taxpayer dollars had to give up on the idea of blocking decontrol of natural gas prices the better to shore up support of a key midwestern Senator. For all the good that did him.
* Did I mention that he took such good care of the taxpayers' money that, three months after North Korea attacked South Korea, he found just the shield he needed for the Defence Production Act---an umbrella under which he managed, at long enough last, to slap on the economic controls he'd been pushing for five years only to have had them shoved back down his throat. And guess what that got Give 'Em Hell Harry? It gave him hell, politically: the Democrats lost five Senate and twenty-eight House seats in the 1950 elections.
* And I haven't even begun to talk about how Truman had presented himself in 1948, contrary to the nostalgists' eventual hosannas, as one of the most savage campaigners in the history of American presidential elections---and this in a profession that's managed to survive the likes of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore. Give 'Em Hell Harry was just crazy enough, even, to try suggesting the Communists wanted a Republican win in 1948, his "proof" being their support for Henry Wallace's quixotic Progressive Party campaign. And if that wasn't wild enough, he made one very notorious campaign speech in Chicago in which he came right out and charged Thomas E. Dewey---who never answered in kind, perhaps foolishly enough---with fronting "the cliques" that had backed Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.
That was Harry Truman. And people want to see Sarah Palin on a list with him, considering all that? If she's a female Harry Truman, and if she would take care of the taxpayers' money the way he did, then she would deserve to be drummed right the hell out of the rightward camp. If she's a female Truman, and would tend the taxpayers' money as he did, it would prove her to have her head so far up her ass she couldn't see the moonlight over the Bering Strait without moving her tongue to one side.
You'd think the lady would want anything but purported supporters wishing to anoint her in the oil of Harry Truman. Harry Truman---who gave 'em hell, forged a reputation for plainspoken bluntness that served as little more than a coarse and vulgar patina for one of the most vile rhetoricians and craven, unapologetic statists in the history of the American presidency.
It's one thing to suggest that Palin may well be just a plain old politician after all, as several do suggest, often athwart that contingency which sees her as God's begotten granddaughter*. But it's something else entirely to suggest she's Harry Truman's kind of plain old politician, something even she does not resemble even from a distance. Thus far.
(* That's a joke, kids. Though I do happen to think the Almighty tends to learn His lessons a lot quicker than we learn ours---He did, after all, try warning us, via my explicit ancestors, what was likely to happen if we [they] were damn fool enough to want to be like all the other nations and just hadda have a king. For those who didn't get the original memo, it's been preserved in I Samuel 8. I'm pretty sure He hasn't had much taste for getting mixed up in His children's political business since, never mind what a few too many clergy have tried to propagate since. And, by the way, those kings of antiquity were downright pikers compared to King Washington DC . . . )
Kathy Bates, for sure.
What we — that is, ALL of us — notice is that you PDS sufferers can’t hear honest stories.
Here’s one — I like Palin because she told Dave Letterman off.
Hey, I wonder if THE GREAT MAJORITY of us would say this babysitter is a PDS sufferer or not?
Now that, sir, is an outstanding rant!"Sir," is it now? ;)