Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sarah Palin"
(wording is important)
|Line 489:||Line 489:|
How about we say that she resigned the governorship, to run for vice president along with McCain? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:16, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
How about we say that she resigned the governorship, to run for vice president along with McCain? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:16, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
Revision as of 23:28, 1 September 2010
- 1 Sexist
- 2 Offensive remarks by Sandra Bernhard
- 3 Her other son, Trig.
- 4 Oh, boy...
- 5 Affirmative Action Vice-President
- 6 Second Picture
- 7 Foreign Policy
- 8 Eldest Daughter Pregnant
- 9 Palin's "Liberal" Critics
- 10 Personal Background
- 11 Reversion Explained
- 12 Drug Use?
- 13 Political Background
- 14 Founding Fathers
- 15 Wasilla Bible Church
- 16 Other Criticism
- 17 "Troopergate"
- 18 Stop censoring truthful, cited edits
- 19 Request for an edit to this full-protected page
- 20 Reversions regarding the Troopergate investigation
- 21 Ethics Violation?
- 22 Suspect sentence
- 23 Problem
- 24 Founding Fathers' Christian faith
- 25 Pronunciation
- 26 Liberal Sources
- 27 Good Rip of Obama Today
- 28 Polling Information
- 29 Given the choice?
- 30 Alaskan Independence party
- 31 Maverick
- 32 Image
- 33 2012
- 34 Russia and Alaska
- 35 The Future
- 36 My last edits
- 37 Bad Links
- 38 Where is the "Bridge to Nowhere?"
- 39 Wow! Check out this dishonesty from the left-stream media
- 40 Resignation
- 41 Second paragraph: out of sequence?
- 42 Huge quote
- 43 Down Syndrome
- 44 Remove subsection
- 45 Resignation
Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --AdamE 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
- Maybe not sexist but decidedly un-gallant and not a little silly. Hilary Clinton looks every inch a woman. If she looks less attractive than Sarah Palin that might just have something to do with the age difference: on the same basis I'd be much more worried if Obama was after my wife than if McCain were! C'mon, if attractivness was relevant you'd be lining up to vote Obama in. --Toffeeman 11:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
- Un-gallant and cynical. --UnicornTapestry 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
They say Lincoln could never be president now, he was too ugly. When did this turn into a beauty contest? CraigC 14:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Possibly 1960, when Kennedy was elected. At the dawn of TV, Kennedy set up the debate to his advantage, in what is known as the 1960 effect. JY23 16:42, 19 December 2008 (EST)
Offensive remarks by Sandra Bernhard
Her other son, Trig.
Should such a private and personal happening as that of her second son be brought to the general public? On one hand, it is only her and her family's matter, but on the other hand it shows that her acts are as honorable as her words. At least I was dubious on her at first, but reading more and more on her I am convinced that she is the Vice President America and the world need. I'm sure even liberals aknowledge her courage and that she did the right thing with Trig. But I leave it to those more knowledgeable to include such familiar matters or not in the article. SilvioB 15:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
- For what it's worth I think it should be mentioned, not because it's an invasion of her family's privacy, but because it says something important and positive about her character. She had stated publicly that she and her husband knew of the condition during the pregnancy, and chose not to abort it because of their values. That's a defining statement about her living the values she talks about, and one of the reasons I respect her as a person. --DinsdaleP 15:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Please feel free to include that information. Learn together 15:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
- Done --DinsdaleP 16:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
- Much of that information is in public release and has been reported in interviews in People and Vogue. I added a couple of comments she made, plus information about her son in the military.
- --UnicornTapestry 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
- The one of the rare times I will make a display of my personal opinions on here. I find this woman to be hypocritical and in fact somewhat repulsive as a mother. I am all for women's rights, adn all for women having a career, but she has a SIX MONTH OLD SON, and is about to go on a campaign trail. The only possible way she can manage a campaign trail is if someone else raises her son. And a special needs son as well. I am heart sick that this woman would put her career before her child. Men are expected to do this, but women are the core of our children's lives. We are central to who they become. Especially for the first 5 years of their life. Work before you have a kid, expand your career after your child is back in school. But the 5 most important years of a child's development are before he or she starts socializing, and this woman is willing to be an American vice president which will keep her on the road over 200 days a year, if you go by averages of other VPs, and often in countries where it's not only "discouraged" to take a child, but out right dangerous. Vietnam and Korea - if you are there to represent the US. Venezuela. Cuba. Georgia. China. not places to be taking a child. I am disheartened, as I said. This is not a good role model for how to be a women in teh US finding a career - when the career comes before your own family. AGain, rarely will you see me make a statement like this, cause I'm not normally into challenges. but this woman makes me so sad for her child, and as a mother, as a woman who believes that a Christian woman (and any woman, frankly) should put her infants first... it is just sad. Would it have killed her to wait 5 years before being in such demanding political positions?--MHayes Michelle13:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
- --UnicornTapestry 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
- Wow, that's heartfelt and does give one pause. I have to confess I didn't put the numbers (dates) together. Thanks for making me think a little more about this.
- --UnicornTapestry 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks. I get argumentative on topics about things like linguistics, and what languages are related to what languages (what I'm pursuing for my graduate degree). But i rarely butt into political comments. maybe I should. maybe not. but I set aside my studies for my kids, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO for me. I really feel that there is an important reason that the Bible (and many other religions, by the way) advocate that a woman make her life at home *until* such a time as her kids are grown. I woudn't even go that far, but I did say that I woudln't go back to teaching till my two were in school, cause then I don't have to be there "9-5". but when they are so little? I truly feel, and maybe this isn't proven by science, maybe it is, that a woman is more emotionally connected to her kids (and vica versa) than the father, and should be there for them at their development. hugs. Michelle. --MHayes 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT) (PS, if other than this, you ever want to see me be realllllyyy stubborn, just ask me about the T-D vocalization in Navajo after the move into New Mexico. hehe. (edit conflict)
Cue the whitewashing. I'm gonna guess the polar bear section will be deleted or completely rewritten within 24 hours. As it stands, it certainly seems like a good example of "liberal bias". Egen 15:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
- I suggest to close this article from editing for a few days or at least hours. It's clear that it will become a favorite target for vandals. I'm sure if changes have to be made, Administrators will be able to make them well. I'm not suggesting a long term block, mind you, just to let things calm down. SilvioB 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
- I think Silvio has nmade a good point. Bugler 15:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
- The polar bear status is unclear. International numbers have been increasing, but largely due to numbers now being reported in Siberia and other former states of the Soviet Union. I don't know if different species are involved or that the aggregate is germane. It will be interesting to find out.
- kind regards, --UnicornTapestry 21:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Neither polar bears nor polar ice are decreasing at such a rate as to prove the "global warming thesis". Average air temperature fluctuates due to natural causes. There's been a lot of hot air since 1989 aimed at enforcing some socialist ideas of forced redistribution of wealth, but no such system has ever worked out well. --Ed Poor Talk 19:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
Affirmative Action Vice-President
What is the Affirmative Action Vice-President part about? That is ridiculous. She would be the first woman VP but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. Fsamuels 16:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
- It's criticising (in an oblique way) the accusations that Obama would be the first "Affirmitive Action President". I suspect that whoever called Palin that is hoping that you will find it ridiculous and decide that the Obama accusation is similarly ridiculous. --Toffeeman 16:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Help me out here... Obama, if elected, will of course be the first Affirmative Active President. The rationale being: he's being elevated to a level higher that he would have been, primarily because of his race. Yet isn't Palin, a former mayor of a town of 7000, now a governor for all 18 months, also being elevated to a level higher than she would have been, because of her gender? You cannot suggest that she is the best person, male or female, for the job, can you? Is the objection that affirmative action only apples to race? (Because it certainly applies to gender as well.) Is the objection that Palin is in fact the most competent person, male or female, for the position of vice president? (If not, on what basis can you say that Palin is not an affirmative-action candidate?) --Mycosaur 19:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
- There are several problems with your simplistic analogy. The qualifications for a Vice President are different from that of a President; Palin has stronger executive experience than Obama; Palin was selected to run against Obama; and we never claimed that Hillary Clinton would be the first affirmative action president.--Aschlafly 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
- I think part of the idea is how readily the path was cleared for each person. For Obama, based on that thinking, his position was pretty much given to him along the way whereas for Palin, she had to fight the establishment to accomplish what she did. Now as far as her selection for Vice President, well, that could be a different matter. Learn together 19:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
- I don't agree with "affirmative action whatever" for either of them. If Obama is the next President or Palin the next Vice-President they will be there because millions voted that way. "Affirmative action" is best kept for appointments: respecting whoever is in charge after the election respects the US electorate. --Toffeeman 09:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
I think we should take it down. It's just like the first one and is totally unnecessary. If there is a second picture then it should be her with John McCain. I'm going to take it down. Maybe an administrator could replace it with this. Chippeterson 29 August 2008 http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/palin.jpg
O.K., how about this one. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg Chippeterson 30 August 2008
- That's better! --UnicornTapestry 11:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
- That's a good one.--Frey 14:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
It seems to be popular. Anyway an administrator could come in and upload it? Chippeterson 30 August 2008
- We have to see the original source of the photo first... not only that link. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:00, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
The section has one compound sentence, and one of the words ("commender") is/was misspelled. Also, saying that the governor of Alaska is the commander of chief of the Alaska National Guard is somewhat patronizing to people who know things about state National Guards. It seems as though it's simply trying to inflate her foreign policy experience, which she doesn't have much of. --DrtyLb8 23:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
- Why shouldn't it say she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard? HenryS 23:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
- HenryS, your an administrator, I was hoping that you could upload this picture. I would really appreciate it, thanks. Chippeterson 31 August 2008 http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg
- It's misleading to feature it so prominently. It implies military experience on her part when there is none. All governors are commanders of their state's National Guard, and that only comes into play in the event of a natural disaster. In times of war when National Guard units are activated to be sent overseas, they instead fall under the command of the United States Army and are treated as reserve soldiers. At that point, they aren't being commanded by the governor, they're being commanded by the Army. It's like saying the Governor of Florida has space policy experience because they launch the space shuttles from Cape Canaveral. To include that under "Military Policy" misleads readers into thinking she commands troops in battle, which is completely inaccurate. Because of that, I've removed the section. --Ampersand 18:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
- We don't allow deletions like that. Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. There's no denying it, and that fact should be included.--Aschlafly 22:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that prominently including it under "Military Policy" implies that it gives her some sort of military experience when it flat-out does not. --Ampersand 22:49, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
- Well, maybe you don't think Obama needs any military experience to be Commander-in-Chief either. But the fact is that the position of Commander in Chief does mean something. It means she has some responsibilities, some leadership, and some authority over troops.--Aschlafly 22:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
- I didn't say anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with Obama. No governor can claim that they have military experience because of their role as commander-in-chief of their state National Guard unit because that's not how they work. When they are used in combat overseas they aren't under the command of their Governor, they're under the command of the United States Army and they're treated as reserve units. That's an entirely separate function from their role as domestic natural disaster relief workers. Saying that she has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which is completely honorary when it comes to military functions) is akin to saying Elizabeth II has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the British Army. It's misleading and needs to be corrected. (And yes, I know the Queen actually served during World War II.) --Ampersand 23:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
Eldest Daughter Pregnant
Palin's response "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby." Proud to be a Grandmother. Unlike Obama's response of his children "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- jp 13:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
It can hardly be "gossip" if the facts of the matter are plainly seen in the official statement. What is gossip is that fairy tale that was reported on the daily kos over the weekend. Marge 14:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- What are you referencing specifically? Publicly charged crimes are not gossip, and neither are deaths of public figures.--Aschlafly 15:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Well, to my knowledge, an underage pregnancy, like Palin's daughter, is not a publicly charged crime nor a death. Ergo, I would think that Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy would fall into the same category. --Jareddr 15:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Spears is a public figure who profits from public attention.--Aschlafly 15:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, but it's neither a crime, nor a death, but rather talking about is "idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others." It seems she was just as public initially about the pregnancy as Palin has been about her daughter. Both of them brought the topic into the public eye on their own, with the GOP campaign issuing a statement providing the news.--Jareddr 15:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Jareddr, this is my final response to your senseless comments. Palin's daughter is a private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity. Respect her privacy, or leave.--Aschlafly 15:37, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, perhaps then the entry on Barack Obamas half brother should be removed then. Using your logic its also gossip. He didn't seek public attention either. ClarkeD 17:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- What are you specifically referring to? I did a quick look and didn't see any details about Obama's half-brother in his entry.--Aschlafly 18:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Palin's "Liberal" Critics
In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I wanted to point out that several of the key critics of Palin's handling of the Gravina Bridge project were prominent Alaskan Republicans, not "liberals". If one reads the referenced article this would be clear, but I've added in the names, titles and supporting quotes from these individuals so I'm not accused of anything unprofessional. I've also left in the comment about earmark money not being returned as common practice, which was unsupported by any reference, but left anyway. --DinsdaleP 18:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
Are we going to include information about her daughter being pregnant or not? I don't think it is necessary, as Aschlafly said she is a "private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity". Currently, there is mention of this in the article. Any thoughts? HenryS 19:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- I say take the high road and leave it out as much as possible. It's a challenge, though, because of new stories like this one, where Palin is shown to have used her line-item veto to cut funding for teen-pregnancy programs. How can you be credibly pro-life, and at the same time cut funding for the very programs that offer teens an option to abortion? I'm starting to question her judgment more and more. --DinsdaleP 19:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- You can say she cuts funding for teen-pregnancy problems as part of a discussion of her record as governor, and still leave out mention of her daughter. While it's nice we're having a conversation about it, as Henry mentioned, Aschlafly has made his opinion clear and any attempt to add it will just be reverted, so might as well just skip it entirely. --Jareddr 20:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- Dinsdale, you keeping pushing your point of view at the expense of the daughter's privacy, even on the Talk:Main Page and you should stop it. There is nothing about the simple fact of the daughter's pregnancy that supports your point of view, so stop exploiting it. She was probably in public school where she received all the indoctrination that you support.--Aschlafly 20:04, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not out to exploit her daughter for the sake of making a political point. While I said that it's a challenge, my very next point about Palin was to contrast one of her policies (against funding pregnant-teen programs) with another (pro-life), and no mention of their family's situation was required to do so. Meanwhile, you immediately start making assumptions about what her daughter did or didn't learn in public school. Which of us was sticking to the Governor and her policies, and which was pulling her daughter into a shot at public schools and accusing her of being "indoctrinated"? --DinsdaleP 21:02, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- Also, there are multiple news reports tonight that the baby's father is being flown to the convention to attend with the Palins. The Governor's children should be left alone, and people can reach their own conclusions about parents who feel a need to pull young teens "facing the challenge of parenthood" even further into the media spotlight. --DinsdaleP 21:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
Don't delete history or try to cover up how wrong it has been for liberals on the internet to mock Palin over the founding father's remark.--Aschlafly 20:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- You should try to explain in what way they are wrong then. If you just claim 'liberals are wrong' then liberals are going to ignore you, and there is little point in preaching to the choir. Besides, her claim appears dubious to me. 'Under God' really wasn't in the pledge until long after the founding. It was added in the 50s. It doesn't matter if it came from a different founding document, she was refering explicitly to the pledge, and demonstrated she is ignorant of a very minor piece of historical trivia. It may be best to keep quiet on this one until the historical arguments are worked out here. NewCrusader 20:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
Sarah Palin has admitted in the past that she use marijuana, though it was legal in Alaska from 1975-2006. Should this be added into her biography? Granted, it wasn't illegal, but nevertheless I believe conservatives may find it disconcerting to participate in drug use. Reference for the story here. --Jareddr 20:35, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- Nah, that just doesn't seem needed. HenryS 20:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- If someone does something legal in their private life, then it's private and should be left alone. --DinsdaleP 21:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- If it's included, it should note that (A) marijuana was legal back then, (B) she was in college at the time, and (C) she has since denounced her experimentation. Jinxmchue 00:16, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'd only include it if she did it while in office. Other than that it's kind of irrelevant. --Ampersand 18:11, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
- Its irrelevant because it was legal at the time. If she didnt break any laws then it matters not. ClarkeD 18:13, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
- It may have been legal on a state level like medical marijuana is today in some states but it certainly was not legal by federal law. Some may consider that bad judgment which is relevant for a politician. --Fsamuels 09:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
This section list non-political items; hockey, marathons, NRA. Move or delete required.-- jp 23:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
What documents are being referred to in the statement "and all the Founding Fathers embraced reference [sic] to God in the documents that established the United States."? God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but that great document didn't establish this nation or its government - it was the colonies' statement of secession from British rule. The only document that actually established the United States of America as an entity and defined the operating framework for its government is the Constitution, and God is not mentioned once in it. --DinsdaleP 21:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
- the Declaration established a new nation in 1776, and called it the "United States of America," so July 4 is indeed the right birthday. The new nation had been in operation --with a national congress, diplomats, army, and national debt--for years before the current Constitution was adopted in 1788. RJJensen 11:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- You're right to identify 7/4/1776 as the point at which the colonies began to stand apart from England as an independent entity. However, the government in operation at that time was a temporary one, and there was some doubt as to whether a permanent union could be forged given the diverse nature of the former colonies. At Ed Poor's suggestion I started a debate page, Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"? to discuss whether the Founders incorporated the concept of "a nation under God" in the actual formation of the United States from its nascent beginnings. I'd look forward to your contributions there. --DinsdaleP 21:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- the Declaration established a new nation in 1776, and called it the "United States of America," so July 4 is indeed the right birthday. The new nation had been in operation --with a national congress, diplomats, army, and national debt--for years before the current Constitution was adopted in 1788. RJJensen 11:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
It seems to me that we're missing the argument here. It wasn't that the Founding Fathers said "Under God" at some point, but whether the original writing of the Pledge contained that phrase. It did not. And not all Founding Fathers were quite as up-standing Christians as George Washington was. We can and will continue to debate whether "Under God" should be in the Pledge, but as to whether Ms. Palin was correct in her comment, I believe debating is a moot point. She meant (and I think it is clear, though many I'm sure will disagree) that when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and John Hancock stood up and placed their hands over their hearts and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, they said it with an "Under God." They did not.
Wasilla Bible Church
Would it be worthwhile to have an article on Sarah Palin's home church?--Nowa 15:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
I am removing this section which was cited by WaPo for misleading statements. Read the counter post Sarah Palin's Expenses As Governor Scandalously...80% Lower Than Her Predecessor's!-- jp 22:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'm going to restore that section with some modification. First off, Palin took the per diem on top of the airfare spent to fly between Juneau and Wasilla - it was not to cover the cost of an 18-hour drive, because she didn't drive. Second, you can compare Palin's expense record to her predecessor's, but since that person was the corrupt Republican she was fighting to replace on a reform platform, it's not all that surprising she'd look better. What's a better comparison is to compare Palin's use of the per diem allowance for stays at her home to those of the Democrat who preceded Murkowski, Tony Knowles. Knowles was against such expenditures and issued an executive order barring commissioners on his staff from taking the per diem reimbursement when staying at their own homes instead of the capital. --DinsdaleP 00:23, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
- Also, please do not remove the new post about Wasilla charging rape victims for their forensic kits unless proven false with equally valid evidence. I was skeptical of this one too when I first read it, but the source was the local paper, and contained quotes from Palin's Sheriff confirming that the policy was in place to save taxpayer money. I'm appalled that someone who was willing to raise sales taxes to build a hockey rink & recreation center and hire lobbyists to secure federal earmarks for the town couldn't find a few thousand dollars a year to pay for the forensic tests required to do effective police work. To then go and tell a victim of sexual assault that she had to pay for her own test - words fail. I only hope this comes up in an interview with Palin so she has a chance to answer to this in her own words. --DinsdaleP 01:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
- Ridiculous manufactured liberal smears. I am sure WP will list it. -- jp 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
- As the citations showed, these are not ridiculous internet rumors like the supposed "list of banned books" that are going around; these are statement--AndrasK 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)s of fact, drawn from reputable news sources. In the case of the rape-kit issue, the article includes a quote form the sheriff she appointed complaining that the new state law was going to increase the cost to taxpayers (instead of victims). That's her guy making the statement, so there's no unfair smear going on. The simple truth is that even if Palin didn't create the policy, she could have changed it at any time while mayor. Unfortunately it took action from the Democratic Governor to force Wasilla to bring change.
- These stories may not be flattering, but they are true and backed by reputable sources. They should not be removed unless equally reputable evidence is presented to the contrary; otherwise it's censorship of the truth. --DinsdaleP 20:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
- I stand my assertion, ridiculous. WaPo may be reputable to you, but not conservatives. The counter from redstate is clear to the stupidity in the story. Where there is no wrong, make it seem as wrong. She acted proper and Alaskains agree.
- As for the rape-kit. Why is this an issue that she be tagged to as mayor of Wassila? Trying to demonize her is stupid. If it took the gov of that era to straighten it out, how did Palin as mayor act so evil? I am sympathetic with victims of any crime. Insurance companies are the source of the problem for they get to choose to pay or not pay the costs associated. What percentage of false rapes were reported and kits paid for? I stand by my claims and am sick of deleting this crap. I leave to others.-- jp 21:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
- Wrong. We do not blast people for sins of omission. Somewhere buried in the books is a bad law -- and Palin didn't change it. No. Learn together 21:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
So JP, what you are basically saying is that any source that does not explicitly promote the conservative agenda is unreliable? By that logic, Fox News, the de-facto conservative news haven, is not reliable because it reported Ted Steven's indictment. How is it that to the conservatives, some 85% of the mainstream media is unreliable but then obscure little internet blogs serve as sources for news articles? As DinsdaleP said, denying the validity and credibility of a source just because it shows unflattering details, for any candidate or public figure, is a sign of indoctrination and a complete lack of objectivity. --AndrasK 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
The Wasilla policy towards having victims of sexual assault was not a "sin of omission". If you read the New Frontiersman article I had referenced (the local paper there, not the "liberal Washington Post", it states that Wasilla was the only town actively following such a policy? It fails any credibility test to pretend Palin didn't know of the policy when the sheriff she appointed knew about of it and defended it, and the state had to pass a law to get Wasilla to change their practice since they were the only town still doing it.
I'm not out to mock or smear Palin - just to search for the truth about her, both positive and negative, and put those truths in the article to improve its value to readers seeking to learn about her. I had added the initial positives about her pro-life stance, and the comment that despite having fundamentalist personal views, she has kept her pledge to keep those views out of public policy. I'm balancing those edits by adding some others that are not flattering, but just as based on truth.
I can accept Conservapedia having a policy to filter its "news" stories to only publish those that are flattering to conservatives and disparaging to non-conservatives, but that standard can't apply to encyclopedia articles if they are to be trustworthy. I'll recast these points as "Controversy over Positions" instead of "Criticisms", which is more neutral, end encourage both sides of these controversies to be presented. If anyone can find evidence from reputable sources that Palin positively did not know of the rape-test policy, or presents her reasoning for why Wasilla held onto that policy until the state law was passed, then please add it. --DinsdaleP 13:31, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
- Not newsworthy, the truth according to whom? New Frontier, Drudge, far left websites and most likely WP are the only places listing story. Should we include Obama snorted cocaine and smoked weed? He admitted it but we have not and assume, we will not. Some things just don't get posted. It should not be placed within this page. -- jp 13:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
- This isn't about it being newsworthy or not - this is an encyclopedia article, and the edit is appropriate in that context. It's the truth according to two valid references. The first is the local paper, the Frontiersman, which has been around since 1947 and is not a biased source like HuffPost or something I would hesitate to use here. Second, the passage of the state law is in the public record. It comes back to passing a reality check - why would it have been necessary to pass a state law unless local governments were refusing to change this policy on their own. The final credibility comes in the statements from the Wasilla sheriff. Palin appointed this person because he supported her policies and views, unlike the sheriff he replaced who was from the prior administration. This edit is not about Palin's personal life - it's about the policies her administration supported in her capacity as an executive. This is entirely appropriate because the McCain/Palin ticket stresses Palin's "executive experience" as a key qualification, so objective stories about her record as an executive and the policies enforced by her appointed staff are important and deserve to be published. If you don't agree with this, then refute it wth evidence, don't censor it. --DinsdaleP 13:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
- Whatever, I said earlier I will not delete it, again. Mark my words, it will be deleted. Conservative sources take preference. We report true stuff here not made up criticism. -- jp 13:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'm all for truth, and as I said, I added two pro-Palin contributions to this article before I added any criticism. In the case of the rape-kit story, tell me what I've made up about it. --DinsdaleP 14:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
- I am not going round and round on with you on this one. I didn't add Obama snorts cocaine to his page, I guess that makes it righteous too. -- jp 14:08, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
- Whether you added it or not, the Obama article does mention his cocaine use. BrianH 11:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
- Just want to mention this concept. The fundamental difference between JP's Obama example (although if you want to put it in his article that he experimented with pot and cocaine, have at it. He publicly admitted it. It's in the public domain) and this issue is that this has to do with her policies as a politician. That has every merit of being openly discussed and published considering that it is her policies that will ultimately effect the country were she ever to become president. The problem is that people don't seem to see the difference between personal smear (this candidate did drugs, that candidate had an affair) versus abuses of power (this candidate used his position as mayor to get his son out of jail for DUI, that candidate used government money to buy a playstation). The former really has no importance, what is private is private (hence no-one discussing Palin's daughter. That's her personal life, not important in the election) while the latter has every bit of importance. --AndrasK 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
The new addition to the "troopergate" (if that's what it's actually being called) reads much too much like a news headline (see: "something you will hear more from the McCain campaign as the investigation continues"). I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should at least be edited to fit within the whole paragraph. Who is French? What is Branchflower? For that matter, what is "Troopergate?" These all need to be introduced before they are used familiarly. HelpJazz 23:46, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
- It shouldn't be that hard to understand but if you want to explain further, go ahead and edit without removing.-- jp 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Stop censoring truthful, cited edits
I hate edit wars, so I'm making this case again in the hope of resolving this issue professionally. People may not like the fact that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the policy in place was to charge the cost of rape-test kits to the victims, and it continued until state law banned the practice in 2000 while she was still mayor. This is not a liberal smear, it's a fact. Her administration knew of the victim-pays policy, and her hand-picked sheriff defended it in the article. The cited news article doesn't come from a fringe source, but from the local Wasilla newspaper. The story was published in 2000, so it's not a smear pulled together in September 2008 because she's now a VP candidate.
The simple fact is that this is part of her record, and it's proper for any candidate's record to be published for the public to assess, especially the policies she supported as an executive when her "executive experience" is being touted as central to her qualifications.
I'm challenging the editors who find this truth about her record unflattering to stop dealing with it through censorship, and to respond with research and evidence instead. If they believe that Palin was unaware of this practice even as her sheriff publicly defended it, then find the evidence. If you want to claim that this was only about policy because no women were actually charged for rape-kit tests while Palin was mayor, then find the evidence instead of assuming that was the case. I'm not out to smear Palin - I've added two positive edits two this article before adding this negative one. That's not attacking her character - it's being open-minded, balanced and sticking to the facts when editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully I won't get 90/10 blocked for this, but I want the Palin article to be informative and fair, unlike the joke that is the George W. Bush article here. --DinsdaleP 11:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
- The simple fact is she did not put in the law, did not campaign for it, did not even discuss it. It was one of many, many, many laws that was on the books. I asked you how many times, if any, a victim had to pay for her own kit testing. You ignored it and merely reinstated the information.
- Her sheriff specifically said the new law would make it so they couldn't bill the insurance companies or the perpetrators of the crime. He never said wow, I wish we could bill the victim. The information you are trying to force in was and is a red herring and your continued reinsertion hoping that people will see it as they come to our site is inappropiate - and you know it. Learn together 10:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Request for an edit to this full-protected page
Hi, I ran the article through MS Word's spell checker, and it found one minor grammatical error. I would appreciate it if a sysop could correct this in the article.
The error is in the third paragraph of the section titled "State Economy", The second sentence of that paragraph reads:
- These critic include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money'."
It should say
- These critics include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".
Samtheman 11:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Reversions regarding the Troopergate investigation
I'm not goint to re-insert anything, but wanted to respond here as to why I added the comments about partisan criticism. The current lawsuit to stop the investigation is being brought by five Alaskan state Republicans who claim that the investigation is "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan" . What's more important, despite an initial pledge by Palin to cooperate fully with the investigation, the current official statement from her campaign is that she is now "unlikely to co-operate" with the investigation. Palin campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan has said the Alaska state legislative probe had become "tainted" by partisan Democratic politicians seeking to target the Alaska governor. 
Since accusations of Democratic-driven partisan bias are coming from the Palin campaign, and not just Alaskan Republicans with a grudge, I felt it was important to objectively point out the bipartisan nature of the panels guiding the investigation. Republicans are in the majority on some of them, and joined in unanimous votes for some aspects of the investigation. What then, is improperly biased about showing the factual breakdown of the votes by party as I did? That's the official record, not spin. --DinsdaleP 11:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
- Palin asked the probe to acknowledge a rule of law before they began, and they refused. We all know what is going to happen from a legal standpoint - nothing. She is well within her right to do what she did. The question is how much innuendo outside of legal issues will be presented to attempt to hurt her. With the pictures with the Obama campaign and the "October Surprise" comment made by Palin's opposition her concern is certainly understandable. It has long been acknowledged that Palin has a feud with the entrenched Alaska GOP who are not happy with her exposing their corruption. That makes your count of Republicans and Democrats meaningless. When you are someone who exposes corruption in government regardless of party, that can happen. Learn together 16:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
- Well, if you're correct in figuring that the inquiry would be a witch hunt at this point because both parties in Alaska have a grudge, then she's got problems, all right. If she goes ahead it could get ugly, and if she tries to kill, delay or withhold info from it then she loses a lot of the reformer/maverick image she's cultivated. It'll be an interesting couple of months between now and the election, that's for sure. --DinsdaleP 16:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
According to the report, she was found in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits the the use of a public office for personal gain, but was also "proper and lawful." STORY Should this section be updated to include this? I have the full report here if someone would like to use that as the reference, or I can do it. The PDF is 260+ pages, though:( REPORT --Limbo 16:37, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
- This is silly. I doubt we want to waste time on it. Executives can and should fire people. It should happen more often than it does. Your "was found in" doesn't say who did the finding and what their political views are.--Aschlafly 16:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
- The "finding" was done by a bipartisan committee charged by the Alaskan State Legislature with investigating improprieties of this nature. The investigation concluded that while Palin has the authority to fire executive-branch staff, she abused the responsibility to fire for just cause, since the investigation also found committee found that Palin's firing of Walt Monegan was based in part on a personal grudge and vendetta against her former brother-in-law, who Monegan refused to fire without cause. Conservatives are supposed to support hiring and firing on merit, and when Palin abused the powers she was entitled to use for personal reasons, she crossed an ethical line even if she didn't commit an illegal act. Considering how some people on CP obsess over Obama's "alleged birth" in Hawaii or the non-Christian nature of his name as "legitimate" issues, Palin's ethically questionable conduct as an elected official is absolutely relevant to an assessment of her candidacy for national office. --DinsdaleP 19:01, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
- I agree with this post, and what I think should be included are 1) the partisan breakdown of the committee, 2) the second portion of the finding (that her actions were also "proper and lawful") with equal importance, and 3) the issues raised by the campaign over the committee and the campaign's proposed (and still ongoing, I believe) alternative. I didn't mean to imply that I just wanted something added about her being found in violation of state ethics law, but maybe a section explaining the context and the rest. Sorry if I gave you that impression. --Limbo 12:03, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
The conclusions at the end of the section don't strike me as accurate. The report showed that the ethical issues were in the pressure that Palin allowed to be brought on Monegan to fire Wooten. It contained substantial evidence in the form of testimony from Todd Palin and others that clearly showed a pattern of abuse by permission, rather than direct acts by Palin herself. --DinsdaleP 20:12, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
- Show me one person who said that Sarah Palin told them to take any steps at pressure that they did. Quite the contrary, all documentation shows that she was not involved. The report decided that didn't matter -- Palin herself needed to be censored anyway. Is it any wonder she wanted to be investigated by a group of Democratic appointments by the former governor believing that even they would be more fair than the posse that was put together? Learn together 20:21, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
- Well, for a start there's the sworn testimony of former Alaskan State Trooper Colonel Julia Grimes. In volume I of the investigation report, pages 10-11, there are statements from her as to how she was contacted by both Todd and Sarah Palin on separate occasions. The Palins recounted examples of what they considered discipline-worthy conduct on the part of Trooper Woten (Palin's brother-in-law). Todd Palin had no official right to make calls like he did on behalf of the Governor, and Colonel Grimes cited Alaska Statute AS.39.25.080 to Mr. Palin, as part of explaining why state employees are prohibited from discussing personnel issues with anyone else. It was cutting off the conversation with Todd Plain that led to the follow-up call from Sarah Palin, in which Gimes testified of Palin: "Her questions were how can a trooper that behaves this way still be working and was concerned that we were taking this seriously and that we cared". I'm not going cut-and-paste additional excerpts of the report since it's available via the link, but anyone who reads it can see the pattern of additional improper questioning and intervention by Todd Palin and pressure by Governor Palin. Sarah Palin is politically smart enough to avoid breaking the law (which the report properly concluded she didn't), but the pattern of her actions was a violation of her trust per the Alaskan Statutes. --DinsdaleP 18:45, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- I fully agree with Dinsdale here. I think the article reflects what he has said, I have said, and what the report has said with adequate documentation as to who authored it and the campaign's issues with the handling of the investigation. To be honest, this was not really an "October surprise" and I doubt it will come to much as the findings were relatively mild in the scheme of things. Dinsdale provides more than enough sufficient commentary on this subject. --Limbo 19:25, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
This was added to the last paragraph of the Personal Background section before the page was protected:
"After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child."
This does not match what Gov. Palin has said about Bristol's pregnancy. In fact, it seems to be a subtle attempt to falsely introduce the idea that abortion was considered. This seems even more likely considering that the editor who put the sentence in was just caught posting false information. Jinxmchue 13:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
- I don't think it's editorial license to discredit the Palins, just reporting of story-lines from the time. Back on 9/2, a CNN report stated that "The McCain aide emphasized that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents." This was also described as "A brave choice" in a 9/1 story on the Christian site SacredScoop. The point is taht when this was first announced in the official statement from the Palins, it was characterized as matter where Bristol decided to keep the baby and marry the father, with the family's support. The rest remains the family's private business, but while the campaign has not hesitated to use this as an example of Palin being true to her pro-life values, it's never been described as anything other than a choice Bristol was able to make for herself. --DinsdaleP 16:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I uploaded a picture of Sarah Palin meeting with members of the National guard. The section on foreign policy says "the governor is not briefed on situations." But the picture I put in has Palin being briefed by the troops (or at least that's what it said on the governor's website). Which is true? Chippeterson 22 September 2008
- What this images  implies at the very least is that, as governor, she is being briefed on the troop movements of her state's national guard brigade relative to an excersize going on at the time the picture was taken. But standing behind her is someone with the rank of colonel; senior officers in all branches of the military are trained in foreign policy, and to think she's not being briefed about the subject at any time is just plain wrong. Karajou 14:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I think that a Sysop needs to take out that part on Sarah Palin not being briefed about the National guard. Some liberal probably added that. It's clearly false. Chippeterson 22 September 2008
- I think it is safe to assume she isn't being briefed on foreign policy. They aren't under her command once they've been federalized. Also, you should double check that rank, Karajou. LilyWinston 17:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
According to the Governor's website she is briefed on the actions of the state national guard. The reference for the statement that she isn't isn't even there. It should be taken down. Chippeterson 22 September 2008
Founding Fathers' Christian faith
"George Washington was indeed a Founding Father, and all the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the documents that established the United States." This sentence is simply false as-is, and the "all" should be changed to "most" or "many" to amend this. Several of the Founding Fathers were certainly not Christians. Egen 21:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
- Actually the sentence is mostly true, although I would agree with you that a case could be made that it was not true in all cases. While I am not aware of any Founding Fathers who were not members of Christian churches, I can think of a small number whose belief in core Christian doctrines could be questioned. They are, however, the minority. Learn together 03:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- I won't get into the debate of whether "most" of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but yes, there were at least a few who definitely were not, and in any case, there were certainly many of them who did not openly express it in their private life (and very few of them wrote Christianity into the founding documents of this country). While the passage preceding the one I'm referring to is also extremely shaky (is there any evidence Sarah Palin was referring to George Washington and not the widely-held misconception that the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge as-is, and why are we giving her the benefit of the doubt?) I'm mostly concerned with the use of the word "all", because as it stands that sentence is very clearly and obviously false and it smears this site's reputation. Egen 10:54, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- The changes you made bring this page closer to accuracy. Thanks! Egen 19:37, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
While helpful I feel the current pronunciation may be difficult for non-English speakers who are unfamiliar with the given name "Lynn." Shall we include the IPA pronunciation as well (/ˈpeɪlɪn/)? TexasEx 22:42, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
Since when does CP start using liberal hate sites and pathetic liars Huffington Post as a source? ref # 39. This needs to be replaced with a ref from elsewhere and also needs to appear in a timeline of events, not at the end of the headlined paragraph. -- jp 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT) -- jp 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Completed the above. It is interesting to note that this sentence taken word for word "The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0", listed Conservapedia number 11 (number one on page two) on Google (English only search). -- jp 02:02, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Good Rip of Obama Today
Speaking at a rally in Pa., she says "Barack always talks of change with [I will] but when it comes to his record, he can never say [I did]."-- jp 20:48, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
- She's good at delivering scripted lines, but her ability to appear Vice-Presidential in news interviews, let alone potentially Presidential, keeps trending worse. Even key conservatives were disappointed in her performance with Katie Couric, who was more than fair to her. Palin's performance in the debate this week will be interesting to watch. --DinsdaleP 23:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
- Considering that the "impartial" moderator wrote a book praising Barack Obama, how fair do you think the questions are going to be? Should we count on another Gibson "interview" where she is chastised for using a definition of the Bush Doctrine that Gibson himself used years earlier? Learn together 13:00, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- I agree - she's about as appropriate for this as Hannity would be. --DinsdaleP 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- One additional observation, though - I think Gibson is going to be very sensitive to any criticism of her impartiality and professionalism, and that will temper any inclination to be pro-democrat. Her credibility as a journalist is being evaluated tomorrow as well, and she's not going to ruin it over this. --DinsdaleP 13:10, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- Now that the debate is over, how impartial was the moderator (Gwen Ifill)?--Frey 20:32, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
- It is my understanding that she was considered to have been fair by the majority of the people watching, myself included. There can always be some points of differences and contentions, but, ironically, she came across as far more even-handed than most of the 'impartial' moderators or news anchors giving political interviews. Learn together 04:19, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
- I found her to be fair as well - I don't think either participant would be justified in claiming otherwise. --DinsdaleP 21:18, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
This section needs deleted. It is not encyclopedic, more or less stats.-- jp 12:39, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- I disagree, but would understand if it should be relocated to the 2008 Election article instead. My point in adding it was not to insert an anti-Palin shot, but to add two relevant points to the article to describe the impact Palin is having on the GOP ticket. First, the stats were added to the section of the article dealing with her VP candidacy - it's entirely relevant and encyclopedic to add objective stats there showing how the public perceives her VP candidacy over its first month. If she starts trending better after the debate that should be shown as well - I'm not out to get her, despite what you may think.
- Second, I paired up the stats with the pro-Palin comment by Mitt Romney where he supports her, but criticizes how the McCain campaign has manager her VP candidacy. The stats emphasize his key point - she started off with a great public perception and favorable ratings, but the forced isolation from the press has led to the perception that she's not up to scrutiny. When you've only done less than a handful of news interviews in a month, all the media can do is repeatedly analyze those same performances over and over. Biden makes many gaffes, but he's done over 80 interviews in September, so they get downplayed because he's put out a high volume of content to analyze. I'm firmly in the camp that says that for better or worse, any candidate for high office needs to be accessible and open during a campaign, and the statistics I was adding aren't there to attack Palin, but to show what her isolation in September did to the public's perception of her. If this is removed for a falsely perceived anti-Palin bias, I'm not going to fight it. It would be a shame, though, because I'm trying to add a constructive insight, not anti-Palin spin. --DinsdaleP 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- I agree with DinsdaleP. (And I rhyme!) Opinion polling is important to an election, and nobody would call for removal if she improved in the rankings. (Nor would they call for removal had these been the results of opinion polls about one of the Democratic candidates). HelpJazz 13:12, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- If you notice, polling numbers not on Biden's page, nor Obamas nor McCains. Regardless if she is up or down, these stats are for 2008 Presidential election results.-- jp 13:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- I'm okay with pulling the statistics-tables from this article, and will do that now. My intention was to use them to document the change in opinion over Palin through the month of September. I'd still like to leave the main text of the section intact, because I still believe the examination of how her accessibility has correlated with her polling in September is relevant, as is the observation from Romney. --DinsdaleP 13:37, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Given the choice?
"In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents.". " What does "given the choice" mean? Would Sarah and Todd have let her kill the baby? --MichaelK 22:32, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Depending on when Bristol's birthday is, they might not have had a choice. If she turned 18 during her first or second trimester, she could legally decide on her own. I think the phrase "given the choice" was used to emphasize that she actually had a choice. --AndrasK 22:44, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Alaskan Independence party
there should be something about the aip. if there is in depth speculation about obama's ties to bill ayers, a man whom he has denounced, we should be fair and talk about how palin told the aip, an extremely anti american group, to "keep up the good work".
- What is accurate and fair to state is that Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002, per the Division of Elections in Alaska. Republicans are misleading in trying to connect Obama with actions Ayers participated in decades before they met, given that the context in which they met had nothing to do with Ayers' earlier activities. Sarah Palin, by contrast, knowingly consented to her husband's participation in a pro-separatist party for a 7-year period that included her time as Mayor of Wasilla. --DinsdaleP 19:34, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
I agree DinsdaleP. From my own perspective, McCain's decision to pick Palin as his running mate was a bit rapid fire and a bit impulsive, if you ask me. I'm not sure he knew as much about her past when he chose her as he retroactively learned.
- I disagree with Dinsdale, misleading trying to connect Obama with Ayers? The only misleading on the subject is by Obama. The decision to pick Palin was brilliant and satisfied nearly all who didn't like Romney or Huckabee, Pawlenty offered nothing. What we've learned about Sarah is that the left can't stand her and there is nothing to bring her down beside innuendo and smears. --Jpatt 11:42, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
- Obama met Ayers when the latter was on a board working to improve schools, decades after his involvement with the Weather Underground. For Palin to claim that this is "palling around with terrorists" makes it sound like Ayers is still active in that regard (he's not) or that Obama and Ayaers have a close relationship outside of their collaboration on the Annenberg project (they don't). So if she's making stump-speech claims based on falsehoods, that's misleading in my book, and poor behavior for a Christian. It's also interesting that while Ayers' activities with the Weather Underground took place when Obama was a child, Palin as an adult chose to condone her husband's participation in a separatist group, and made presentations to the same group herself as a politician. Her adult associations with the AIP and its active members is a lot more relevant than trying to create a connection between Obama and the actions Ayers took place in decades ago.
- Oh, and when I learned something about Palin and found it disturbing, I did the fair thing and researched it to make sure it was factual and not innuendo and smears. The response (not from you, Jpatt) was to be blocked and have the findings removed, instead of their truthful nature being challenged with evidence. That's a real shame, when the truth is supposed to matter here. --DinsdaleP 20:07, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Here's what I'm bothered by. Palin tosses the concept of her and McCain as "Mavericks" around quite liberally...yet she fails to explain what she means by this self-identification. In the VP debate, she referred to herself and McCain as "a couple of Mavericks" six times (at least that's what I counted). What does it mean to be a Maverick???!?!?! Yet, she never went further with her explanation... Acwellman 10:38, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
- Maybe not a maverick in Wasilla, but definetly as Governor. She has explained her stance, liberals refuse to listen. Must she explain the definition of Maverick to satisfy the left?--Jpatt 11:45, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
In the section "Vice-presidential candidate" there is a redlinked image. I would remove it, but the page is protected. Could someone with protect rights remove it? Thanks. --PhilipV 12:15, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Is it too soon to mention 2012 on this page? According to Townhall (here: http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/11/11/palin_puts_brutal_2008_behind_her,_looks_to_2012 ) Gov. Palin has said she would "plow through that door" (ie become the nominee) if it's God's will and conditions are right.
- If you wish to include a tasteful entry that is fine. I should point out though that the way many of the news organizations reported it was basically a lie. The part about doing it only if it is God's will is important -- and was often left out. Learn together 18:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
- Unless she has a telephone to God I think wording reflecting that she will do it if she feels it is God's will would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia --Brendanw 17:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Russia and Alaska
I have an idea about an article showing the contemporary and/or historical influence of Russia and Alaska. I have been to Russia before. Over the past 300 years, I have read that Russian traders constructed several Russian Orthodox churches, now in the State of Alaska. These still stand, I have read. Does anyone have or can take a picture of one and give it to CP?
I think a simple, factual article like that (mentioning Saint Herman of Alaska, a Russian Missionary to Alaskian Eskimos) would help people to understand what Palin means when she cites Alaska's ongoing invovlement with its neighbor. --RickD 09:55, 4 December 2008 (EST)
- Sounds great. You can create new entries, and I look forward to learning from your insights.--Aschlafly 10:52, 4 December 2008 (EST)
I'm not removing this section, but it needs some sourcing for the opinions that are being expressed. If not, I'd suggest that they be relocated to an essay because they currently appear to be a set of pro-Palin comments with no encyclopedic basis. --DinsdaleP 14:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)
My last edits
"a typical example" rather than "an example" is editorializing and unnecessary padding, as worded with "an" it is still written in a very conservative way, a professional conservative way. Also Palin is criticized for hunting, its a stupid reason to criticize someone, and reveals the ignorance of some of her detractors, but it does happen and since it is true and relevant it probably belongs here. --Brendanw 17:27, 15 January 2009 (EST)
- 47 and #48 link to articles that no longer exist so there would seem to be no basis for statement made in the sentence that refers to them. Can anyone find the articles?
Where is the "Bridge to Nowhere?"
Why isn't this on her page? That seems pretty important.
- ~Yawn~ Important to whom? It was a contrivance of political convenience by both politicians and the media. That isn't especially notable, don't you think? --₮K/Admin/Talk 05:11, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
But you think Obama POSSIBLY being a muslim is important enough to put on his page? CP is supposed to be filled with facts and unbiased truth. Not unverified purported rumors.GordonF
- Yes, Obama is president and the verified facts put on his entry are of sufficient importance. Why do those facts bother you so much???--Andy Schlafly 20:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
Wow! Check out this dishonesty from the left-stream media
The recent vandalization of this page made me check out the reference given:
In light of her experience, and subsequent break up with the father of her child, Brostol Palin has since stated that she sees abstinence only education as "not realistic." 
You go to that link and see this:
- In her first interview since giving birth, the teenage daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said having a child is not "glamorous," and that telling young people to be abstinent is "not realistic at all."
And then you come to a link in the middle of the article:
Okay, so then when you click on that link and watch the video, the reporter states:
"..she also went on to say that stopping teen sex is quote 'not realistic at all.'"
But at no point in the video is Bristol shown saying anything of the sort. When you watch what she actually said, it's quite a bit different that what is being reported (imagine that!).
"Everyone should be abstinent... but it's not realistic at all."
It's obvious she means that even with abstinence being promoted, realistically some kids are still going to choose to have sex. Jinx McHue 16:10, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
- The liberal view of sex is that it always okay among any parties competent to "consent". They absolutely refuse to consider any alternative. So, the idea that young people might benefit from being advised to abstain from premarital sex is abhorrent to them.
- The lie comes from their assumption that abstinence education cannot ever work; the truth is merely that they hope it does not work.
- The sexually immoral are desperate to hang on to their sin of choice. --Ed Poor Talk 16:18, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
- I believe that we should seriously consider a law making it illegal to have sexual relations outside of marriage. It's a shame we no longer have people in office who aren't afraid to legislate based on their Christian beliefs and moral values.Patriot1505 15:52, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
We should update this with her recent resignation. I'd prefer to have someone quote from the full text of the speech - most articles I've seen/read haven't even mentioned it, they've just stated that she announced she wouldn't be running again for governor and would be leaving office sometime before the end of July. The transcript is on her website here: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php
Thanks!Marlowe 15:24, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
- I don't think her quitting office needs to be mentioned. This article is a highlight of her personal and professional accomplishments as a leading Christian Conservative, and including that would not serve any meaningful purpose but only tarnish the article of an otherwise upstanding career. Patriot1505 08:21, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
- This article is a bibliography of Sarah Palin though, is it not? The resignation is part of her life and her political career, we would be remiss in not mentioning and covering this major fact and event of her life. BMcP 9:24, 22 July 2009 (EDT)
- I disagree. It would only embolden liberals in their unending smear campains against Governer Palin. She quit for personal reasons. The encyclopedic artice is a place for facts, not personal issues. Patriot1505 13:45, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
- I agree her reason are personal, but as a public figure, she officially ended her term as governor, which is simply fact, "liberals" are already fully aware of this fact so it would change nothing in that regard. Speculations on the reasons why isn't necessary to write, but simply the fact she did resign as the reason her term ended, and ended early should be noted and entered. To not enter that on an encyclopedic bibliography of her would be derelict. - BMcP 14:54, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
- The Administrators agree with you, BMcP. Failure to add her resignation to our article was a big oversight. Sorry it took so long to note and respond to this. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:57, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
Second paragraph: out of sequence?
The second paragraph of the lead seems out of place. While the first and third both talk about Palin and her Vice Presidential candidacy, the second recounts a specific incident from her political career. Should it be moved to another spot in the article? --Benp 13:00, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
This is an awfully long article. Is there really a need to quote so extensively from her resignation speech? There is a link to it in the references after all. But I don't dare remove it because that may be regarded as "liberal vandalism". ChrisFV 16:16, 13 November 2009 (EST)
Sorry edited Down Syndrome to Down's Syndrome but reversed since it turns out that a 'UK-ism'. Nick Bowler
The subsection, Reaction to Gulf of Mexico oil spill seems misplaced under Record as Governor, as Palin was not governor at the time of the Obama administration's mismanagement of oversight leading to the spill. The section consists of a single sentence. Perhaps removing this subheading and merging the single sentence somewhere into the subhead on beleifs and views? Thanks. Rob Smith 14:07, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
- Convention would dictate a "Current Activities" section or "Post Elected Office" section when dealing with public figures. I like Current Activities, best, and it should be located after the intro and before more distant past information, IMO. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:42, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
- On July 3, 2009 Palin announced that she would resign as Governor of Alaska.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_not_running/2009/07/03/231789.html</ref> Executive power was transferred to Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell.
Palin was Senator John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate in the 2008 Presidential Election,<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/palins_vp_selection_speech.html Acceptance Speech by Palin]</ref> and the first woman to appear on a Republican Presidential ticket.
Makes it sound like they punished her for making an announcement.
- I'm not sure I follow you, Ed. BHO assumed office in January and she resigned in July. The plain truth is that Palin resigned because liberals were doing everything they could to impede her. The endless, frivolous attacks prevented Sarah from doing her best for Alaska and she wasn't about to shortchange her constituents. Palin's resignation was a noble move. KyleDD 19:28, 1 September 2010 (EDT)