Palin says the GOP presidential ticket was seen as part of the "status quo"

She fails to mention that she wanted to be a part of the "status quo". After they loose she stabs the Republican Party in the back.

Go, Sarah, go! I look forward to hearing, and seeing more of this amazing Republican woman.

I would vote for Sarah Palin for president in a heartbeat. What a superstar!!! Only Jindal might be better. Jeb Bush or Newt Gingrich would be great presidents too but hey we can only pick one at a time. Palin and Jindal -- now that's change we can believe in.

'Gag MOI with a spoon'..........Ms. Palin for President? What rock do some folks live under? Never going to happen.

Ms. Palin is right about one thing, folks wanted to get rid of George Bush so badly that they threw 'the baby out with the bath water'. Senator McCain wanted to right things in this country and never got the chance due to the strong feeling against the Republican Party.

We will just have to wait and see.

Tony...I think we need to rebuild the GOP from the bottom up.I plan to support/help local and state candidates that are conservative...not the"Finger Wetters".Your thoughts on how this can be done is appreciated.

I would vote for her and she pointed the finger at the current administration because for the past two months it was thrown in her face how poorly they have ran the country. She will make a great president in the future.

I vote with Brian. The GOP should rebuild as a true conservative party, get rid of anyone who wants to compromise or work with the rest of the country, and leave the middle ground for the Democrats. That should keep y'all marginalized for at least another decade.

Silly 'Mike D'.

In the face of a uniformly, shamelessly biased mainstream media, sensationalist and uninformed reporting of routine economic developments, 7 years of war fatigue, a failed Republican Congress, and the most unpopular outgoing president in 20 yrs, the GOP won 46% of the presidential vote.

Pretty fat so-called 'margin,' Mike, that's almost half the nation. If that's what you call being 'marginalized,' where's all the action supposedly at? Only in the half of the country that voted for your guy?

Give me a break. A single election with zero turnout increase compared to 2004, tiny shifts in partisan voting compared to 2004, and a 52% winner does not change the United States into any thing other than the successful center-right country it has been for 30 years.

And if you think the Pelosi-Reid-Obama team is interested in compromise, you're living in a fantasy land. The choice of Rahm Emanuel to run the White House is just the beginning.

Tony, 4 years ago you guys were crowing about a "permanent Republican majority." Now you're boasting about getting 45%? The demographics aren't in your favor, unless you can regain some of the Latino vote that was tossed out with all that GOP xenophobia. Unless Obama crashes and burns (which would be bad for us all), you may be lucky to get 45% again.

That, and the only thing that saved the social conservatives' mandate on Prop 8 was the millions of dollars pumped into the misrepresentation and fearmongering ads. A lot of out of state money I might add. Where were all the conservative commenters who complained about Obama or Perea getting money from outside supporters when California's Prop 8 was getting tons of Utah or Pennsylvania money?

62% to 52%. Hardly a mandate.

Adam(a biblical name)...Why would those states(UT-PA) pump money into "The Silly State" to fight Prop.8.What would they have to gain and are you interested in anything other than "Gay Marriage"? It's OK if you're not. Mike(D)...might there be an (R) in your future.C'mon...surely you don't believe in that fraud Obama.You're just looking for conservative leadership you can believe in.Me too!

Mike it's not all the latino votes that made the difference but it did help.

Independents, as well as a number of Republicans voted for Obama.

Let's see, the Templetons at Bryn Mawr gave $1.2 million just by themselves.

Utah has records of over 560 donors giving significant donations.

Sure I'm interested in other things besides the rights of my fellow citizens. Are you interested in interacting with people using their names as they have been introduced?

Adam(a biblical name)...Not really but I do want to hear why YOU think those folks poured money into a CA Prop and whether you are concerned with the rights of those YOU disagree with.Should I be protesting to get Obama's election overturned or should I just accept it.The same with Props.2&4.When should we just accept the results and move on?

I think those folks poured money into the campaign because religious bigotry isn't confined to state lines.

I am concerned for the rights of those I disagree with.

You can protest whatever you want Brian. And you can accept the results and move on whenever you like. Those are decisions for you to make.

Adam(a biblical name)...so in your world "Homosexual Bigotry" is OK?

Nope.

Adam...What do you think would satisfy both sides in this standoff?If nothing then shouldn't two elections be enough...or would a third one help.How about best out of five? Did you ever check out Jeff Scott's site?

It's not about satisfaction Brian. Rarely anything in the political world satisfies both sides. That's the wrong kind of question. I have a question for you though.

You don't think I should be able to start a petition for a constitutional amendment that rescinds what Prop. 8 did? I don't have that right? We can vote on things as many times as people are willing to pay the money and collect the signatures to put them on the ballot. Clearly, the supporters of Prop. 8 are losing ground. Why should someone like me stop now?

Sarah Palin has mega chutzpah (unmitigated impudence.) And according to the Fresno Bee item, "Palin calls on peers to be stout minority" she challenges Republicans to "keep in check" the newly elected Democrats. That to me translates into trying to boycott and/or worse, Capital Hill for the next four years. And she is offering to be the leader in the effort. Did she get tired of firing officials who would not help her to go after her brother in law in a nasty divorce sqabble?

And nobody explained to us as of yet what kind of Alaskan secessionist parry the Palins were involved with, and to secede from what or where???????

Tony Gastelum:

I enjoyed your comment, unforetitly you mentioned that President Bush was " most unpopular outgoing president in 20 yrs"

Perhaps, that is true.....but what is the current "poll" on the acceptance of this current Democratic Majority Congress?? 10%====15%????

I say, upon the next election cycle (2010).......... REMOVE THEM ALL !. Congressmen and upcoming Senators! (Have you ever read about a "poor" and/or "moderate means" government official, retiring with little money???

Time to have the hard-working tax-paying Americans speak their minds and be represented properly !

It is interesting to read the wisdom of the beehive's political pundits. But one thing is ineradicable fact; history won't bear out most of them. Clinical detachment in politics is not easily achieved. Politics is such a passionate human endeavor, and it is, therefore, highly subjective. It helps to accept the ism that there is nothing new under the sun, and to take counsels from the what has been.

Just for the record I think George Bush has been an absolutely outstanding President.

Also Jim's point about the standing of Congress is well-taken.

Palin's face (photo "Palin says the GOP..." etc.) matches her words and her actions. Not that(about) 20 year old photo...smiling, young without a line in the face. The photo which shall disappear into the archive in cyberland, probably today or tomorrow. That young face had gone from reality a long time ago. This has nothing to do with partisan politics. It is an evaluation based on looks (not very scientific). The eyes have it...it is my guide to a first impression of people. Palin's eyes are as hard as flint, unlike Swearengin's whose eyes are soft; and color has nothing to do with it.

And as for Senator Obama winning the presidential race...it's hardly a blessing. To get the country out of the troubled waters, we are in up to our necks, is no bargain. Instead of dealing with an economy based on capitalistic principles, he is getting an economy that has been turned into a Plutocracy, a system based on big money rule, and not by free trade like Capitalism. And it is going to get worse if we keep violating the anti-trust laws. It had been a grave concern of President Jack Kennedy. The creation of mega businesses, undermining competition, and the "run away industries" (outsourcing.)

I remember when the Signal Oil Company was ordered to divest itself of the Swift Meat Company, and other unrelated businesses. Since then, the Plutocrats had several decades to seize the power. Can it be undone? I don't know. It took Europe several hundred years to get rid of the Feudal system.

Now you libs are picking on Sarah Palins looks? I saw her in person a month ago, from 15 feet away. She is stunningly gorgeous, inside and out!

It is certainly intriquing why so many liberals are threatened by a strong, common-sense, accomplished, outstanding, for-the-people leader like Sarah Palin. My predictions are that her example will re-define feminism. The women who want to be men have dominated it far too long.

Go Sarah go!

For the record, it has been common practice for as long as I can remember, for the media to choose unflattering photos for candidates, and individuals they dislike, and flattering photos for those the do.

This story is a prime example.

Gee, I wonder if McCain-Palin had won the White House, would the Bee be selling T-shirts commemorating the first woman VP, like they are for Obama as the first black Pres? NOT!

For some time I have repeatedly asked about the claims that the Palins were or are members of a secessionist movement, and what did they want to secede from? It took a lot of time, but I did my own research, and I found that Alaska has a strong party that advocates to secede from the United States to form an independent Alaska or to become a commonwealth. They claim that Alaska's statehood was illegal.

As I have observed before, that woman (Sarah Palin) has chutzpah. Had they planned to turn the Alaska Statehouse into the Alaska royal palace? Should Sarah Palin ever make it into the White House, then, We the People would get what we deserve. But don't count on the "WE" still being the alpha and omega of it all.

Wake up and smell the coffee instead of popping Viagara et.al.: for always being ready to copulate ( beware of becoming deaf and blind from the pill.) Am I a prude? I don't think so. But in the world of my prime, sex was not polite drawing room topic. We kept an eye on our lawmakers instead. And lo and behold, the human race did not die out.

Red,

For somone who calls herself a "Maverick" what else do you want, a picture of Palin in George Bush's "mission accomplished" jet fighter suit?

After the announcement of Palin as the VP, the media was immediately hostile to Palin, and bent on ruining her political career. With all their might, they turned into attack dogs, pulling out all the stops to dig up dirt on Palin. They sent hundreds of investigators, and reporters to Alaska with the intent of putting Palin in a negative light. Why? Because she threatened to put a monkey wrench in their plans to put their Messiah in the White House.

When they didn't find anything of substance, they located disgruntled employees fired for insubordination, with an obvious axe to grind, to spin a story, making a mountain out of a molehill.

Few Americans do not recognize this...it was sooooo obvious, except those who cannot be reached due to the liberal mindset.

Now with hundreds of reporters looking for dirt, if there was any substantive evidence that Sarah Palin has secret plans to secede Alaska from the United States, they would have reported it. The reason Isabel cannot find any evidence is because there likely isn't any.

And by the way, there are states that wrote into their Constitutions when they joined the U.S., that under certain conditions, they could choose to succeed. Ex. Montana is free to succeed if their rights to bear arms are ever threatened. I believe Texas has similar wording in theirs.

Popping viagra? What the heck is that comment all about?

red,

Have you gone off the deep end? I don't see Palin all tied up in front of the cameras. She likes to be on camera.

Whats your next conspiracy theory going to explain? It know no bounds of the imagination.

I don't believe the Republican Party is too happy with her, she is not going to go anywhere without them. Even an outsider needs to play insider politics.

Unless we consider WIKIPEDIA The free encyclopedia also to be liars, the reports about the party that wants to secede is correct. And for future posts; I do not care to debate the lady who calls herself redpeach. And feel free to say about me whatever you may. By the way, I have checked out Republican Women Federated. It all was presented by intelligent people, and I know some of the individuals on the list.

Please! Do not expect any further response from me.

Redpeach wrote:
"And by the way, there are states that wrote into their Constitutions when they joined the U.S., that under certain conditions, they could choose to succeed. Ex. Montana is free to succeed if their rights to bear arms are ever threatened."

That's a silly argument made by lots of gun-rights proponents on the internet, and a few Montana politicians. But think for a moment - what was Montana before it was admitted to the Union? A separate, independent nation? No, it was a U.S. territory, part of the area purchased from France in the Lousiana Purchase. If Montana wants to claim that its statehood compact with the U.S. is null and void, then the result would not be secession, but rather to return them to their former situation - as a U.S. territory.

"I know, I used to be a liberal, and I thought just like you."

To me, that is proof that you were never really a liberal. True liberal thought eschews that sort of "groupthink." It looks to me like you've just traded one brand of brainwashing for another.

By the way, I doubt that FCC or other colleges have any sort of blanket "policy" disallowing the use of Wikipedia as a research tool. As long as a student recognizes its limitations, and doesn't cite it as primary authority, it actually can be quite useful. If there is any such policy, I'd like to see it. I can see discouraging its use in cases where the purpose of a project is to teach students to use primary sources. But for everyday research, it's generally adequate.

Redpeach, nothing in your post about Montana contradicts my characterization of that argument as silly. Maybe you don't know anything about contract law, but if a contract is nullified, the parties are restored to their previous position, wherever possible. Montana's previous position was a U.S. territory, not an independent state. So any claim that Montana has a right to secede are indeed silly.

Looking at these thread posts here're a few thoughts:

I'm a liberal too. A Classical Liberal. Look it up (on Wikipedia even!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

And no Mike I wouldn't call you a liberal at all. No offense, but in all your posts I've ever seen you come across as a statist or socialist. In other words a Democrat, spelled with a big 'D' to indicate the party and not the concept.

Redpeach is right about Wikipedia being widely disrespected by traditional academics. But that's in their own self-interest -- they are losing their monopoly on credibility and information, just like the mainstream media already has. Wikipedia is a vibrant intellectual community, self-policing and every bit as reliable as any printed encyclopedia. Does it have errors? Biases? Opinions? Assumptions? Of course. But so does any printed book, newspaper story, editorial analysis or 'primary source'.

Anyway Mike, Redpeach is more correct than you are about the hypothetical secession of a state like Montana. Your argument about contract law presumes that the newly independent sovereign nation of Montana would inexplicably continue to abide by U.S. common law. Now that's a silly assumption.

I am friends with several teachers in the SCCCD system, and they informed me about Wikipedia and the schoold district recommendation to instructors. I never said it was a blanket policy not to allow students from using Wikipedia.

Tony, please explain to me how Montana would ever get to the point of being a "newly sovereign nation." You seem to have skipped over that rather significant step in your, um, "analysis" (for lack of a better word).

And even if they did somehow succeed in seceding, there's nothing silly about the assumption that they would adopt U.S. common law. Do you think they're going to throw out their current legal system and invent a whole new legal code from scratch? Now that is silly.

Where do you think sovereignty comes from, Mike? Would you, a Democrat, say it comes from the point of a gun? Or would you instead as a democrat say that it comes from the will of the people?

Would you, an unabashed Obamaphile, go to war to enforce U.S. jurisdiction over a people who wanted to govern themselves? How do you reconcile your answer to your constant criticism of U.S. activity in Iraq?

Of course any new country would invent a whole new legal code for itself. Even if it was based on a historic tradition, it certainly wouldn't have to be the U.S.'s. The U.S., Iraq, France, the Baltic states, and numerous other examples from history show the lightness of your intellectual approach.

Bottom line: Redpeach makes a lot more sense than you do, without your need to condescend.

I'll offer this about Montana and its federal status. . . Montana receives more federal funds than its residents send to Washington in the form of federal income taxes. California, in contrast, is a "donor" state, sending substantially more money to Washington than we get in return in federal dollars.

This is from the Tax Foundation:

"Montana taxpayers receive more federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to the average state. Per dollar of federal tax collected in 2005, Montana citizens received approximately $1.47 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 11th highest nationally and represents a rise from 1995 when Montana received $1.46 per dollar of taxes in federal spending (6th highest nationally). Neighboring states and the amount of federal spending received per dollar of federal tax collected are: Idaho ($1.21), Wyoming ($1.11), North Dakota ($1.68), and South Dakota ($1.53)."

Tony, where did the United States get its sovereignty from? Did we just declare independence, and Britain said, "yeah, sure, whatever you want"? What happened when a bunch of states tried seceding in the 1860s? Did the federal government just let them go?

Sure, Montana could just declare its independence like the Confederacy did, and cross their fingers and hope the federal government just lets them go. But that's not what the Montana secessionists argument is (did you even read the link Redpeach provided?). They were claiming some sort of contractual "right" based on the compact between Montana and the U.S. when Montana was admitted to statehood. That argument is silly - and you haven't even attempted to rebut it.

And for your information, no, nations don't just make their laws up from scratch when they become independent. That's why U.S. common law is derived from English common law. Over time the new nation's law codes will evolve in different directions, and some objectionable statutes may be declared void at the outset, but it is in nobody's interest to just throw out all the old laws (and the legal precedents tied to them) and start completely afresh. That would only lead to chaos in the new nation's courts.

Think for a moment - people in Montana have been doing business under a certain set of laws for over a century now. Most of the laws they deal with in everyday life are state laws (based on U.S. common law). What on earth would they gain by starting over from scratch?

Seriously, Tony, I thought you were smarter than this.

Jim, that's like those big farmers who want the government "off their backs," while at the same time filling their pockets with federal subsidies.

Special thanks to Congressman Radanovich for keeping our tax dollars out of our County.

Our Congressman is well loved in Washington because he gives everyone else our tax money.

Jim is saying that Montanans get a better financial deal than many of us, especially Californians, by being part of the Union. It's a good point and shows that not everything is about money, principle matters too.

Mike, it sounds like you are having trouble facing your own cognitive dissonance. You cite 18th and 19th century state violence as the justification for how you think the Union would (or should?) be enforced today in the 21st century. Do you really believe that? I do, but then again according to you and your friends I'm an unreconstructed neocon.

It was a mere accident of history that the U.S. speaks English instead of German, let alone started with British common law instead of that of another country, for example France, that based theirs on a Justinian code. Obviously any new country would likely not literally start from scratch, but intellectually they would certainly be free to pick and choose whatever they wanted to keep or do.

The problem with your criticism of Redpeach was that you for some reason keep supposing that a newly seceded state would bind itself, for no apparent reason, to the contract law tradition of the nation it seceded from, to its own disadvantage.

Then again, if your point was just that some people (in this case the people citing their gun rights from the old state compact) may not be logical or legally consistent, that's probably true. Jim's post supports that idea too.

P.S. Isabell, Sarah Palin has never, ever, ever been a member of any secessionist movement, in Alaska or anywhere else, as governor, candidate for governor, or at any other time.

Tony, if you are going to accuse me of "cognitive dissonance," you should support that accusation. You have not done so. Do you even know what the term means?

As for Montana, you keep missing the point entirely. It is irrelevant what you or I think the federal government should do if Montana secedes. As I have been attempting to explain to you, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is the claimed "contractual right" to secede, not whether or not they can break away ala South Ossetia and get away with it.

Your claim that Montana will likely dump all its legal precedents and statutory law is another tangent. If they have a contractual right, it must be under the laws in effect now, not some hypothetical legal code that they might chose to invent in the future (too much time on their hands, perhaps?).

Anyway, unless you make an attempt to address the actual issues I raised (and which Redpeach asserted), I'm through discussing this topic with you. Have a nice day.

Wow, talk about getting off topic. Still waiting for you to address the contract argument, Tony.