Are those glasses broken on the right side?
The left side looks like the frame goes completely around the lens...
Posted on 05/11/2009 12:59:40 AM PDT by Candor7
Sorry. Thompson is a moderate out of the Baker wing of the party, just like McCain and the Bush clan. That is *not* Conservative. Conservatives come from the Goldwater/Reagan wing of the party.
I don't care what 70% of FReepers vote for. Foolish "pragmatism" has taken over here. 94% of FReepers said their hearts wanted Hunter. Had they followed their principles (a sure sign of a Conservative) rather than pragmatism, Duncan Hunter might very well be POTUS right now.
So right away, Life becomes a wedge issue, dividing the Christian Right in the primary. Do you suppose the Value Voters, whom the Republicans ignored the last time around, are going to give her a pass?
But does it? I know many independents and moderates who believe that it should be a state issue and it's a way to win both sides. You may have your opinion but that's all it is. I think the mere fact that Palin chose life over abortion speaks to more people along the lines of constitutional right to life than anything else. People will put example and real life choices over words anyday.
For the FiCons/libertarians, Her record does indeed show her cutting taxes, but like any moderate, she also likes big projects, and cutting spending does not follow the tax cutting. Wherever she has officiated, when she leaves, somebody is paying for more than when she left.
Please site somewhere specific that, that is the case. She cut taxes and unfortunately I think you are able to sit in the lower 48 and judge what it is that Alaska has to go through in a legislative process. Unfortunately, for Alaska, it is so far behind the times in comparison to the rest of the union that it requires a lot of funding and projects to build infrastructure, etc - to make it more independent which is what they signed up to in the first place when they were purchased from Russia. You can't compare that state to any other - it's apples to oranges and I'm sure I will have to refer to this again in your other comments.
In Wasilla, she certainly took an axe to the local bureaucracy, but followed those savings with a civic center which cost more than what she had saved, at least for several outgoing years.
I personally found this report from a nonpartisan site when describing in a general manner what she did as mayor to Wasilla:
Prior to her election as governor, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council and two terms as the mayor/manager of Wasilla. During her tenure, she reduced property tax levels while increasing services and made Wasilla a business friendly environment, drawing in new industry.
Then there is this
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=43
The economy has boomed since Palin in Wasilla and continues to do so
There there was this - and it's not a civics center but rather a Sports Complex which has been used for hockey, soccer, meetings, weddings etc.
The voters, not Sarah Palin herself, voted for a sales tax increase on their city (imagine that - people voting!?)
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=Wasilla+sports+complex&page=1&qsrc=2417&ab=3&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adn.com%2Fsarah-palin%2Fbackground%2Fstory%2F168047.html
Wasilla voters agreed in 2002 to a half-percent increase in the city sales tax to pay off a $14.7 million bond to build the multi-use facility. The project "was completed on schedule and under budget," Mayor Dianne Keller said, and the complex opened its doors March 6, 2004.
Sales tax revenue, which can only be used to pay the bond, is coming in faster than expected. Keller said she believes the facility will be paid off at least two years ahead of the 10-year schedule.
As governor, any "cuts" she made were completely offset (and more) by the dastardly pro-rated windfall profits tax (oops, I mean fees) she exacted from oil companies.
Again, you make another fallacious statement that doesn't take into consideration the fact that this "windfall tax" was created prior to Palin even being elected as Governor. This was instituted by the constitution and other governors as far as owning resources and applying royalty fees to companies on the land. The money that was taken from these "royalty fees" (since you liked to put them into quotes) went to the state in the first place to grow government. She took the fiscal conservative approach to stop government growth and gave that money that would have otherwise just gone to the government, no matter what, back to the citizens. Please explain to me how and why that is not conservative. I would also like to hear what other states do that share resources and require royalty payments. This resource sharing provision in the constitution was created back in the 70's along with the trust fund.
§ 15. Alaska Permanent Fund
At least twenty-five per cent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing payments and bonuses received by the State shall be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which shall be used only for those income-producing investments specifically designated by law as eligible for permanent fund investments. All income from the permanent fund shall be deposited in the general fund unless otherwise provided by law. [Amended 1976]
and
§ 16. Appropriation Limit
Except for appropriations for Alaska permanent fund dividends, appropriations of revenue bond proceeds, appropriations required to pay the principal and interest on general obligation bonds, and appropriations of money received from a non-State source in trust for a specific purpose, including revenues of a public enterprise or public corporation of the State that issues revenue bonds, appropriations from the treasury made for a fiscal year shall not exceed $2,500,000,000 by more than the cumulative change, derived from federal indices as prescribed by law, in population and inflation since July 1, 1981. Within this limit, at least one-third shall be reserved for capital projects and loan appropriations. The legislature may exceed this limit in bills for appropriations to the Alaska permanent fund and in bills for appropriations for capital projects, whether of bond proceeds or otherwise, if each bill is approved by the governor, or passed by affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership of the legislature over a veto or item veto, or becomes law without signature, and is also approved by the voters as prescribed by law. Each bill for appropriations for capital projects in excess of the limit shall be confined to capital projects of the same type, and the voters shall, as provided by law, be informed of the cost of operations and maintenance of the capital projects. No other appropriation in excess of this limit may be made except to meet a state of disaster declared by the governor as prescribed by law. The governor shall cause any unexpended and unappropriated balance to be invested so as to yield competitive market rates to the treasury. [Amended 1982]
§ 17. Budget Reserve Fund
(a) There is established as a separate fund in the State treasury the budget reserve fund. Except for money deposited into the permanent fund under section 15 of this article, all money received by the State after July 1, 1990, as a result of the termination, through settlement or otherwise, of an administrative proceeding or of litigation in a State or federal court involving mineral lease bonuses, rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing payments or bonuses, or involving taxes imposed on mineral income, production, or property, shall be deposited in the budget reserve fund. Money in the budget reserve fund shall be invested so as to yield competitive market rates to the fund. Income of the fund shall be retained in the fund. section 7 of this article does not apply to deposits made to the fund under this subsection. Money may be appropriated from the fund only as authorized under (b) or (c) of this section.
Her budget this year is quite conservative, but a good bit of that, I'd reckon, is because most of those windfall profits taxes (oops, I mean fees), gouged from the oil companies, were subsequently lost in the market crash, and if my friends in the oil patch are to be trusted, that big time money she got out of the oil companies will never occur again, as they will just shift their AK work onto federal lands if profits get close to the mark.
Another fallacy. The AK companies on the land actually have one of the best deals. They will not move and they have been taxing those companies or shall I say charging a royalty fee for years and I haven't seen them move to this day... Let's look at what she has been able to do with budgets and earmarks:
They whine about her increased spending between the 2008 and 2009 budget, claiming that this proves she is not a fiscal conservative. Yes, spending did go up. Of course, state revenue almost doubled in her state at that time.
But look at the comparison between her operating budget in 2008 to Mirkowski's in 2007:
FY2007 Operating budget(Murkowski's budget)
$11,697,400,000
FY2008 Operating Budget(Palin's budget)
$9,813,000,000
When revenue sky rockets in your state, it is important to not only put money in the bank and save it for a rainy day, which she did to the tune of $5 billion, but there is nothing wrong with increasing spending. The increased revenue needs to make it back into the hands of the people via services or a check. Governor Palin did both. The people of Alaska received an extra $1200 in addition to their Permanent fund checks, plus she increased spending on education and infrastructure projects. This is a good use of the extra revenue, in spite what the goof balls who call themselves “real conservatives” will tell you.
Did Governor Palin increase spending?
Absolutely not!
FY 2009 Operating Budget: $11,200,000,000 ($11.2B)
FY 2010 Operating Budget: $9,700,000,000 ($9.7B)
Net Cut in Operating Budget: $1,500,000,000
Total Percentage Cut in Operating Budget: 13.4%
FY 2009 Capital Budget: $2,632,000,000 (after Governor Palin vetoed $268 million)
FY 2010 Capital Budget: $1,800,000,000
Net Cut in the Capital Budget: $832,000,000
Total Percentage Cut in Capital Budget: 31.7%
Overall FY 2009 Budget: $13,832,000,000
Overall Proposed FY 2010 Budget: $11,500,000,000
Net Reduction in the Overall Budget: $2,332,000,000
Total Percentage Cut in Overall Budget: 16.8%
When it comes to budgets, this is a huge number. HUGE!
Earmark reform:
And, it would seem that not only has she talked the talk on this issue, she's walked the walk. In former Gov. Frank Murkowski's final year in office, he requested 63 earmarks worth about $350 million. In Gov. Palin's first year in office, she requested 52 earmarks worth about $256 million dollars. Last year, she requested 31 earmarks worth about $197 million. Her office has not yet released the total number of earmarks she requested this year.
Not like Ron Paul would know since he likes to talk the talk but still bring home the bacon w/ over $96M.
Again, this drives a wedge into the FiCon and libertarian camp on this issue alone, not to mention her advocacy *for* "immigration reform", another hot-button libertarian issue.
I love this "go-to" argument from the purists or those who are rooting for someone else. To be honest, she has never made a statement one way or the other and time will tell and she will be required to put her foot in the sand on that issue. She lives in a state that does not have immigration issues so during these next coming years she better read up and take a stand on it. She carried McCain's line about "reform" because that's what you do when selected as the 2nd in command... He was running for the top of the ticket - not her.
For the DefCon/Foreign policy wing, one must admit that this is a very weak faction for her generally. She does have a boy in the service, and that is a good thing, but that is not the sort of thing that warriors will bend a knee to.
They would prefer one of their own. Battle tested. If not that, they would at least have some regard for one who is experienced enough in foreign policy to be able to control the State Dept effectively and keep their a$$es out of hot zones unless there is a good reason for it.
McCain this past election may have served his country but I'm not quite sure who else that is a potential primary contender in 2012 would be in the same boat either. Sanford didn't serve as far as I know, Romeny certainly didn't serve, nor does he have the foreign policy credentials besides running a business, Huckabee, well - whatever. Bobby Jindal is a youngin' and hasn't served his country nor does he have foreign policy credentials and neither do many of the other names being touted as 2012 contenders out of congress. Sarah Palin, as a governor works with foreign countries for trade purposes, something that governors rarely have the ability to do. She works with Canada on a daily basis, conducts trade with Japan and speaks with Russian diplomats and trades with Chile. She is also the CIC of the only National Guard that is on duty 24/7. That national guard mind you is the first line of defense for missile attacks - as was just evidenced by North Korea's outburst. After that incident Palin immediately released a statement about missile defense and lambasted Obama for cutting it out of the budget. I believe this lady is just as Iron as the other one from across the Pond thank you very much.
On the Petraeus note, what concerns me with your statement and anyone else who just wants some military general like Eisenhower to serve should think again. First off, do we even know where that man stands politically? Secondly, he may know about national defense but that's about it... what other experience does he have with legislation and actual governing or running a budget? He can lead on a battle field which is great and quite commendable/admirable but there is a lot more experience required than just that. He may also be pro-amnesty for all you know.
Lastly, I find it extremely uncomfortable that she keeps returning to the moderates/liberals to lend her fame to them and give them credence. If she is indeed the Conservative you yearn for, why doesn't she use her fame to join with the House Conservatives to lift them up?
Why does she surround herself with Bakerites and liberals when a Conservative would naturally gravitate toward Reaganites and libertarians?
Your statement above is just absolutely ridiculous - please show me where (and I mean a link from a reliable source) - where has she done this? She has been up in Alaska since she got back and only went out of state for the Alfalfa dinner to discuss state issues in regards to the stimulus (which she lobbied against and spoke clearly and concisely multiple times on the concern for our national debt and the strings attached and got harpooned up in Alaska for) a Governor's conference and the Right to Life banquet. She hasn't appeared on any talk shows, she hasn't given interviews since November and the election ended - so your statements are completely unfounded. You appear to have read too many tabloids or have been sucked into the media blitz on the woman and actually think that she is sitting there wanting to be talked about while she has left the state a total of 3 times since December!
I don't see her giving any credence to any moderates or to liberals for that matter. I think you want to believe that but honestly don't see that she is who she is and doesn't give a crap what anyone else has to say. if anything - she is the one who is shunned from the elite inner circles of the media and the moderates. Meg Stapleton came out and said she is part of the NCNA but has not scheduled any listening or speaking engagements with the group. They will want her to be more active once they see what her PAC raised is my best guess - but by all means continue to think that this woman kowtows to the moderates...
Some on here are so ideologically pure or at least they think they are that they do not realize that there must be a time and a place for spending. You may as well have no government at all if you don't plan on spending anything or always cutting... what good does that do.
Or we could look at some of the politicians that are being touted as these huge fiscal conservatives like Sanford - however, even in his own words he states that he increased his budgets:
2006 spending 19,348,722,000
2007 spending 20,568,337,000
2008 spending 20,858,215,743
So as you can see, spending has gone up year after year, but it is really not extravagant.
Sanford has been governor since 2002, his first budget 2003.
I found this interesting- Mark Sanford basically admitted last year in his budget release that state spending had gone up by 40% in the previous three years (2005, 2006,2007).
http://www.scgovernor.com/news/releases/jan_7_2008.htm
Or Romney:
Taxes went up under Romney 10.75% from 2002 to 2006 according to this webpage.
http://www.american-election.com/2008/01/26/the-romney-reality-mitt-romney-raised-taxes-2/
But who is keeping score right? If we choose to do our homework on one candidate - we need to make sure we do it on all of them. And nobody will ever be 100% - that was true of Reagan as well - if he were around today some of you on here wouldn't even support him because he was more moderate governing California than running the country.
See Post #162
Candor7—have done this, and will do so again.
She is President No. 45, the new Reagan.
If the GOP doesn;t have her as a candidate in 2012, they will go the way of the Whigs.
We have done it the RINO way since 1988.
Our turn now.
My move is to have a bumper sticker on the car that says:
PALIN 2012
Are those glasses broken on the right side?
The left side looks like the frame goes completely around the lens...
[roamer_1:] So right away, Life becomes a wedge issue, dividing the Christian Right in the primary. Do you suppose the Value Voters, whom the Republicans ignored the last time around, are going to give her a pass?
But does it? I know many independents and moderates who believe that it should be a state issue and it's a way to win both sides. You may have your opinion but that's all it is. I think the mere fact that Palin chose life over abortion speaks to more people along the lines of constitutional right to life than anything else. People will put example and real life choices over words anyday.
Sure it does. You are asking the Christian Right, the largest bloc of conservative voters, and the largest bloc of voters period, to compromise on their single, most unmovable principled position. Do you really think they are going to take that laying down? Really?
Whether you know many moderates and independents or not is immaterial to the fact. the "UP the middle" scenario was tried last time, and failed miserably. The Christian right is 30m voters on a bad day, and can swell to 60m if you turn them on. In a voting field of 300m, that is simply a voting bloc which cannot be afforded to be divided or to be lost. It cannot be relaced by "making it up" elsewhere, as was proven in the last election.
The Pro-Life Evangelical activists that I hang out with (locally, regionally, and nation-wide), used to all be Republicans, but now, I don't know a single one (including myself).
[roamer_1:] For the FiCons/libertarians, Her record does indeed show her cutting taxes, but like any moderate, she also likes big projects, and cutting spending does not follow the tax cutting. Wherever she has officiated, when she leaves, somebody is paying for more than when she left.
Please site somewhere specific that, that is the case.
I have already cited Wasilla, where the city had somewhere around $1m in debt when she was elected, she left office with the city owing somewhere north of $19m in debt.
And I have already cited her egregious fleecing of the oil companies, which netted the state an extra $10b (yes, that is $10 Billion) by June of '08, and that with only 3 months of "windfall profit" by the price of oil (retroactive).
Both of those examples are specific. I don't need to go into road building or even into the gas pipeline deal with Canada, though I could. The fact remains that her record shows, as I said, that "when she leaves, somebody is paying more than when she left".
Unfortunately, for Alaska, it is so far behind the times in comparison to the rest of the union that it requires a lot of funding and projects to build infrastructure, etc - to make it more independent which is what they signed up to in the first place when they were purchased from Russia. You can't compare that state to any other - it's apples to oranges and I'm sure I will have to refer to this again in your other comments.
My own state, Montana, has comparable problems with infrastructure, although, admitedly, we are ahead of AK. But any mountain state has the same problems putting in roads and services, and maintaining same. Roads do not last much longer than 10-20 years in the mountains anyway, so that infrastructure cost is largely ongoing and incidental to population.
[roamer_1:] In Wasilla, she certainly took an axe to the local bureaucracy, but followed those savings with a civic center which cost more than what she had saved, at least for several outgoing years.
Wasilla voters agreed in 2002 to a half-percent increase in the city sales tax to pay off a $14.7 million bond to build the multi-use facility. The project "was completed on schedule and under budget," Mayor Dianne Keller said, and the complex opened its doors March 6, 2004.
Sales tax revenue, which can only be used to pay the bond, is coming in faster than expected. Keller said she believes the facility will be paid off at least two years ahead of the 10-year schedule.
Yet for all your rosy non-partisan reporting, the sports center has continued to operate deep in the red. From Wasilla's statistical section of their 2008 financial report, the Sports Complex is has been an opperational expense:
Multi-Use Sports Complex: 2004: $63,599, 2005: $576,555, 2006 $642,091, 2007: $728,117, 2008: $688,958
According to the independent auditor, this year's operational deficit on the sports complex was $106,117. That means it is operating in the hole by a hundred grand. Since it's monthly operating cost is $14k (lights and utilities, etc), It is hardly worth keeping the thing going. It would nearly cost them less money to close the doors.
The voters, not Sarah Palin herself, voted for a sales tax increase on their city (imagine that - people voting!?)
Yeah... all 700 of them... and it passed by 20 votes. And it is only "on budget" if you don't count the massive on-going law suit, which is not covered by the sales tax:
WSJ: "Palin's Hockey Rink Leads To Legal Trouble in Town She Led" by Michael M. Phillips
[roamer_1:] As governor, any "cuts" she made were completely offset (and more) by the dastardly pro-rated windfall profits tax (oops, I mean fees) she exacted from oil companies.
Again, you make another fallacious statement that doesn't take into consideration the fact that this "windfall tax" was created prior to Palin even being elected as Governor. This was instituted by the constitution and other governors as far as owning resources and applying royalty fees to companies on the land.
Either you are using misdirection in a disingenuous manner, or you have no idea what you are talking about. I am speaking of law initiated by Sarah Palin and the state Democrats in June of 2008 which pegged those fees the oil companies pay to their profits. A Windfall profits tax in all intents and purposes:
The Seattle Times: "Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil" By Ángel González and Hal Bernton
From the article:
The tax is set at its highest rate in Prudhoe Bay, where the state takes 25 percent of the net profit of a barrel when its price is at or below $52. The percentage then escalates as oil prices rise over that benchmark. Alaska gets about $49 of a $120 barrel, not counting other fees. ConocoPhillips said that in total, once royalty payments and other taxes are added in, the state captures about 75 percent of the value of a barrel. The Alaska tax is imposed on the net profit earned on each barrel of oil pumped from state-owned land, after deducting costs for production and transportation, which are currently estimated at just under $25 a barrel.
(emphasis mine)
You may crow about any and every other reform she may have done, but they all pale by comparison to this one indefensible thing. One cannot claim fiscal conservatism with one hand and do this with the other. Conservatives have fought this confiscatory form of taxation as long as I have been alive.
Not like Ron Paul would know since he likes to talk the talk but still bring home the bacon w/ over $96M.
I do not support Ron Paul.
[roamer_1:] Again, this drives a wedge into the FiCon and libertarian camp on this issue alone, not to mention her advocacy *for* "immigration reform", another hot-button libertarian issue.
I love this "go-to" argument from the purists or those who are rooting for someone else. To be honest, she has never made a statement one way or the other and time will tell and she will be required to put her foot in the sand on that issue.
From her Univision interview:
Sarah Palin: I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country. Interviewer: To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
Your use of the term "purist" is telling. It is not a term that Conservatives use in an accusatory sense.
On the Petraeus note, what concerns me with your statement and anyone else who just wants some military general like Eisenhower to serve should think again. First off, do we even know where that man stands politically? Secondly, he may know about national defense but that's about it... what other experience does he have with legislation and actual governing or running a budget? He can lead on a battle field which is great and quite commendable/admirable but there is a lot more experience required than just that. He may also be pro-amnesty for all you know.
The very same concerns me - That is why one must support a Reagan Conservative - One who embraces all three pillars so that the factions do not become self serving. Without knowing it, you just made my point precisely. That Palin can be trumped in the eyes of the DefCon faction is a serious problem.
[roamer_1:] Why does she surround herself with Bakerites and liberals when a Conservative would naturally gravitate toward Reaganites and libertarians?
Your statement above is just absolutely ridiculous - please show me where (and I mean a link from a reliable source) - where has she done this?
I don't need a link. First and foremost, her acceptance of the VP position unde McCain. Then, with millions of would be conservatives panting for her next national move, she lends her name to the NCNA, precisely as you have already surmised.
Where she should be is remaining silent, at the least, or working with the 100 or so true Conservatives in the House to oppse the NCNA with a real and Conservative leadership drive. A new Contract with America, perhaps. If her intentions are as you assume they are, this is the quickest and simplest way that she could pave the way for her rise to the presidency with Conservative control in the House and probably the Senate too. She could do that, right now, almost singlehandedly. But instead, she uses her fame to lend credence to the NCNA and cement moderate and liberal control of the Republican party.
Some on here are so ideologically pure or at least they think they are that they do not realize that there must be a time and a place for spending. You may as well have no government at all if you don't plan on spending anything or always cutting... what good does that do.
That is probably the most retarded statement I have ever seen posted on FR.
Or we could look at some of the politicians that are being touted as these huge fiscal conservatives like Sanford [...] Or Romney [...]
I do not support Sanford or Romney. I will support the Reaganite when he is raised up.
But who is keeping score right? If we choose to do our homework on one candidate - we need to make sure we do it on all of them. And nobody will ever be 100% - that was true of Reagan as well - if he were around today some of you on here wouldn't even support him because he was more moderate governing California than running the country.
Yeah, yeah... Smack around the old man - another moderate tactic to go along with your "purist" statements. It is clear from your implications that you don't understand what exactly it was that Reagan wrought. If you did understand, you would be a "purist" too.
You see, what Reagan did was to bring together the Conservative factions under one united banner. How he did that was to honor the basic principles of all of the conservative factions. He welcomed anyone to the party, but never, never at the expense of those principles, because they are all that hold the coalition together. What is necessary in order for Reagan to return to the fore is for Conservative voters to insist upon Reaganite candidates, and to only vote for those candidates who meet the criteria of being a Conservative. That isn't 100%. That is where 80% begins. But while Palin is closer than McCain, to be sure, she does not begin to meet the criteria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.