My side will see Sarah as raw on experience and right on philosophy of government.
I find that odd. She put a heavy tax on oil producers in AK, and bought popularity by distributing the proceeds to citizens of the state (she used the increased taxes to increase the rebate that the state already gave, and has weakened the states balance sheet in the process). I don't know what that is if it isn't a bit of socialism mixed with welfare and fiscal irresponsibility. What part of her "philosophy of government" do you find yourself in agreement with?
From my perspective the prospect of Biden as president is terrifying. From your perspective the prospect of Sarah as president is terrifying. The major difference is one will not happen and one could.
Well, I'm sure you know that one should never say "Never" in politics. Would anyone have supposed in 2005 that Obama would be elected President in 2008, however powerful his speech was at the convention? Or, for that matter, I would not have bet on Dubya in 1997.
Why does Sarah keep coming back as a topic?
Aside from the fact that she obviously has an adoring following that would like for her to be catapulted onto the national scene, one reason is that it's, well, fun. The same reason you love to point out Biden's gaffes. I find her at once appalling and funny. That said, I haven't noticed the thread really talking about her very much, although I admit I've been busy with other things for the past few weeks and haven't kept up with much of what's been discussed on the thread. As for the two or three articles posted today, they aren't really about her so much as the catfight that erupted among Republicans; she was just a part of the fight.
For some reason it is crucial - absolutely crucial - to destroy Sarah. It is what it is.
"Absolutely crucial" is your interpretation. If she didn't have a rabid following, she wouldn't be followed at all. Certainly not very much. Plenty of people in politics do and say silly things. No reason to look at the governor from AK for that. |
