Video: Palin tells Obama to veto bill he dragged out of Congress
posted at 12:20 pm on February 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Sarah Palin’s advice on Porkulus will evoke laughter in the White House that pushed it through Congress, but perhaps someone there has begun listening to her on energy. Palin says Barack Obama has started coming around on the natural-gas pipeline, but may need a little more convincing on enabling increased production on the clean-burning fuel. Palin doesn’t wait for Greta to ask before getting in an argument against the Fairness Doctrine, near the end (via Conservatives for Palin):
PALIN: Hey, Greta, another thing though that I would add too is that it’s not just the stimulus package that we need to keep our eyes and ears open about right now in America. But it’s this Fairness Doctrine — it’s these attempts in Congress that are being discussed at this point to shut down voices that are asking the tough questions. … If there’s any attempt to quash any of these voices, that’s a scary thing for our country and our democracy.
The challenge to Obama to veto his own economic policy is a little silly, even though it deserves to be vetoed, burnt, pulverized, and flushed. Obama got exactly what he wanted and has no reason at all to veto it. Had he been displeased with the product, Obama would have held a much different press conference a week ago. Opposing the bill on its merits is good, but demanding a veto doesn’t do much for Palin’s credibility.
Palin does much better on the Fairness Doctrine. She put it in exactly the right terms, which the American public will understand as not “fair” at all but an attempt to silence criticism.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Of all the GOP legislators in Washington, not a one could come up with proposal.
Cream always rises to the top even if it is frozen to begin with.
technopeasant on February 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM
“I wish he’d veto it” and “until …[Congress understands it] … I don’t want to see it signed” is “demanding” a veto? You have a strange definition of “demanding”.
The Monster on February 17, 2009 at 6:07 PM
ccr6 FTW
benny shakar on February 17, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Obambi signs this montrosity; and the markets tank. Big Surprise. The DOW has tanked more than 2,000 points since the Moron won the election.
Kudos to Palin for speaking out!
Norwegian on February 17, 2009 at 6:23 PM
What the hell are you talking about Ed? Palin doesn’t want the stimulus package and, at the time she was interviewed, only ONE THING would stop it – a VETO by Obama. It was a symbolic statement – nothing more.
HondaV65 on February 17, 2009 at 6:51 PM
And another thing Ed – why are you falling for the drive-by custom of analyzing every word Palin says? Come on – you’ve got a Commander In Chief in office now that can’t make a press conference without a teleprompter – can’t we get off scrutinizing every word she says … for crying out loud.
Maybe she should carry around a teleprompter – I’m sure she’d be more polished – like “The One” … would that finally make you happy Ed?
HondaV65 on February 17, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Nice try. But–even though I know you’re not interested in accuracy, just fertilizing from your mouth–I’ve actually praised Sarah Palin on my site for always dressing tastefully and modestly. That is one of the things she’s done right. My comments about her regard her own statements and behavior, as you well know. Glad to see that you are now a mental health expert because you consulted one. Everyone’s a pop psychologist. There are plenty of ‘em who will say the same thing about anyone who legitimately takes issue with Barack Obama.
Debbie Schlussel on February 17, 2009 at 7:09 PM
we are still waiting on your current media reports on Bristol Palin’s baby pics
Get to work or get out
joey24007 on February 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Imbecile, the DOW jumped 200 points the days before the house and senate approved the stimulus because investors were betting on it to pass. The reason it fell today is because Obama’s signing it was a certainty. There’s no payoff for betting on it to pass if everybody knows it’s going to pass.
booyah on February 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM
I don’t think her comment to veto sounded silly as this bill doesn’t resemble what he said he wanted originally. Obviously didn’t happen and I’m sure she knew he wouldn’t veto. I agree that she could have framed her statement better. I don’t believe her answer will do harm – perhaps in the Beltway, but not with mainstream folks.
Her comment about the Fairness Doctrine surprised me as she wasn’t asked about it. Good to see her take the initiative to bring it up.
Shane Vander Hart on February 17, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Good on ya, Sarah. At least we know Sarah doesn’t hate America and we would be safe and prospreous under her governing. Obama? Not at all.
BetseyRoss on February 17, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Well, if she favors continued H1/L1 abuse, she does hate America.
sethstorm on February 17, 2009 at 7:45 PM
You get paid to write that garbage? Holy hell.
fourstringfuror on February 17, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Well if she follows tradition she’ll accept it, than publicly reject the windfall when it becomes there’s a populist outcry, while still spending the money anyway.
crr6 on February 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM
The Gov. might just as well take the money unless you think Washington will exempt Alaska from participating in paying for this PORKFEST if they decline the handouts yeah right.
heshtesh on February 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Proposal? Are you talking about the GOP’s proposal for a stimulus that the Liberals ignored or are you just tone-deaf too. This was a Liberal bill wrote only by the Liberals.
rich801 on February 17, 2009 at 7:53 PM
She’s still my gal.
Palin / Petraeus 2012
Let’s roll. and boycott Maine!
ex-Democrat on February 17, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Benny you are soooo predictable. Your lines are far too easy. When you get more creative …please do tell.
CWforFreedom on February 17, 2009 at 7:58 PM
There is something really hilarious about someone-ANYONE-from Alaska calling for a veto of a bill on wasteful spending grounds. Alaska is the NUMBER 1 STATE receiving pork spending projects and the number 5 state in terms of receiving more in federal money per dollar paid in taxes.
The entire state is basically a freeloading socialist wasteland and Palin runs it all. No wonder conservatives love her.
booyah on February 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM
just how dumb are you
please tell us about how the federal government allows Alaska to use their own resources and land
oh that is right … you can’t
to quote you:
“is you learning yet?”
joey24007 on February 17, 2009 at 8:08 PM
LISTEN EVERYONE!!!
Palin is hot but does not possess what it takes to be president…… Wait a minute, neither does anyone else that I can think of……
Constitution1st on February 17, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Funny from the party of the porkulas bill. Well not funny.
You people love handouts from the productive side of society while you sit on your asses playing X-Box. I would imagine you’d admire people you thought were getting over.
hawkdriver on February 17, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Palin is on the “energy independence” bandwagon. That pretty much equates to protectionism. Look at where “self sufficiency” of the juche philosophy ot North Korea. ha. free trade all the way !
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 8:12 PM
I love open en(t)rollment …. more fun with Dhimmis.
ex-Democrat on February 17, 2009 at 8:13 PM
This is definitely the smartest person on the thread.
Lemme guess, Ron Paulian?
ex-Democrat on February 17, 2009 at 8:14 PM
?
Since the 3 Republican senators signed on and this was guaranteed to pass on Feb 5th, the DOW has been down by over 500 points. This passed on Friday night- the DOW was down for that last week by over 200 points from Feb 6th thru Feb 13 when it passed.
kcarpenter on February 17, 2009 at 8:16 PM
????????????
joey24007 on February 17, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Umm… so… apparently you think that developing our own resources is “protectionism”.
Right.
Now might be a good time for you to get back on your meds.
ramrocks on February 17, 2009 at 8:18 PM
No doubt Joey, it is hard to figure out if this guy loves giving his money to the Saudis or if he is against free trade.
Makes not a lick of sense.
kcarpenter on February 17, 2009 at 8:22 PM
“Our”? I’m not opposed to “buying American,” but don’t force me to. Free trade benefits everyone, protectionism will hurt us by making us pay more for less quality. Case in point; high fructose corn syrup. The tariffs on sugar imports led to American companies switching to HFCS. HFCS is said to be the leading cause of obesity and diabetes. nice going, government.
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM
hfcs was subsidized via the corn subsidies from the US government. hfcs comes from government.
and, if America doesn’t buy from Saudis, another country will. we’ll just end up paying more money for the same thing lol
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 8:26 PM
what the hell does energy sources in America have to do with free trade?
and does North Korea have the natural resources we have?
man you are delusional
joey24007 on February 17, 2009 at 8:26 PM
I meant… ha hfcs comes from corn :p
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 8:27 PM
maybe we should let the economy buy energy from where it wants to?
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 8:28 PM
what are you talking about dude
joey24007 on February 17, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Maybe you’ve never thought of this concept. You let the US economy find and buy its own energy. Oh, and yeah, I’m all for allowing drilling on US soil. I’m about taking all of the state parks and turning them over to private hands.
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Hasn’t she cut wasteful spending in half in the two years she has been governing? could of swore I heard that somewhere….
BPD on February 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Before everybody goes nuts again remember the state of AK will receive some of the funds form the bill/law. The funds are part of the normal intergovernmental process. To those who say Gov. Palin is asking for pork do not know Jack about Gov. Palin.
Clyde5445 on February 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Mark Sanford is alot better than Sarah Palin.
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM
You’re absolutely right!! The market should decide… but no one is arguing against that! The problem is the free market isn’t allowed to operate properly in the US (with regards to energy) because the government is obstructing it.
BPD on February 17, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Palin is on the “energy independence” bandwagon. That pretty much equates to protectionism. Look at where “self sufficiency” of the juche philosophy ot North Korea. ha. free trade all the way !
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Are you the old guy in the old Saturn with the Ron Paul 08 bumper sticker I passed this morning?
bw222 on February 17, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Libertarian Joseph
Are you qs/acroso on Polipundit?
bw222 on February 17, 2009 at 8:43 PM
How is the government obstructing it? Some “energy independence” proponents really want the US to supply itself with all of the energy it needs. I think that’s insane. I’m glad you don’t want that.
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Oil trading below $35 a barrel. Nobody’s buying, regardless of where the oil is.
It is the perfect time to drill here. It can be done out of existing profits and cashflow because labor is oversupplied (thank you recession). Plus, there is no market demand pounding at the door with the threat of inflationary price rises once the oil starts flowing.
When oil starts trading up, we can control the price by turning on the waiting spigots BUT ONLY IF we drill now and build refineries now.
As Sarah said, oil independence is a matter of national security. If we have the ability to prevent oil from going above $50 a barrel, we have the ability to dominate Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.
Is that a bad thing? Only if you like crisis governing.
platypus on February 17, 2009 at 8:46 PM
If that is so that automatically disqualifies all Alaskan residents from every being President.
And even if it is so marks should be given to a government in a socialist wasteland that is able to run surpluses and be fiscally disciplined.
And finally in a socialist wasteland Sarah Palin governs conservatively according to the State Constitution. She deliberately opposes vouchers because it is against the state Consitution and vetoed a bill that would have eliminated benefits for gay partners based on the Constitution.
technopeasant on February 17, 2009 at 8:47 PM
You sound like you might want to drill yourself. First things first. Free up the socialized land. I’m pretty sure that the dems will block any motion for that. They would much rather nationalize the oil companies.
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 8:49 PM
I don’t need any constitution to oppose those things.
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Well, let me start by saying I am certainly not an expert in the field. That being said, as I understand it, our government has restricted oil exploration/drilling in certain areas that are very promising (ANWR comes to mind) as well as setting up a regulatory system which allows for and encourages environmental establishments to litigate for years and years before new sites are actually able to be explored. As I hear it, even approved drilling leases have to go through years and years of environmental litigation (much of which is stonewalling/red tape) before they can even get started.
BPD on February 17, 2009 at 8:52 PM
This makes no sense. Are you trying to say the Federal Gov’t is enslaving the people of Alaska by giving them so much money? If so you really must not want to win the lottery.
booyah on February 17, 2009 at 8:55 PM
So you noticed that little pecadillo, eh? But just because they’d like it doesn’t mean we have to let them.
Sarah could probably find some provision in the state constitution to permit drilling almost anywhere in Alaska. In any event, a serious confrontation between the states and the feds is coming. The War Between the States has been on a truce for many years but I don’t think it was ever finished.
When it heats back up this time, it won’t be about slavery. It will be purely about states’ rights/Tenth Amendment.
platypus on February 17, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Thanks. Yep, I’d call that obstructing. I really REALLY doubt we’ll see any improvement on energy for awhile. I hear Obama talk about “energy independence,” but his idea is a bit different lol he wants to take tax payer money and stuff wind and solar technoloies down our throats.
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 8:56 PM
you are about as dense as a brick huh?
joey24007 on February 17, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Sorry, but Sarah Palin is right on point here. Was there any other way for the Porkulus package to be derailed at that point? No, there wasn’t. We could only HOPE that Obama receive wisdom from the burning bush or something.
Aside from abandoning the usage of colloquialisms of things like ‘guys’ and ‘gals’, Palin was strong and clear.
thegreatbeast on February 17, 2009 at 9:01 PM
I don’t think that war was about slavery as much as they would have you believe lol. But yea, I’m inclined to agree. The feds have the states begging for money, but what happens when some states realize that they can secede and run their own printing presses. But the Feds won’t let that happen.
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Think about energy production rationally. Suppose you owned a piece of land that you used for recreation purposes. One day your best friend, a geologist visits you, and offers for free to do a test on your property whether any oil or natural gas lies below it.
Eventually he discovers on 1/20 of your land oil products exist. The geologist tells you that your ability to recreate on the land will not be hampered, that animal life will not affected and the environment will not be hurt-so can you think of any reason why you shouldn’t go and get it?
“Well. I can’t because I buy my oil from my brother who lives 1000 miles away; that’s what I have always done.”
“But if you develop your own oil supply it will be a lot cheaper and what if your brother runs out of oil or decides to jack up the price willy-nilly-what are you going to do then?”
“This just makes too much sense. My neighbors probably have oil on their property as well. Why aren’t they bringing it to the surface?”
“Frankly, I don’t know and I don’t care. You need oil and gasoline. it’s readily available below your feet. You can in the long-run extract it more cheaply than you can buy it from your brother and you won’t have to ever worry about running out until the oil well runs dry which I project will way beyond your life, your children’s life and your grandchildren’s life.”
“It makes sense–just too much sense.”
technopeasant on February 17, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Sure we’ll be energy independent. When we’re on an even playing field with the third world, should be quite easy to achieve.
Dr. ZhivBlago on February 17, 2009 at 9:04 PM
I’m not the one defending the freeloaders in Alaska while pretending I’m anti-socialist. You obviously have us confused.
booyah on February 17, 2009 at 9:04 PM
You are off base on this one. It has nothing to do with her credibility but an echo of likely more than half the country. Snowe, Collins & Spectator are also vetoed!
wepeople on February 17, 2009 at 9:04 PM
It’s better for Sarah to publicly oppose Porkulus than to say nothing. If she hadn’t said anything, there would be a 800+ thread going as to the reasons why she kept quiet.
familiar on February 17, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Gov. Palin has cut Alaska’s earmark requests in half and has championed Alaskan resource development because she wants Alaska to pull its own weight.
You have no understanding of her record or her positions, which is why you sound like such a stupid prick (I mean, aside from the fact that you are a stupid prick).
ramrocks on February 17, 2009 at 9:13 PM
In Hollywood, there’s a proverb: there’s no such thing as bad publicity because it doesn’t matter what anybody says about you as long as they’re talking about you.
Sarah understands this. And hotair proves it works.
Go Sarah!
platypus on February 17, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Really-taking a stand for the people against a stimulus bill that is virtually all pork and will lay the foundation for socialized medicine and more corruption from ACORN ‘does not do much for Palin’s credibility’.
That’s like saying that Albert Einstein didn’t do much for his credibility either when in 1939 he wrote a letter to FDR to ask him to look into the potential of an atomic bomb when very little at the time was known about uranium fission as it was only discovered 6 months before and most scientists at the time saw no way that a bomb could be made using atomic energy.
Sometimes in life individuals have to step up to the plate and be counted. Einstein did that and the result was the sudden end of the war against Japan,sparing of one million lives that would have invaded Japan; as to Sarah, with a stroke of brilliance, she allowed Obama to permanently own the stimulus package because he did have a choice but he chose not to go that route.
technopeasant on February 17, 2009 at 9:18 PM
It’s the best policy to do nothing. That’s what government should do in regards to energy. Let land owners negotiate. If an oil company wants someone’s land, they will negotiate with the land owner[s], there’s really no reason why government should be involved in that process.
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 9:20 PM
technopeasant on February 17, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Hey genius, isn’t the govt. the “landowner” for ANWR and lots of other Alaskan oil fields?
cs89 on February 17, 2009 at 9:29 PM
I may be wrong on this, so I hope someone more knowledgeable of Alaska will correct me if i am wrong. But, I believe that Alaska’s oil/minerals/natgas is owned by the people of Alaska, as agreed to by the US during ratification and incorporated in the alaskan constitution. If this is accurate, then in fact, the Alaskan government is negotiating on behalf of the people with the oil companies, no? The state government is, in fact, the legal representative for the land owners in this case. So they are behaving exactly as you wish they would.
BPD on February 17, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Lets see…. Caribou Barbie, 4 colleges in 6 years, gets a degree….Obama, President of the Harvard Law Review…..yeah, seems pretty even in intellect to me.
athensboy on February 17, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Government cannot legitimately own land. Atleast not the statist kind
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Well, one had to pay for her tuition, whereas the other had his tuition paid for by a Saudi national. I should say, ALLEGEDLY paid for…. his college records are in al gore’s lockbox, so who the hell knows if he even went to class.
By the way, if Obama was so smart, don’t you think he would learn from history and realize that Keynesian Economics has a longer streak of failure than the Chicago Cubs?
BPD on February 17, 2009 at 9:38 PM
The citizens do, and i believe that is provided for in the state constitution.
BPD on February 17, 2009 at 9:39 PM
To Technopeasant and ramrocks etc,
These trolls just do not know what a hornets nest Gov. Palin can be when she speaks for herself. During the the campaign there was only two instance where Gov. Palin spoke in her own voice the convention and the debate. Oh by the way trolls Gov. Palin is the de facto leader of the GOP. Go ahead and underestimate Gov. Palin at your own peril. When Gov. Palin runs a campaign in her own voice I suggest you move a side before the female grizzle bear named Palin run you over. For me to see that would be sweet.
Clyde5445 on February 17, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Oh by the way trolls Gov. Palin is the de facto leader of the GOP.
Amen Clyde 5445
bw222 on February 17, 2009 at 9:48 PM
He’d make a good wing man but we need someone with personality and charisma at the top of the ticket. A charming populist like Sarah Palin fits the bill. Sanford can take the #2 spot.
NoLeftTurn on February 17, 2009 at 9:49 PM
I like what Sanford’s been saying recently…. but he would draw in 20, maybe 30, people to a rally… and put half of them to sleep.
BPD on February 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM
I get the feeling that booyah is a resident of one of our proud, self-reliant blue states.
ddrintn on February 17, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Lets see…. Caribou Barbie, 4 colleges in 6 years, gets a degree….Obama, President of the Harvard Law Review…..yeah, seems pretty even in intellect to me.
athensboy on February 17, 2009 at 9:33 PM
You forget to mention Zero was the only President of the Harvard Law Review who was never published. They selected Obama for the same reason you voted for Him – LIBERAL WHITE GUILT
bw222 on February 17, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Pre
ddrintn on February 17, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Barrack “I walk through windows” Obama
Smartest President Evah!
BPD on February 17, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Ooooops.
As I was saying, pretty sad when a 47-year-old guy is still basking in the glory of writing for a college newspaper.
ddrintn on February 17, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Anyone who says this triggers my BS detector. It’s only “6 years” if a typical student goes for “5 years” (Fall of the first year, Spring of the fifth, both semesters for 2-4).
But I give you credit for not calling it “5 colleges” like most who spew this do (counting U of Idaho twice).
The Monster on February 17, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Well, yeah, what has that noted authority on constitutional law published in that subject area?
ddrintn on February 17, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Mark Sanford doesn’t put me to sleep. Anywho, BPD, wouldn’t you call that socialized oil?
Libertarian Joseph on February 17, 2009 at 9:59 PM
No, Socialized oil would be government controlling the means of production, no?
I don’t see how it is any different than shareholders in a company.
BPD on February 17, 2009 at 10:02 PM
while I believe the”unfairness doctrine” is a joke, and a major blow to 1st amendment rights, to state that Greta and Sean ask “the tough questions” is unequistic. Greta has her nose so far up Sarahs’s asz it’s comical. Kinda hypocritical to ask the media to leave your kids (and grandkids) alone, yet parade them (compensated perhaps?) on national t.v. Why get a G.E.D. when fox news will pay for a family update every month? I know, I suffer from P.D.S., (I know!) but she won’t go away! Obamamama should VETO THE STIMULUS BILL!? wait,…..what?
greataunty on February 17, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Somebody forgot to tell D.C. this. And Anchorage, and Raleigh, and Nashville, etc.
There are national parks, state parks, city parks, you name it scattered from sea to shining sea. Don’t have to agree with the philosophy if you don’t want to, but those are the facts on the ground.
To argue about natural resources buried beneath soil currently controlled by governmental agencies by saying “leave the government out of it, negotiate with the landowners” is not a realistic position.
cs89 on February 17, 2009 at 10:10 PM
A. Please point to a single report that any Palin interview has been for $.
B. Isn’t Bristol actually pursuing her education?
C. Pretty much every politician with a family includes them in media appearances from time to time. So far, Palin is the only one I’m aware of who has had the parentage of her children questioned, at least in the past several decades.
D. What was your point?
cs89 on February 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM
wooot Sarah!
/pom-poms
bitsy on February 17, 2009 at 10:16 PM
This always makes me LOL!
Alaska is an American exclave. It is separated from the contiguous 48, it is in a harsh climate, and cannot maintain or create a proper infrastructure that is not reliant heavily on subsidization for air, water, AND land travel, much less all the additional expenses that go into it.
Alaska was admitted to the Union with expectations of a net loss. Alaska will always be a “Welfare State,” especially when the Federal Government won’t properly invest (or even allow just the State to invest) in the extraction of iron ores, precious metals, and other fossil-fuel-based energy reserves. Not to mention timber and other “less controversial” resources.
Alaska was admitted to the Union with the understanding that that would be their way of pulling weight along with the contiguous States.
So what do you propose? Remove a star from the Flag? Return us to 49? Hell, why not ditch Hawai’i, too, since the tourism bubble is poppin’ like Lil’ Mama’s lip gloss. Let’s make it the “FABULOUS FORTY-EIGHT” instead?
Alaska will always ask for — and require — federal funding moreso than other states because of its geographic position. You can’t drive to Nome. You can’t truck supplies to Barrow. You can’t even drive to JUNEAU — the State capital!
This is the reality of Alaska. Your argument posits it like it’s Delaware, or Iowa, or any other state that is contiguous, of a temperate climate, and without a unique climate, geography, transportation structure, or restrictive laws placed upon its one moneymaker: natural resources.
We pay for National Parks. Want to keep Alaska like it’s one giant National Park? Then we pay for it.
Open Alaska up. Let it actually join the Union. Otherwise, have fun arguing knocking a star off of our Flag because they receive Federal monies.
lansing quaker on February 17, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Lerarn a new one every day, I guess.
Yes. The bill is in violation of his stated principles.
ddrintn on February 17, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Sarah Palin is the de facto leader of the GOP.
If she is not, then who is?
And if you say nobody, then tell us who it should be.
technopeasant on February 17, 2009 at 10:21 PM
NO. The RINO Bush decided to take my money and give it to your poor ass.
Do some research and you’ll find that the $150,000,000,000 in stimulus checks sent out last year (with much hoopla from Bush and McCain about how they’d fix the economy) went only to lower and middle income taxpayers. That there is redistribution of wealth.
popularpeoplesfront on February 17, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Sarah Palin is the de facto leader of the GOP.
If she is not, then who is?
I will humbly take the position. My first order of business will be the nomination of Sarah for POTUS 2012.
jimmy2shoes on February 17, 2009 at 10:42 PM
I thought Palin was trying to goad Obama into doing somethig that would have made him look like a real leader “hey I read the bill, I’m vetoing it, now give me a real stimulus bill” Can you imagine what would have happened had he done that? She did this when she honestly responded to Greta’s question…at that point we were all hoping (irrationally) that it would get vetoed…
CCRWM on February 17, 2009 at 10:51 PM
good points…
CCRWM on February 17, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Clyde5445 on February 17, 2009 at 10:57 PM
I second the motion.
unwashed minion on February 17, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Personally, I love it. Obama went to all this trouble to pass the bill, made a few passes at attempting to get bipartisan support, busy a little prime-time air to push for it, does a few town-hall meetings, finally gets it passed — barely, and gets ready to sign the bill.
He sees it as a major accomplishment. He’s proud of it. He’s ready to sign it in a big public ceremony.
And Sarah Palin says he should veto it.
What a way to rain on his parade!
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 17, 2009 at 11:05 PM
I think it is safe to say Sarah Palin has a great way of poking The Zero… hehehe
CCRWM on February 17, 2009 at 11:10 PM
In a year, when the so-called Stimulus hasn’t produced results, The One will wish He took Gov. Palin’s advice and forced the Democratic Congress to trim the fat. If this turkey fails, the Dems will have no one to blame (except maybe Collins, Snowe and Specter).
bw222 on February 17, 2009 at 11:16 PM
In a museum…..in Denver…..Anyone want to venture a guess as to where the next bill signing will be?
unwashed minion on February 17, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »