Does someone have something on Palin?

[ironstone]

It's truly disgusting what this woman has been going through since she came into the spotlight.Journalism is just about dead it seems.It would be one thing if her opposition faced equal scrutiny and attacks from the media as she has faced,but the opposition got a pass.It's getting close to a year of this ordeal by fire for Sarah Palin and her FAMILY!After so many accusations and vicious personal attacks,where is the substance?Has anyone come up with something concrete yet,besides a DUI conviction from 20 odd years ago of hubby?Why have the feminist groups been silent?She deserves a fair chance,nothing more,nothing less.

How does the gaffe prone Joe Biden get off so easy?

[kimmy]

While it is obvious that she has absolutely no appeal for Democrat supporters, it is equally obvious that a lot of Republicans feel very passionate about her. It was apparent even during the campaign that she overshadowed McCain-- drew far bigger crowds to her campaign stops, had people chanting for her even during McCain's own speeches.

For the Georgia senate runoff, the Democrats used "robocalls" from Obama and Hillary; the Republicans countered by having Sarah Palin campaign for their candidate, and won the runoff soundly. She has also been a very successful fundraiser for the party. She seems to be the one carrying the flag for the party right now, almost by default certainly, but also because she's the only living Republican that generates this kind of enthusiasm.

While I think that her chances of ever becoming President are slim, I think she could have a very large influence on who the Republican candidate will be. If she chooses not to run herself, whoever she puts her support behind would have what might be an insurmountable advantage in winning the Republican nomination.

-k

[KrustyKidd]

While it is obvious that she has absolutely no appeal for Democrat supporters, it is equally obvious that a lot of Republicans feel very passionate about her. It was apparent even during the campaign that she overshadowed McCain-- drew far bigger crowds to her campaign stops, had people chanting for her even during McCain's own speeches.

For the Georgia senate runoff, the Democrats used "robocalls" from Obama and Hillary; the Republicans countered by having Sarah Palin campaign for their candidate, and won the runoff soundly. She has also been a very successful fundraiser for the party. She seems to be the one carrying the flag for the party right now, almost by default certainly, but also because she's the only living Republican that generates this kind of enthusiasm.

While I think that her chances of ever becoming President are slim, I think she could have a very large influence on who the Republican candidate will be. If she chooses not to run herself, whoever she puts her support behind would have what might be an insurmountable advantage in winning the Republican nomination.

-k

Now that she is out of politics, (be it temporarily or permanently) the most rationale thing to do for the 'unbiased media', is to slam a really messed up republican - Collin Powell.

[punked]

While it is obvious that she has absolutely no appeal for Democrat supporters, it is equally obvious that a lot of Republicans feel very passionate about her. It was apparent even during the campaign that she overshadowed McCain-- drew far bigger crowds to her campaign stops, had people chanting for her even during McCain's own speeches.

For the Georgia senate runoff, the Democrats used "robocalls" from Obama and Hillary; the Republicans countered by having Sarah Palin campaign for their candidate, and won the runoff soundly. She has also been a very successful fundraiser for the party. She seems to be the one carrying the flag for the party right now, almost by default certainly, but also because she's the only living Republican that generates this kind of enthusiasm.

While I think that her chances of ever becoming President are slim, I think she could have a very large influence on who the Republican candidate will be. If she chooses not to run herself, whoever she puts her support behind would have what might be an insurmountable advantage in winning the Republican nomination.

-k

Accept no one expected the Dems to win the Georgia run off because the Candidate was a progressive not a blue dog. He did amazing BTW for a progressive in Georgia, maybe it was cause Palin turned people off.

Edited July 9, 2009 by punked

[jbg]

Accept no one expected the Dems to win the Georgia run off because the Candidate was a progressive not a blue dog. He did amazing BTW for a progressive in Georgia, maybe it was cause Palin turned people off.

You're forgetting the size and makeup of Metropolitan Atlanta, and even Savannah. Georgia is now a relatively urbanized state. Think Toronto's influence on Ontario.

[kimmy]

Accept no one expected the Dems to win the Georgia run off because the Candidate was a progressive not a blue dog. He did amazing BTW for a progressive in Georgia, maybe it was cause Palin turned people off.

You're always telling people to "stop spinning", but you're certainly not one for taking his own advice.

The results of the first election were 49.8% to 46.8%. The results of the runoff were 57.5% to 42.5%. That is a decisive difference.

While both parties may have had trouble getting the vote out since the "real election" was already over, it is obvious that the Republicans were far more successful in mobilizing their support than the Democrats. Palin was central in those efforts.

All of which misses the real point, which is that even after taking a lot of the blame for "losing the election", she was still the one that they went to when they needed someone to campaign for Chambliss in the runoff.

-k

[stranger little]

Good riddence to Palin and her happy hater cool aide drinkin fan base. Nascar and hunting anyone?

[Sir Bandelot]

Unfortunately, I suspect that this story is not done yet. She will be back. But maybe first she'll just go on another wolf hunting expedition... by helicopter.

I hear that out on the open tundra, its like shootin fish in a barrel.

I guess Sarah would know all about that

[jbg]

Unfortunately, I suspect that this story is not done yet. She will be back. But maybe first she'll just go on another wolf hunting expedition... by helicopter.

I don't see how shooting an animal from the sky is sport. It is cowardice or worse.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't see how shooting an animal from the sky is sport. It is cowardice or worse.

Yea...it's much more sporting to club and shoot them up close....then skin 'em alive!

[lily]

Yea...it's much more sporting to club and shoot them up close....then skin 'em alive!

You think they're still alive after being clubbed and shot... from up close?

[bush_cheney2004]

You think they're still alive after being clubbed and shot... from up close?

I'm sure some are...but that wasn't the "sporting" point.

[Shady]

I don't see how shooting an animal from the sky is sport. It is cowardice or worse.

It's not necessarily meant to be sport. I wish people would better inform themselves. Alaska has issued aerial wolf-hunting permits in areas where moose and caribou populations are endangered.

I guess Sarah would know all about that.

Yes she does. However, evidently you don't.

[jbg]

Yea...it's much more sporting to club and shoot them up close....then skin 'em alive!

Is that how seals are hunted in Saskatchewan?

[jbg]

It's not necessarily meant to be sport. I wish people would better inform themselves. Alaska has issued aerial wolf-hunting permits in areas where moose and caribou populations are endangered.

It is physically impossible for wolf to endanger moose and/or caribou. Once the prey population started dropping the wolf population would drop in sync. Yellowstone, to which wolves have been reintroduced, is not bursting with wolves or emptied of elk.

[Sir Bandelot]

Yes she does. However, evidently you don't.

Owww... I'm tellin Mommy!! Sarah!!

[kimmy]

I don't get it... you guys are usually among the brightest posters here... how is it that Mrs Palin causes usually sensible people to spew jibberish?

It is physically impossible for wolf to endanger moose and/or caribou. Once the prey population started dropping the wolf population would drop in sync. Yellowstone, to which wolves have been reintroduced, is not bursting with wolves or emptied of elk.

huh? That's like saying it would be impossible to kill yourself with a knife, since you'd be dead and unable to deliver the fatal cut. You're not dead until after you've delivered the fatal cut, and the wolves wouldn't starve until after they're out of food.

If there were an imbalance in the number of predators and the number of prey, it would certainly be possible for catastrophic damage to be done to the numbers of prey animals before the predators starved themselves to death. Your argument also supposes that caribou are the only food source for wolves; obviously that is not the case. As in: the wolf population could sustain itself on smaller prey and live long enough to keep diminishing the caribou herd.

I'm sure the wolf cull is extremely controversial among naturalists, but dismissing it as unnecessary based on some sort of assumed proportional relationship of predator population to the population of *one* of their prey seems awfully presumptuous.

Unfortunately, I suspect that this story is not done yet. She will be back. But maybe first she'll just go on another wolf hunting expedition... by helicopter.

I hear that out on the open tundra, its like shootin fish in a barrel.

And really. Trying to represent this as a recreational activity is just dumb.

-k

{"Neuter them?! I don't know about where you're from, mister, but out here the wolves *eat* the sheep."}

[lily]

huh? That's like saying it would be impossible to kill yourself with a knife, since you'd be dead and unable to deliver the fatal cut. You're not dead until after you've delivered the fatal cut, and the wolves wouldn't starve until after they're out of food.

If there were an imbalance in the number of predators and the number of prey, it would certainly be possible for catastrophic damage to be done to the numbers of prey animals before the predators starved themselves to death. Your argument also supposes that caribou are the only food source for wolves; obviously that is not the case. As in: the wolf population could sustain itself on smaller prey and live long enough to keep diminishing the caribou herd.

I'm sure the wolf cull is extremely controversial among naturalists, but dismissing it as unnecessary based on some sort of assumed proportional relationship of predator population to the population of *one* of their prey seems awfully presumptuous.

jbg is right. There's plenty of research backing this.

[Shady]

It is physically impossible for wolf to endanger moose and/or caribou. Once the prey population started dropping the wolf population would drop in sync. Yellowstone, to which wolves have been reintroduced, is not bursting with wolves or emptied of elk.

Of course. That can be said of deer as well. Once they become overpopulated, their food supply diminishes, and they starve. But there are still many places that control the population of deer, usually through hunting. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

[kimmy]

jbg is right. There's plenty of research backing this.

I highly doubt it is as unanimous as you suggest, or as simplistic as jbg suggests.

-k

[jbg]

I don't get it... you guys are usually among the brightest posters here... how is it that Mrs Palin causes usually sensible people to spew jibberish? huh? That's like saying it would be impossible to kill yourself with a knife, since you'd be dead and unable to deliver the fatal cut. You're not dead until after you've delivered the fatal cut, and the wolves wouldn't starve until after they're out of food.

I should have said that wolves don't hurt caribou collectively since the ones that survive are healthier. Wolves have severe difficulty taking down a healthy, full-grown caribou and the mothers are pretty good at protecting the young caribou. Obviously wolves do kill individual animals. I myself have a very close relative of a wolf living 50 feet from my house; _{my neighbor's ferocious black lab.}

And really. Trying to represent this as a recreational activity is just dumb.

Sport it's not.

[jbg]

Of course. That can be said of deer as well. Once they become overpopulated, their food supply diminishes, and they starve. But there are still many places that control the population of deer, usually through hunting. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Hunting is better at killing off healthy, full grown animals since it's a good rack of antlers most hunters want. Wolves are far better at culling sickly and weak animals, helping the quality of the overall population. My area is swarming with deer; we call them "rats with antlers".

[punked]

jbg is right. There's plenty of research backing this.

It is theoretically possible for a wolf to over shoot its carry capacity so much that they could endanger both their and pray populations. I have seen it models never in real life.