There is an interesting video of Todd Palin out in the last few days that finally admits what many have long argued: Sarah Palin quit the Alaskan governorship to cash in on her celebrity status. When a woman confronted Todd about his wife not finishing her term, he responds “What would you do” with “thousands and thousands of dollars a day?” He notes that the had “all this debt” and made the obvious choice.
What I found striking about this acknowledgment was that it came only a couple days after Palin criticized the President for taking another vacation and said that he is “very tone deaf.” She added “I wouldn’t if I were he, especially to Martha’s Vineyard.” No, she would apparently recommend quitting his job early and signing on to a reality show based on his private life.
What is really impressive is that such admissions will make no difference to Palin’s supporters who still want her to assume the presidency after she quit the state governorship. It does not matter that she promised the voters to serve as governor and her husband now admits that she simply wanted to cash in on a better deal. That would appear to me to be a rather dishonest choice for any public figure — particularly given her prior statements denying that she resigned for the money.
Of course, Palin has always denied that she is in it for the money. Indeed, she insists that her career was guided by prayer in search of a higher purpose:
[When I resigned as Oil Commissioner], there was a longing inside me that winter, a sense of purpose hovering just beyond my vision. Was it ambition? I didn’t think so. Ambition drives; purpose beckons. Purpose calls. I definitely wasn’t driven toward any particular goal, like power or wealth or fame. So what was it? I prayed that if I was to resign myself to what felt like a public service career cut short, that I’d embrace being home full-time. I asked that the fire in my belly, an whatever was feeding it, would simmer down.
I thought of a passage from the book of Jeremiah 29:11-13: “‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the Lord.” It irked me that too often women are made to feel guilty for seeking the next open door. I wasn’t sure what I was to do next, yet. I resolved to seek confirming signs along the way–the open door–to show me the right road. In winter 2005 I decided to toss my hat in the ring to replace Frank Murkowski as governor.
It now appears that Jeremiah 29:11-13 means that God’s plan for Sarah begins with accepting huge amounts of money from a reality show, speaking engagements, and celebrity appearance. God truly does move in mysterious ways.
Tootie:
“Madison said: “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government”. Well, that is perfectly clear isn’t it? I guess you have to be an stupid right winger like myself to grasp such clarity.”
*****************
Your “clarity” is about as good as your history. You remind me of the person who hunts curse words out in the dictionary to prove the book is profane. Bottom line you have no idea what you’re talking about, (per usual) and Madison meant no such thing as applied to the General Welfare of citizens of the US.
The quote you are referring to arose from a debate in the House in 1794. At that time, the island of Haiti was reeling from social strife and a civil war that started in 1791 among slaves and freemen of color against their colonial masters. Many refugees came to the US with only what they could carry. The refugee exodus reached a crescendo in the summer of 1793 with a deadly combination of violence and spectacular fire in St. Domingue. American port towns from New York to New Orleans saw an influx of Haitian refugees fleeing the violence and strife. American charities sought help from Congress. One group was the Relief Committee of Baltimore. The refugees were NOT American citizens and in no way did relief for them bring into question the General Welfare Clause. Simply put it was an act of public compassion sought by private charities which many felt was not authorized by the Constitution. This sentiment was held by some members of the House including Madison.
The debate was interesting as Madison tried to formulate a plan to help the poor souls but avoid conflict with the Constitution’s silence on providing aid to destitute foreigners. Other members, like New Jersey’s Elias Boudinot, took pains to distinguish this situation from providing pensions to veterans, granting relief to American Indians, and supporting prisoners which all agreed was clearly authorized by Article I, Sec 8 and the General Welfare Clause. As Representative Dexter of Massachusetts said, “It will not be pretended, he supposed, that the grant of moneys, on this occasion, was for the general welfare; it is merely a private charity.”
You’ll be happy to hear that, in an abundance of charity, the House did pass a relief bill that Madison himself had called for in the 1794 debate. As the reporter of the House noted, the great Virginian “… was of opinion that the relief contemplated could not be granted in the way proposed, yet he supposed a mode might be adopted which would answer the purpose without infringing the Constitution.”
I have no complaint with your unabated ignorance of the law and history. My problem is the utter lack of intellectual curiosity which prompts you to confidently speak any right-wing talking point before you know it’s context, validity, or relevancy. It’s a problem I see in both children and the uber-religious — in the former, it’s understandable; in the latter it’s predictable. In all cases it’s tedious.
if you care to read the debate you can:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed00423)):
Sorry, Tootie, life is not so simple as your simple-minded brethren would have you believe, and it is not charity to provide for the well-being of your fellow citizens who cannot do so on their own. That is a responsibility of govenment that you expressly reject. By the way, please forward your social security benefits back to the US Treasury since you are quite comfortable relying on the good graces of family and friends.
for a perfect example of a straw man argument see
datechguy
1, August 22, 2011 at 6:46 am
first he begins construction by writing
So lets see if I get this straight:
this allows him to reconstruct the argument to his liking
then he makes a vague reference to court cases the palins are involved in
(without citing any,or providing any links)
and infers these are the reason for palin to quit the job she was elected to do. (without ever actually saying she quit)
then explains “this was to keep her in alaska”. yet if she was stuck in alaska fighting lawsuits, she couldn’t be in the lower 48 (and overseas) receiving large fees for speaking engagements, book signing tours and generally riding around misquoting history in a large garish and obviously expensive bus. not to mention being on the payroll of a self professed right leaning network. (go to 4:05 on this clip to hear cris wallace admit fox’s bias)
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1007046245001/exclusive-jon-stewart-on-fox-news-sunday/
and then makes a skewed comparison about defending yourself from someone throwing rocks, and one last jab at the “mainstream media”. (while forgetting that as the number one cable “news”service fox is as mainstream as it gets).
that’s the problem with straw men, when you look at it closely it’s just dead grass and old clothes.
How much does Mrs Palin need to just go away? All politics aside-she just isn’t a smart person. If her admirers can not see that they are either far right Christians or no smarter than her…..
I think it is remarkable how many right wingers see the Constitution as if it were a Biblical revelation, to be left untouched and unchanged as it came directly from the hands of god, I mean, the founders.
Had they really intended it to be so, there would be no need to ever amend the Constitution, and really, not much need for a system of courts to interpret it because clearly, the right wing KNOWS what it means for always and forever.
When the rest of the civilized world has moved on to universal healthcare, compassionate care for the elderly, good government oversight of corporations and the environment, and away from the notion that corporations are persons of any sort, we in America will be viewed in the rear view mirror as something great that might have been.
oops…that is Article 1 Section 8. 🙂
Carol
Tell me where in the Constitution it says the federal government may tax citizens to fund charity?
Okay. Let’s save time. NO WHERE. Especially not in the General Welfare clause (see the last Madison quote below). So Democrats (read: criminals) have usurped the Constitution in this regard ever since FDR.
Madison said: “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government”. Well, that is perfectly clear isn’t it? I guess you have to be an stupid right winger like myself to grasp such clarity.
It is criminal to force others at gunpoint to pay for ones upkeep. This is exactly what thieves do and no decent person has a part in it.
Madison writes:
“It has been urged and echoed that the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense and general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the congress been found in the Constitution than the general expression just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases”.
In other words, Madison says that the general welfare clause cannot mean that government can tax for anything it wants because it might be in the general welfare BECAUSE the enumerated powers (Art 1, Sec 8) limit what it can tax for. Only an imbecile or a criminal would see it differently. Thus, since charity isn’t an enumerated power, government is stealing from the people (and robbing them of their liberties while they do it).
The states are free (according to the 10th Amendment) to run their own charity programs. I would still consider them immoral. Because government is the greatest evil next to have no government and cannot be trusted to run such a program.
The reason no one but government will not help the truly needy is because rich Democrats hate the unfortunate refuse to help them.
You should get what you paid into the SS system. And I never said you should not.
so let’s see elderly or disabled who have no family, and friends – have died or moved away, should just languish in their homes as long as they can until they lose thier homes and have to live in the streets, or better yet, just die. This, my friend, is the ‘death panels’. The right just wants people who are incumbraces- because they need assistance – to go curl up in a corner and die, saving the goverment and the likes of you a lot of money.
(But then Palin let people shoot wolves from airplanes, life – any mammal, people or animals, is only worthy of disdain/death.)
I am disabled. Sorry, I paid into ss, Absent that, and state help, I would be homeless and helpless.
Carol
apainedlife.blogspot.com/
mespo
Oh. And I don’t need rich politicians to “care” for me. That is what family and friends are for. Leftists who destroy the family and debase society need creepy people in government to care for them because no one will do so voluntarily.
mespo
Prove I buy her books or contribute to her causes or considered yourself a liar. You make up stuff lies because you do not seek the truth.
How about misuse of her office against a brother in law during a divorce that worked for the state police….I wonder if that had anything to do with her decision to get out of the firing line….
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday. The politically charged inquiry imperiled her reputation as a reformer on John McCain’s Republican ticket.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27105917/ns/politics-decision_08/t/ethics-investigation-finds-palin-abused-power/
There are many more…cases out there…
But she is in fact making lots of money….
Tootie:
Don’t worry about poor ol’ Cousin Sarah. She’ll have the full panoply of “leftist” social services to assist her in caring for her child. She’ll also have the likes of gullible you who’ll buy her books, contribute to her causes, and generally praise her for keeping the conservative Christian political ethic that comforts you. Not only that you’ll have your illiterate champion to fight your battles, spew your hate, and mouth your conservative platitudes. No, don’t worry about Governor Cash-In, because I have it on good authority that she worries not at all about you!
Clearly, Sarah wasn’t as rich as Obama. Or Clinton. Or Al Gore. Or Kerry. Or Pelosi. And she needed to make some quick cash for her growing family.
You would think the left would cheer her on for putting her family ahead of power.
Nuh uh.
Leftists cannot stand women who put their children first and don’t abort babies with birth defects. In their twisted minds such a woman should live in poverty for their decision to bring a lot of
whitebabies into the world, especially ones with birth defects.And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
~Matthew 19:24
Lost in translation I suppose or likely just ignored as poppycock by our fundamentally religious Cousin’ Sarah. If the adovcates of the religion don’t believe it, why should we?
Except there weren’t a bunch of these suits and they were not frivolous. Other than that yeah. Oh, and her alleged effectiveness? Yeah about that. If you didn’t notice (and I don’t know how you could given the alternative universe you seem to be inhabiting) her presence on the 08 ticket cost them votes. Her vapid debate performance, her inability to answer even simple questions and her general lack of depth or reason turned off not just liberals but independents and more than a few conservatives.
How can you tell Palin from Bachmann?
Palin is stupid but she is not crazy
Bachmann is crazy but she is not stupid.
“So lets see if I get this straight:
The left in order to ruin Sarah Palin who was at best upper middle class if even at the time, launches frivolous suit after frivolous suit in an attempt to ruin her.
These complaints cost the Palin’s personally a lot of money.”
?
So lets see if I get this straight:
The left in order to ruin Sarah Palin who was at best upper middle class if even at the time, launches frivolous suit after frivolous suit in an attempt to ruin her.
These complaints cost the Palin’s personally a lot of money.
Rather than going into huge debt with a family of 5 she resigns and makes money to fight them
And that’s all her fault?
Considering her effectiveness against the left in general and the president in particular perhaps a smarter strategy would have been not launching frivolous complaints thereby keeping her in Alaska an making it harder for her to get involved in National campaigns.
But to make this assertion is like throwing rocks at a person’s house all night and then when they come outside with a bat taking a picture and saying: “Look he’s threatening people with a bat!”
This, in the mainstream media, is known as “reporting!”