True that (1) Socialism doesn’t work in reality. (2) Libertarian-conservatism does. (3) Reagan succeeded because of his willingness to voice, and to lead with, the principles of the latter. Palin is another Reagan IF, or to the extent that, she does the same over time.

You guys have so much more faith in socialism than I do. Conservatism did not succeed because of Reagan. Reagan succeeded because of conservatism.

Thanks for that Telegraph article! good one i hadnt seen.

…the point I made earlier and you noted was about RR’s 1975-76 efforts to undercut the incumbent GOP Prez (Ford)…
Note the clarification: once RR got into office.

Oh, my gracious. For the record, this was the point you made in the old post, that I referred to at #28:

[MM] “…like most reactionaries, Maggie, you fail to appreciate that Ford on his worst day was far better than Carter and far, far better than Reagan on their best days.”

Skip the name-calling… the comment includes Ford’s time in office, thus Reagan’s and Carter’s. And regardless of all that, Ford was only “far” better than Carter in your book but “far, far” better than Reagan… a fascinating, back-handed way to put down Reagan. Well, whatever dude If you simply misspoke, that’s cool, but the easiest thing would be to say “Oops, I misspoke” rather than further digging the hole.

We were talking about Palin haters

…and yet you had changed the subject back at #26, to Palin herself and to Reagan. Fun.

Nothing can take away from RR’s accomplishments once he GOT into office, but the point I made earlier and you noted was about RR’s 1975-76 efforts to undercut the incumbent GOP Prez (Ford) and that resulted in JimmineyCricket’s election and 4 yrs of pain… and gave RR the platform to rebuild the Party’s central core… which led, in part to the Gingrich Revolution and the Delay Devolution.

Note the clarification: once RR got into office. And yes, I think Ford was still a better leader, better politician, better public servant than RR. But to compare Palin with RR is a stretch of immense proportions and one for which, having known RR, is a pretty presumptive thing to do.

Is Palin more prepped to be Prez than Obama? Yep. No pun, but in a heartbeat. Is she more prepped to be Prez than Biden? Yep, by a long shot. Is she the next Reagan? Surely, Shirley, you can’t be serious?

Besides, if McCain-Palin lose, this will be all academic, no? The liberal ideology will be in ascendance for 20-25 yrs and Obama will do for Democrats what RR did for conservatives and the GOP. There’s the closer analogy I think.

BTW, “I’m confident you’ll do your best along those lines, and are prepping the battlespace”, is high on contempt, short on logic. If McCain loses, I won’t be inside the Party structure –the purge of all the pragmatic, policy driven moderates will have been decided by the totality of voters… not just GOP primary voters. McCain is perceived within the Party as a moderate… by some even a RINO. The moderates are toast for a few years while the Party rambles around the desert in search of meaning and political efficacy. At least that’s what I think.

But this is off topic, right? We were talking about Palin haters; I’m not one of those.

America is screwed already. Bush and the Republican dinaosaur put it back 100 years. Sorry. You need a wake-up call dude.

The comparisons of her to RR are a dishonor to that man’s memory and striking accomplishments

I disagree, but what I find striking in that comment is that now you want to defend Reagan. What a difference a year makes, LOL

But [Palin] needs… seasoning

I agree. Here’s the thing, though: Obama needs even more. And he’s running for the #1 slot. As a Governor and former oil and gas regulator, she is actually a little bit more seasoned and qualified than Obama. It’s astounding, that the Dems are running him! And sexist, that they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge ‘the chick is more qualified’.

If [McCain-Palin] don’t [win], the slime tossing inside the GOP will begin with the analysis of why in the heck did McCain pick Palin in the first place and it’ll go downhill from there.

I’m confident you’ll do your best along those lines, and are prepping the battlespace.

You address, in your words, “comments are coming directly from Republican campaign rallies” and claim the GOP “is openly pandering to its extremists and permitting that kind of conduct to take place at rallies and other officially sanctioned events.” The latter claim is just plain silly.

Permitting that type of conduct? What should they do, screen all participants to make sure they won’t say crazy stupid things at rallies?

Yeah, there are kooks on both sides, but the incidents at GOP rallies are isolated ones while the hate against the GOP is a widespread phenomenon on left-wing web-sites and among Democratic activists?

Do you have any examples of conservatives vandalizing Democratic Party Headquarters, stealing and/or burning Obama signs?

Seems your outrage is quite selective, based on the misreporting of what one or two angry activists have said at McCain rallies.

But she needs an awful lot of work and seasoning before she’ll be ready for prime time anywhere other than Alaska. The comparisons of her to RR are a dishonor to that man’s memory and striking accomplishments; to paraphase Dem Veep Nominee Lloyd Bentsen, I knew Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.

We can exchange the worshipful idols on the high altar later… but Palin’s portrait ain’t ever hanging inside the White House unless McCain and Palin win this year. If they don’t, the slime tossing inside the GOP will begin with the analysis of why in the heck did McCain pick Palin in the first place and it’ll go downhill from there. And it won’t be country clubbers asking da questions.

So, in sum, it’s hardly fair to paint this as an issue each side is guilty of. There are cranks and nutbags on the fringes of both parties, but only one party is openly pandering to its extremists and permitting that kind of conduct to take place at rallies and other officially-sanctioned events.

If that’s true, then Biden isn’t going anywhere and by extension…..

Erik, that’s only true in your party. There’s a long list of Democratic politicians that got to enjoy brief periods in the spotlight, but no group of animals devour their own like liberals once the “magic” is gone. Gore, Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Hillary…One day, they are lauded as the nation’s last hope for survival. The next, well…look what happened when they discovered the Obamessiah. Then it was open season on even Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton himself.

This is only Sarah Palin’s introduction to national politics. She’s just getting started.

I think both the left and the right recognize that Palin has the potential to be the next Ronald Reagan

No, but Palin does have the ability to be the next John Edwards – a losing former Vice-Presidential candidate who then runs for President 4 years later and fails to secure her party’s nomination.

In this hyper media age, It’s one and done on the national stage.

If you can honestly say that the right didn’t/doesn’t abhor Hillary and have brutally attacked her both politically and personally then I will listen to your whines.

Find me ONE article suggesting that she should have aborted Chelsea and/or ONE article suggestiong that she shouldn’t be in Washington but should be at home taking care of Chelsea and I might give a crap about what you have to say.

I remember seeing supporters of Milosevic in 1999 looking equally deluded and disgusting. PLEASE wake up!

Given the way you type, I have serious doubts that you’re old enough to remember. What happened to the fake fainters at the Comrade Obama rallies anyway?

Why, it’s as if you think that liberals, like me (I guess) aren’t patriotic, just because we’re liberal!

More like because the leaders of your party have done everything they could, including 70+ bills to guarantee the defeat of the United States. Not to mention calling the commanding general a liar because his report didn’t fit in with your party’s narrative.

Or how liberals were for invading Iraq before they were against it when a Republican president actually had the cajones to do it. Which of course required the liberals to invest in the defeat of America and do everything in their power to undermine it for political reasons. I could go on, but you get the idea.

I, for one, welcome any liberals who truly love their country. However, I have no tolerance for those who believe they have to destroy it to prove it or liberals who vote for those who do.

I want a leader who has the intelligence to navigate through some pretty tricky waters without drowning.

I would guess that navigating tricky waters would be required getting to those other 7 states.

Which ticket is obviously even-keeled and has stuck to a plan? Obama-Biden.

Nevermind that it’ll screw the country? Nevermind that it’s totally wrong? Nevermind that nobody’s allowed to ask questions about it? Nevermind that the candidate can’t explain it when asked about it?

Just because shit sticks to the wall when you throw it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a good thing.

TO ENCOURAGE US TO BE WELL-EDUCATED AND INFORMED.

But only if it’s the liberals doing the educating and informing, right?

Where would they be in the polls right now if it weren’t for people who actually think that Obama isn’t a citizen?

I’ll remind you that the liberal left has pushed their fair share of attacks. Name a prominent Republican who has made that assertion. I can tell you who, on the left, has pushed the assertion that Obama isn’t a citizen, is a terrorist Muslim, is a drug dealing black guy. Are you sure you want to dance?

Real Gay Patriots are voting Obama because they are voting with the best interest of all Americans, and the citizens of the rest of the world for that matter, in mind.

I wasn’t aware that real Americans support sending even more jobs overseas. One would think that Comrade Obama would have at least stopped long enough to piss on the gay media.

When it comes to one candidate promissing to increase taxes and spending by a few billion fold and one promissing to cut taxes and freeze spending, guess who this gay man is going for? When a political virgin promisses to give Ahmafucktard the time of day, real Americans should be quaking in their boots.

Oops! Missed one:

Obama ran a failed oil company and owned a baseball team and partied a lot. Woot!!

Now go back in time to that part of the 80s and find me a successful Texas oil company and I MIGHT be inclined to cede your point. As for the other, Dude! It’s the Rangers. Not to mention that he was NOT a sole owner.

Can you honestly say that Comrade Obama didn’t party a lot?

and which things may those be?

Her much applauded line in her nomination speech–repeated frequently thereafter–that she opposed “the bridge to nowhere” and told the feds no thanks for the money is a demonstrable lie. She supported it until it became a political liability and then kept the federal money. Not much different than any other governor would do, but hardly the maverick reformer she claims to be.

As for Palin and gays, many on the right claim she brought same sex benefits to state employees, but the undisputed fact is she wanted to veto the bill until she was told it was unconstitutional.

I won’t dispute that some of the criticism of Palin is misogynist, (Sarah Palin is a Cunt T-shirts are unbelievably offensive), but can you folks on the right wing admit that some of the portrayals of Obama are equally racially offensive?

Carruthers admits that Africans living in America have already been shaped by Western culture, yet compares this Americanization process to rape: “We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist….” In other words, American blacks (i.e. Africans) may have been forcibly exposed to American culture, but that doesn’t mean they need to accept it. The better option, says Carruthers, is to separate out and relearn the wisdom of Africa’s original Kemetic culture, embodied in the teachings of the ancient wise man, Ptahhotep (an historical figure traditionally identified as the author of a Fifth Dynasty wisdom book). Anything less than re-Africanization threatens the mental, and even physical, genocide of Africans living in an ineradicably white supremacist United States.

Carruthers is a defender of Leonard Jeffries, professor in the department of black studies at City College in Harlem, infamous for his black supremacist and anti-Semitic views. Jeffries sees whites as oppressive and violent “ice people,” in contrast to peaceful and mutually supportive black “sun people.” The divergence says Jeffries, is attributable to differing levels of melanin in the skin. Jeffries also blames Jews for financing the slave trade. Carruthers defends Jeffries and excoriates the prestigious black academics Carruthers views as traitorous for denouncing their African brother, Jeffries. Carruthers’s vision of the superior and peaceful Kemetic philosophy of Ptahhotep triumphing over Greco-Euro-American-white culture obviously parallels Jeffries’ opposition between ice people and sun people.

Remember, this is what Obama, as the head of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, was approving to be taught in public schools — and was shunting millions of dollars to people who were teaching this and endorsing it to children.

Now Matthew, do you believe that white people are inherently evil because they have different levels of melanin in their skin? Obama does, and Obama supports this being taught to schoolchildren with our tax dollars. Do you consider that action to be “patriotic”?

Wrong. The USA was established, quite intentionally, as a representative Republic.