Video: I’m not closing the door on 2012, says Palin

posted at 8:51 pm on January 6, 2009 by Allahpundit

Ten minutes with the Canadian answer to Carson Daly for your edification on a slow news night. Nothing too provocative, although there’s an enjoyably tense moment around 10:30 when she’s asked if she ever thought her critics were right about her being unqualified.

In any case, I need an excuse to update the poll post from this morning and this’ll do. An eagle-eyed reader checked Newsmeat, which I should have done, and found out that the polling firm involved has a history of donating to — ta da — Frank and Lisa Murkowski. So if you’re wondering how reliable the data is, weigh that accordingly.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

Yes it is Socialism – Collective Ownership or State Ownership is Socialism. The Alaskan constitution supports Socialism and Palin supports it, she is thus a Socialist.

Poptech on January 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM

so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Just for you! So, how again is Alaska a society “in which there is no private property?”

Must have missed that part of the Palin agenda.

cs89 on January 7, 2009 at 10:47 PM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

sounds like the health care industry in Mass. huh?

joey24007 on January 7, 2009 at 10:48 PM

Sharing the Wealth = Alaska Permanent Fund in accordance with the state’s constitution.

Spreading the Wealth = Romney / Obamacare

chunderroad on January 7, 2009 at 10:50 PM

I am not banned from Newsbusters though they keep trying to get me banned simply for not holding the opinion of the Palin Collective.

Poptech on January 7, 2009 at 10:19 PM

Nope, got it on good authority that you were banned at Newsbusters.

Jim62sch on January 7, 2009 at 11:03 PM

Mitt Romney is exactly like Arnold Schwarzenegger, except on a smaller scale in a tiny state, and with less woman-grabbing and pot-smoking.

Jim62sch on January 7, 2009 at 11:13 PM

the link you cited about earmarks

WAS DEBUNKED

tool

joey24007 on January 7, 2009 at 10:32 PM

You declaring something debunked does not make it so. Has the Washington Post offered a retraction or correction of the story?


Palin’s Small Alaska Town Secured Big Federal Funds
(The Washington Post)

Her earmarks are well documented:


Palin’s Project List Totals $453 Million
(The Wall Street Journal)

Poptech on January 7, 2009 at 11:13 PM

You’ve attacked her and spread discredited stories about her and her record from the first day that she was named to the ticket back in August.

ramrocks on January 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM

None of my stories are discredited they are all sourced to major publications. Palin supporters seem to be in denial of the facts.

Poptech on January 7, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Palin supporters seem to be in denial of the facts.

Poptech on January 7, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Must be the socialistic groupthink. It’s popular in Alaska, doncha know!

sarc/

cs89 on January 7, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Just for you! So, how again is Alaska a society “in which there is no private property?”

Must have missed that part of the Palin agenda.

cs89 on January 7, 2009 at 10:47 PM

There are various forms of socialism, notice the numbers next to the definitions. Collective ownership of land for the collective distribution of profits (oil taxes) is socialism. It is NOT capitalism. The Alaska Permanent Fund is socialist.

Sharing the Wealth = Alaska Permanent Fund in accordance with the state’s constitution.

Spreading the Wealth = Romney / Obamacare

chunderroad on January 7, 2009 at 10:50 PM

Sharing the wealth is the same as spreading the wealth. Socialism is Socialism.

Poptech on January 7, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Nope, got it on good authority that you were banned at Newsbusters.

Jim62sch on January 7, 2009 at 11:03 PM

I just posted there so how can I be banned?

Maybe Palin fans really don’t know how to do research, it is becoming obvious.

Poptech on January 7, 2009 at 11:38 PM

Then maybe you should refrain from making stupid accusations in the future.

Poptech on January 7, 2009 at 10:28 PM

Physician, heal thyself.

Snowed In on January 7, 2009 at 11:50 PM

There are various forms of socialism,

none of which apply to Alaska. As far as I know, there isn’t even a Socialist party on the ballots in Alaska (I think Republican, Democrat, Libertarian and AIP are the big four). I see what you’re trying to say about the Permanent Fund, but it’s a really hard sell trying to convince people that a frontier land that thrives on rugged individualism and entrepreneurship is some kind of Socialist state.

cs89 on January 7, 2009 at 11:54 PM

none of which apply to Alaska.

cs89 on January 7, 2009 at 11:54 PM

The Alaska Permanent Fund is Socialist – collectively share the wealth.

Poptech on January 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM

The Alaska Permanent Fund is Socialist – collectively share the wealth.

Poptech on January 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM

Holy cow! I just discovered that Texas is a socialist state too!

Just google “Texas Permanent University Fund” and you’ll discover that the evil socialist collectivists in Texas claim oil revenue for the government and then “collectively share the wealth” to fund their university system. Those commie bastards!

ramrocks on January 8, 2009 at 12:09 AM

The Alaska Permanent Fund is Socialist – collectively share the wealth.

Poptech on January 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM

Wow – turns out that, at least since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, the federal government of the United States has collected fees on resources extracted from federal land.

The United States of America is Socialist1!1!ZOMG!!!elventy11!

Jim62sch on January 8, 2009 at 12:23 AM

Poptech on January 7, 2009 at 11:13 PM

You keep posting these articles as if they’re somehow damning. The first has been debunked numerous times. The $27 million figure was not for Wasilla alone. It was for projects that benefited the entire burrough.

The other article on her earmark requests as governor is an excellent illustration of her principles. She declared that the state of Alaska needed to ween itself off of federal earmarks that were not in the national interest (i.e. related to infrastructure for energy production) and she followed through.

Her predecessor, Frank Murkowski, had $350 million in earmark requests in his last year in office. Palin had $256 million her first year ($94 million less) and $197 her next year. In other words, she has reduced the requests and continues to do so.

Obama, on the other hand, had $860 million in earmark requests during his senate term.

Do you see the contrast?

Funny how you never mentioned dear Mitt’s little earmark issue. Palin and Obama were requesting money to benefit the people of their states; but in 2002, Mitt Romney fought for and got $342 million in federal earmarks for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games.

You read that right. The g*ddamn Olympics! Not for a state, not for a bridge — for the Olympics! $342 million. That’s more than Palin has requested in a single year for her entire huge energy producing state.

I’m sure you won’t take my word for it, so here’s the New York Times (you know, the newspaper that Sarah likes to read):

But the federal government’s contributions, thanks to Mr. Romney, were also immense. By the time the Games were over, about $342 million in federal money to plan and stage the Winter Games had flowed into Utah, a record outlay for the Olympics and nearly $50 million more in constant dollars than was spent for the Atlanta Olympics, according to a report in 2001 by the Government Accountability Office.

And much of that money was from earmarks, which Mr. Romney now often calls politically motivated and wasteful. “These earmarks are embarrassing, and they’re embarrassing for my party as well as the other party,” he said in Marshalltown, Iowa, during a recent campaign swing.

And I noticed that you like to tout Mitt’s fiscal record. Well, let’s see what factcheck.org has to say about that:

Romney said his increases in “fees” only amounted to $240 million in Massachusetts. But his own administration and others have put them higher. He also failed to mention $174 million in corporate tax “loophole” closings.

In 2006 his own administration estimated the figure to be higher – $260 million. Independent estimates were higher yet. The nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimated that Romney’s fee increases resulted in “over $300 million” in additional revenue in 2004. The liberal Urban Institute – no opponent of higher taxes – estimated that Romney’s fee increases resulted in $400 million in additional revenue.

Moreover, Romney ignores the $174 million that his own administration figures he raised through “closing loopholes” in the corporate tax structure, which amounted to a tax increase for those who were using them.

Nor is it true that all of Romney’s fee increases were aimed at providing services. Michael J. Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation says, “It’s been disingenuous to say there’s no new taxes, in the sense that there’s very little connection to the fee increases and the cost of services that the fees are supposed to represent.”

[….]

Romney also bragged that he had cut state spending….Romney is correct to say that he cut spending in his first year as governor. In real terms, Romney’s proposed 2004 budget (the first for which he was responsible) cut spending from $29.5 billion to $29.0 billion, a 1.7 percent decrease. But Romney fails to note that over his entire four-year term, he proposed spending increases of 7.5 percent.

You rail about Alaskan earmarks because you don’t understand the financial set up of Alaska or it’s sad master/slave relationship with the Federal government when it comes to federal infrastructure dollars vs. the Fed’s unwillingness to allow Alaska to develop more of its resources.

The state gets over 80% of its revenue from its natural resources. In other words, this is practically a tax free state. That means that we can’t assess it by the same metrics we use to assess other states (that’s why Alaska is not included in the annual fiscal rankings by the think tanks).

You like to attack Palin’s record, but Palin has consistently cut taxes and business fees every chance she got.

Byron York tells a wonderful story about one such instance:

And then there was the time earlier this year when [Palin] fought to cut Alaska’s business-licensing fee from $100 to $50 a year. (It had risen from $25 to $100 during the Murkowski administration.) Frustrated by the legislature’s inaction, Palin went to Alaska’s department of commerce and got the e-mail addresses of 23,000 business owners in the state. She then sent them a message, saying the $100 fee “has caused a hardship for those who are helping grow our economy, especially people who operate home-based and part-time businesses.” Legislators were angry — some accused Palin of inappropriate lobbying — but she won the day, and the fee was cut.

Now what have you to say for yourself, Poptart? I know that you’ll remain hateful of Palin, but could you please just go away.

ramrocks on January 8, 2009 at 1:01 AM

Now what have you to say for yourself, Poptart? I know that you’ll remain hateful of Palin, but could you please just go away.

ramrocks on January 8, 2009 at 1:01 AM

He’ll just bop along to the next Palin thread and pretend none of these conversations ever took place, continue making false claims, recycling Dem talking points from the election and complaining that religious zombie pro-life Palin cultists just won’t accept his lies.

chunderroad on January 8, 2009 at 1:28 AM

You keep posting these articles as if they’re somehow damning. The first has been debunked numerous times.

ramrocks on January 8, 2009 at 1:01 AM

LMAO! No it hasn’t you just keep repeating it is debunked, usually in capital letters: ‘DEBUNKED’ – Sorry but that does not make it so.

Palin the allege crusader against ear marks got hundreds of millions in ear marks = fact. Palin is either a hypocrite or a liar (take you pick).

The money for the Olympics was due to 911 and the ridiculous security needed. This is so sad and I am not going anywhere.

Poptech on January 8, 2009 at 1:44 AM

He’ll just bop along to the next Palin thread and pretend none of these conversations ever took place, continue making false claims, recycling Dem talking points from the election and complaining that religious zombie pro-life Palin cultists just won’t accept his lies.

chunderroad on January 8, 2009 at 1:28 AM

Nope I will simply continue to post the facts that are fully sourced. While Palin fanatics try to screen at me – thinking this has any effect on the facts.

Poptech on January 8, 2009 at 1:46 AM

Fact: When Todd Palin won the Iron Dog race, he didn’t use a snow machine. Sarah carried him. Cause she missed her morning jog the day before.

Mr. Wednesday Night on January 8, 2009 at 1:48 AM

The money for the Olympics was due to 911 and the ridiculous security needed. This is so sad and I am not going anywhere.

Poptech on January 8, 2009 at 1:44 AM

Where did you get the idea that it had to do with security? Utter bs.

Palin’s earmarks were reduced. Fact. Every state has a right to tap into the federal infrastructure budget. We all pay into it. We all deserve some of it. Earmark abuse is when that money which should be spent for infrastructure alone is used for pet projects like Obama’s museum projectors.

The Bridge to Nowhere project was not wrong in theory. It was wrong in practise because the bridge would have benefited a relatively small number of people in comparison to its expense. There was another bridge project that is often lumped in with the so called “Bridge to Nowhere” that would have made the commute to Anchorage much shorter for many people, but that project was killed also.

She redirected the infrastructure funds for other road projects. It was a prudent decision. It saved the nation money too because the initial money for those bridges wasn’t enough to cover the completion. The state would have had to return to the federal trough to finish the project. Think of the Big Dig in Massachusetts! That’s what they did. The whole nation ended up having to pay for that boondoggle.

ramrocks on January 8, 2009 at 2:08 AM

There was another bridge project that is often lumped in with the so called “Bridge to Nowhere” that would have made the commute to Anchorage much shorter for many people, but that project was killed also.

Yeah, that would be the Knik Arm Bridge, which Alaska has been trying to get built since the 1950s.

Think of the Big Dig in Massachusetts! That’s what they did. The whole nation ended up having to pay for that boondoggle.

ramrocks on January 8, 2009 at 2:08 AM

Yeah, good old fiscal conservative Mitt was a big fan of the Big Dig. Douchebag.

Jim62sch on January 8, 2009 at 2:15 AM

Palin campaigned for the Bridge to Nowhere and then tried to campaign as VP as the slayer of the Bridge. What a joke.

Palin touts stance on ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ doesn’t note flip-flop (Anchorage Daily News)

Her earmarks are well documented no matter how much you spin it. She tried to run as an anti-earmark crusader not a lighter than the other guy on earmark crusader. LMAO!

Palin’s Project List Totals $453 Million (The Wall Street Journal)

The Big Dig broke ground in the ’90s – give me a break, it wasn’t Romney’s project.

Poptech on January 8, 2009 at 2:54 AM

The final decision to kill the Bridge was Pallin’s. Fact.

Palin reduced earmark spending by half as Governor. Fact.

From the article you linked:

In fact, in the current fiscal year, she is seeking $197 million for 31 projects, the records show. In the prior year, her first year in office, she sought $256 million for dozens more projects ranging from research on rockfish and harbor-seal genetics to rural sanitation and obesity prevention. By comparison, her predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski, sought more than $350 million in his last year in office.

That is consistent with her claims that she has reduced her state’s earmark requests.

chunderroad on January 8, 2009 at 3:20 AM

chunderroad on January 8, 2009 at 3:20 AM

Don’t confuse him with the facts.

/sarc

ramrocks on January 8, 2009 at 3:59 AM

Poptech on January 8, 2009 at 2:54 AM

If Palin didn’t kill the Bridge to Nowhere, what happened to it? Who else but the governor had the authority to kill that project?

ramrocks on January 8, 2009 at 4:02 AM

That is consistent with her claims that she has reduced her state’s earmark requests.

chunderroad on January 8, 2009 at 3:20 AM

I got it she is for earmarks just not as much as the last guy.

Palin campaigned on the bridge then “kills” it for political convenience and campaigns as if she is the one who fought against it. LMAO!

Poptech on January 8, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Attention, Palin hate-mongers: please come up with some new material — no one believes the old batch of steaming cow patties.

littleguy on January 8, 2009 at 11:14 AM

I got it she is for earmarks just not as much as the last guy.

… because she reduced them by half — as pointed out in the article you linked? You’re incredibly stupid.

Palin campaigned on the bridge then “kills” it for political convenience and campaigns as if she is the one who fought against it. LMAO!

Poptech on January 8, 2009 at 10:01 AM

The bridge was popular until it proved to be expensive, time consuming and a national embarrassment.

Sarah Palin killed the bridge. She was 100% honest about it.

chunderroad on January 8, 2009 at 12:16 PM

I got it she is for earmarks just not as much as the last guy.

Palin campaigned on the bridge then “kills” it for political convenience and campaigns as if she is the one who fought against it. LMAO!

Poptech on January 8, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Pop… umm tell me about the “bridge”. I really do not think you have a clue of what you speak there dear child of the insane.

upinak on January 8, 2009 at 12:28 PM

The bridge was popular until it proved to be expensive, time consuming and a national embarrassment.

Sarah Palin killed the bridge. She was 100% honest about it.

chunderroad on January 8, 2009 at 12:16 PM

She was for it before she was against it – “Maverick

Poptech on January 8, 2009 at 12:37 PM

She was for it before she was against it – “Maverick“

Poptech on January 8, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Mitt Romney was for abortion before he was against it. So was Reagan. Leadership is not always being right but admitting when you are wrong.

Sarah Palin killed the Bridge To Nowhere.

chunderroad on January 8, 2009 at 12:40 PM

She was for it before she was against it – “Maverick“

Poptech on January 8, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Pop… answer my question. Or are you “scared”!

upinak on January 8, 2009 at 12:46 PM

RE: Earmarks in Alaska..

If I remember right, doesn’t the state legislator have a say in the earmarks as well? as in telling the governor how much they need?

So it’s not just any old whim Sarah can cut off the earmark spigot..

you know, checks and balances..

DaveC on January 9, 2009 at 12:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7