• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Please Proceed, Senate Candidate Palin

hgc

Penultimate Amazing
hgc
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
15,892
From The Hill, it seems that former half-term Alaska governor Sarah Palin is considering a run for the US Senate, or is being encouraged to, or something...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/301461-tea-party-eager-gop-unsure-on-possible-palin-senate-bid


Tea Party activists from around the country are eager to see Sarah Palin run for the Senate, but Republican senators themselves aren’t rushing to recruit her.
...
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has feuded with Palin in the past, said the former Alaska governor has become detached from the state.
“I think there are a lot of outside interests that would like to see Sarah Palin in some form of elected office. Most in Alaska recognize our former governor is really not involved in or engaged in the state anymore, that she’s moved to other interests,” Murkowski said. “In order for you to represent the state of Alaska, you’ve got to be in the state.”
...
Tea Party activists are eager for Palin to get back into elected office. The Tea Party Leadership Fund, which commissioned the recent Harper poll showing her leading the GOP field, has amassed more than 60,000 signatures on a petition calling for her to run.
Click to expand...


I am sure that a Palin run at the Senate seat now held by Democrat Mark Begich would be welcomed by everyone in the country except those Republican establishment types. Begich and Dems get to retain the seat without a sweat, news media will lap it up like a saucer of cream and liberals will be ecstatic with schadenfreude.

Dream on though. The speculation game may provide some measure of excitement (or nervousness, depending on your bent), but I can now inform you that this will never happen. Sarah Palin will not run for this or any elective office in 2014 or any time in the future. I guarantee it. She's Donald Trump's running mate to Nowheresville.
 
Last edited:
hgc said:
I am sure that a Palin run at the Senate seat now held by Democrat Mark Begich would be welcomed by everyone in the country except those Republican establishment types.
Click to expand...

Not me.

Let's not forget that a Senator elected in a state with a smaller population than a large city gets the same voting power as any other Senator. The numbers in Alaska are small enough that I don't consider Palin's candidacy an automatic loss. In fact, I don't think any election outcome there is so easy to predict because there are so few voters.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Not me.

Let's not forget that a Senator elected in a state with a smaller population than a large city gets the same voting power as any other Senator. The numbers in Alaska are small enough that I don't consider Palin's candidacy an automatic loss. In fact, I don't think any election outcome there is so easy to predict because there are so few voters.
Click to expand...

Then again, there was also this...
 
ANTPogo said:
Then again, there was also this...
Click to expand...


Not to mention the damage done to the discourse (campaign debate and so on) by a candidate Palin.

No, I'd much rather have a better Republican candidate get the nomination, even as someone who is rooting for the Democrat.
 
DavidJames said:
There are a number of folks here who defend the Tea Party regularly.

Is Sarah Palin a good representative of the Tea Party.
Click to expand...
Considering Michele Bachmann heads the house tea party caucus... The Tea Party is what it is.

Daredelvis
 
The fact that states like AK, OK, WY, UT, MT, ND, SD, etc get as many Senators as states like NY, CA and MA is a huge part of the reason that the Senate is the pathetic group that it is. We need to reform the structure of the Senate so the plains states can't fill 1/3 of the Senate with mouth-breathing flat-earthers and Civil War re-enacters.
 
maxpower1227 said:
The fact that states like AK, OK, WY, UT, MT, ND, SD, etc get as many Senators as states like NY, CA and MA is a huge part of the reason that the Senate is the pathetic group that it is. We need to reform the structure of the Senate so the plains states can't fill 1/3 of the Senate with mouth-breathing flat-earthers and Civil War re-enacters.
Click to expand...

I disagree that we need to alter the Constitutionally defined structure of Congress.

The House is meant to be more or less proportionate with the population. By and large it is sensitive to popular trends and majority opinion. The Senate is supposed to be somewhat less responsive to popular whims (the tyranny of the majority). This was intentional.

It was also to give somewhat more strength to state interests in the federal government. (Recognizing that we are a federal system--a federation of states--rather than one single sovereign state.)

It's also why Senators serve 6 year terms and Representatives only 2 year terms.

It's also why the Senate has a few responsibilities (notably "advise and consent") that the House doesn't share.

But what it means, IMO, is that the parties ought have higher standards for their Senate nominees than their House nominees.

ETA: Also, surely you recognize there are more (and more extreme) mouth-breathing flat-earthers and Civil War re-enacters in the House than in the Senate. Can you imagine a Michele Bachman in the Senate?
 
Last edited:
maxpower1227 said:
The fact that states like AK, OK, WY, UT, MT, ND, SD, etc get as many Senators as states like NY, CA and MA is a huge part of the reason that the Senate is the pathetic group that it is. We need to reform the structure of the Senate so the plains states can't fill 1/3 of the Senate with mouth-breathing flat-earthers and Civil War re-enacters.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Government's bicameral legislative structure is designed exactly for that reason. If I recall my early American history class correctly, the original structure was for all states to be represented equally. There was the concern that this would give disproportionate weight to the less populated states, so the House of Representatives was created as a balance. That's why any bill that goes to the Executive branch for signature has to pass both houses.

And for what it's worth, IMHO, the very last thing a citizen should want is a smoothly functioning, completely cooperative legislature. I'm also not too keen on the idea of both the legislative and executive branches being all being dominated by the same party (either one).
 
SUSpilot said:
If I recall my early American history class correctly, the original structure was for all states to be represented equally.
Click to expand...

You recall correctly.

Under the Articles of Confederation, each state had one vote in Congress.

ETA: The Constitution created a much stronger central government, but we obviously never abandoned the federal system and recognition of the several states.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
I disagree that we need to alter the Constitutionally defined structure of Congress.

The House is meant to be more or less proportionate with the population. By and large it is sensitive to popular trends and majority opinion. The Senate is supposed to be somewhat less responsive to popular whims (the tyranny of the majority). This was intentional.

It was also to give somewhat more strength to state interests in the federal government. (Recognizing that we are a federal system--a federation of states--rather than one single sovereign state.)

It's also why Senators serve 6 year terms and Representatives only 2 year terms.

It's also why the Senate has a few responsibilities (notably "advise and consent") that the House doesn't share.

But what it means, IMO, is that the parties ought have higher standards for their Senate nominees than their House nominees.

ETA: Also, surely you recognize there are more (and more extreme) mouth-breathing flat-earthers and Civil War re-enacters in the House than in the Senate. Can you imagine a Michele Bachman in the Senate?
Click to expand...

I understand the ideas behind the Great Compromise and why the Senate is set up the way it is. That being said, the Senate was formed before any of the small states that I listed were in existence. Now, the number of small states is so high, and their populations so low (and so uneducated), that they wield a disproportionate amount of influence in determining the makeup of the Senate, and we all suffer for it. I don't know what my solution would be - getting rid of the ridiculous 60 vote rule would be a start - but I fully believe we'd all be better off if the Senate was at least slightly more representative of the general population.
 
SUSpilot said:
And for what it's worth, IMHO, the very last thing a citizen should want is a smoothly functioning, completely cooperative legislature. I'm also not too keen on the idea of both the legislative and executive branches being all being dominated by the same party (either one).
Click to expand...

Of course I want a legislature that can actually function (and not be dominated by corporate interests). Why would any sane person want a dysfunctional legislature?
 
maxpower1227 said:
Of course I want a legislature that can actually function (and not be dominated by corporate interests). Why would any sane person want a dysfunctional legislature?
Click to expand...

If I may re-word SUSpilot's statement, I don't want any portion of the government to be too powerful. What you call "dysfunction" another person might call "checks and balances" on authority.

In know some Europeans pooh-pooh our system because it makes it hard to make radical changes that are good (like a real UHC), but the positive side is that it also makes it hard to make radical changes that are bad (amending the Constitution to reverse Roe v. Wade and P.P. v. Casey jurisprudence, for one example).

ETA: In other words, not all ideas that are supported by a majority should be implemented.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
In know some Europeans pooh-pooh our system because it makes it hard to make radical changes that are good (like a real UHC), but the positive side is that it also makes it hard to make radical changes that are bad (amending the Constitution to reverse Roe v. Wade and P.P. v. Casey jurisprudence, for one example).
Click to expand...

A rather poor one. Regadless of the political fuss over Roe v. Wade I suspect that overturning it wouldn't have much practical impact. Enough states would keep elective abortion legal to mean that modern transport arangements would be enough to see that it was de-facto legal everywhere. See the situation with Ireland and the UK.
 
geni said:
Regadless of the political fuss over Roe v. Wade I suspect that overturning it wouldn't have much practical impact. Enough states would keep elective abortion legal to mean that modern transport arangements would be enough to see that it was de-facto legal everywhere. See the situation with Ireland and the UK.
Click to expand...

And do you think that's a good situation?

I think going back to letting states criminalize abortion from conception on (something that won't happen since amending the Constitution is relatively difficult and essentially takes a supermajority--and despite alarmists, there is no chance at all that it would be overturned in the Supreme Court) would have a significant practical impact.

It would also affect subsequent law.
 
maxpower1227 said:
The fact that states like AK, OK, WY, UT, MT, ND, SD, etc get as many Senators as states like NY, CA and MA is a huge part of the reason that the Senate is the pathetic group that it is. We need to reform the structure of the Senate so the plains states can't fill 1/3 of the Senate with mouth-breathing flat-earthers and Civil War re-enacters.
Click to expand...

Now, the number of small states is so high, and their populations so low (and so uneducated), that they wield a disproportionate amount of influence in determining the makeup of the Senate, and we all suffer for it.
Click to expand...

It is amazing the level of tolerance you have for those with different beliefs than you.

I would think this is exactly the reason it was setup that way. Would you feel the same way if the mouth-breathing flat-earthers and Civil War re-enacters were the most populous?

I don't know the numbers but are you so sure there wasn't a good percentage of small states in 1776.

ETA While she would not be near the top of my potential candidates I could see her winning in Alaska.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom