Basic civics- I think Sarah was probably out doing booze, crystal & crack with her buddies behind the high school during class time. Where else would her ckids learn to do drugs so well?

You’ll also notice that Buckley said the first one hundred people in the BOSTON phone book- I doubt he would have made been so trusting of the first 100 people in the WASILLA Alaska phone book, especially since the 50 of them probably can’t read to begin with!

Think about it!

Intellectualism, politically, is spectrum-neutral; it’s neither right nor left and both sides have their intellectuals. Liberty from government is implied to be reactionary (actually, there is some truth to that — especially given our current federal one-party rule) and reactionaries are considered anti-intellectual. The left rule(s) our academic institutions, but they do not in fact define intellect.

William F. Buckley was an intellectual to his fingertips by anyone’s definition and he hated the elitist attitude of leftist academics who sneer at people like Palin — successful in a realm they think is exclusively theirs. (“I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.“)

I guess I’m a bigot in assuming that my (conservative) GLBT brothers & sisters would prize intelligence and intellectual curiosity as a virtue.

I mean, where’s the intelligence and intellectual curiosity in vommitting the same, tired, disproven liberal lies?

What a fuckin’ tool.

Does your mother know you’re a mindless Kool-Aid drinking lemming?

Then again, you may be that brainwashed.

So here you are praising Sarah Palin for being being a “road-kill scholar.” Obama, like RINO Lincoln, JFK, FDR & other great presidents is actually reflective, well read and erudite. WHAT A CRIME AGAINST AMERICA!

Yeah, this country would be so much better off if we had leaders like Joe the Plumber, Sarah the party-girl, and W. the Affirmative-Action Cheerleader (what else is a college legacy, really, but a quota system based on parentage?). Yeah, I’m a conservative, so I’ll trust Joe & his buddies to get us out of the mess we’re in!

About Sarah? Yes, she’s a populist- from a state that prides itself on it’s intellectual ignorance and intestinal fortitude. A shining paradigm of the rough talking, fast shooting territory of Alaska, whose entire population is less than 27 of the country’s largest cities.

A woman who complained about the big-time government spenders, but who took $7 million in pork to build a hockey rink in her town; who wants $40 billion federal dollars to build a gas pipeline that won’t be repaid, but will pay royalties to Alaska. And then there’s that bridge- she may have opposed it after the moose s**t hit the snow machine, but she still spent the money on Alaskan pork!!!

Taking on the oil companies- Yeah, she’s a real free market advocate. She sued them to get more royalties (taxes) for the State, not out of any environmental concerns.

She is a member of a religion that advocated publically advocates that LGBT’s are intrinsically evil, not entitled to ANY protection under the law- Employment, Housing or GOD FORBID (Literally) even the same rights as heterosexual couples (I’m not talking about marriage here! Just basic rights- hospital visitation, estate law, etc._

Her daughter is exhibit A for her support of Abstinence-only education.

Her two oldest kids are poster children for underage drinking and drug use.

Her “future” in-law has been arrested as a crystal-meth dealer (great for the Circuit- The Sno-Ball in Nome!),

Her husband was a member of a group that advocated violent, and then non-violent, secession from the U.S.- Yeah a real patriot!.

And, oh yes, she has great foreign-policy experience because Alaska is geographically “close” to Russia. Hey, I live in Florida- I must be an “expert” in Caribbean and Mexican diplomacy- They’re just across the Gulf from where I live. And I’ll be a first responder when Castro attacks the U.S.!

Gay Conservatives? Talk about oxy-morons. Roy Cohn was a Gay Conservative, and he served Joe McCarthy really well

Fiscal Conservatives? No problem- except that the largest economic messes we’ve seen since the turn of the 19th century were all created under “free market” policies of fiscal conservatives who simply borrowed and spent, without any responsibility to future generations. Maybe they were all Gay & figured they wouldn’t have children to carry all the debt they caused by trickle-down economics.

Reagan always did seem a little limp-wristed to me. And we all know: it’s in the genes!

As far as Obama is concerned, I think he was running for VP and everyone expected Hillary to win the nomination. He was a little like John Kennedy in 1956 when Stevenson, to add some excitement to a dull convention, threw open the VP nomination. Kennedy quickly organized a campaign although he lost to Kefauver. That effort gave him the momentum to win in 1960.

What happened instead is that Hillary stumbled as she had no plan after Super Tuesday. It was her weakness, rather than his own talents, that pushed Obama into the nomination. He was not ready. Now, after winning over a weak candidate in a disastrous financial meltdown that should have doomed McCain to a blowout, Obama has to learn how to govern. So far, he is not doing well. Geithner looks to be a disaster. Burris is giving us a course on where Obama came from. There is still time but the president’s start is the worst since Harrison died a month into his term.

She needs some seasoning, needs to gain some gravitas, build inroads to the GOP leadership in each state, earn her political stripes on the natl stage and allow the GOP to put forward a strong fiscal conservative in the next election to balance Obama & Congressional Democrat excesses.

When RR ran in 1976, his time was premature. He took that defeat and went to work building inroads to state GOP leaders, amassing contributors, gaining gravitas, etc. If Gov Palin follows RR’s track record, she’ll be ready and primed by 2016 or 2020.

As I said in an earlier thread, he’s our first-ever affirmative-action president.

Prove me wrong.

Regards,
Peter H.

Dr. Dean Edell, who hosts a call-in medical advice show on radio, regularly roasted President Bush–for his foolish war, for failing to fund embryonic stem-cell research, heck, for being religious. He still speaks scathingly of Bush, but has added attacks on Palin. His last attack, a couple of weeks ago, began as a diatribe against Palin because of her daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy (okay, arguably “medical”), then went on to denounce Palin because she might have had some role in her daughter’s fiance’s getting a job for which he was not technically qualified–not that she DID influence his hiring but that Dr. Edell WONDERED if maybe she had. Dr. Dean Edell, medical doctor and wannabe political pundit.

I love Sarah Palin. I can’t imagine her proclaiming, as Obama has, that without Porkulus, we would likely sink further into the abyss and perhaps never emerge. But I believe conservatives’ affection for her only impresses on the Left the necessity of continuing their attacks on her.

Still, the Left never quit denigrating Ronald Reagan, and somehow he became a very effect president. Maybe….

So you’re basically admitting that we don’t need the current con-artist-in-chief. Thanks for clarifying.

But play the video for them of Obama calling for breathalyzers for asthma patients, saying he had visited 57 states with three to go, commenting on all the fallen soldiers in his audience, the 10,000 people killed in a Kansas tornado, decrying that we haven’t sent Arab translators to Afghanistan where the people don’t speak Arab, etc, etc, etc… and their eyes glaze over, their fingers go in their ears and they simply refuse to acknowledge the video even exits.

And yet for all his supposed brilliance, he has been so thoroughly incompetent in his first month that whoever is really in charge has kicked him out of the White House and made him go back out on the campaign trail cus its the only thing he has ever actually done.

my comment wasn’t meant as an attack on palin, so i encourage you to read it in the spirit in which it was written. your argument is that she just needs more time in the bottle in order to be a viable candidate; my argument is that familiarity with the issues may not be sufficient. she needs to repair her damaged brand and convince the majority of voters the she has the aptitude to be a leader on the national stage. even you seem to concede that some rehabilitation is necessary, or why else would you emphasize her improved performance in later interviews? her rehabilitation efforts were clearly not enough to change the outcome of the election, so what does she need to do going forward? do you really think that all she needs to do is read up more? like i said, i’m skeptic and i think it will take a lot more.

palin was a polarizing figure. the gop base loved her and will continue to love her in the future, but in order to be a viable candidate, she will need to broaden her appeal. i think that will present her with an uphill climb. during the campaign, she had the highest polling negatives of any candidate (pres or VP). and her political opponents aren’t going to let the public forget about her disastrous interviews with katie couric and charlie gibson.

i’m skeptical. i don’t think the american public is that forgiving, and if recent history is a guideline, there’s no precedent for losing VP candidates going on to become viable national candidates (edwards, lieberman, kemp, quayle, ferrarro…).

[Chad, Chad, please study American history. There is a precedent for a losing VP candidate to become a viable national candidate. Just familiarize yourself with the presidential campaign of James M. Cox in 1920 and inquire into the name of his running mate (which should be familiar to you). Cox ran 26 points behind Warren G. Harding that year.

Oh, and, once time passes and Palin continues to do as well in interviews as she did in the second half of the campaign, those, like you, who keep reminding the public of her "disastrous interviews" (as you put it) with Gibson and Couric, will look like you're dwelling the past. I wrote this post because I believe Mrs. Palin should wait about as long as did Mr. Cox's running mate before she announces her own bid for the White House, at a time when Katie Couric will be as much a part of the political landscape as Dan Rather is today. --Dan]

Yup, she did change her mind, but so do a lot of people.

But, I’m glad to know now that you think the president is a liar. If it’s a lie to change one’s mind on an issue, then Barack Obama has committed a number of whoppers, most notably on declining federal funding of his presidential campaign so he would have no spending limits.

I could go on. From now on, if ever you defend the president in a comment, I may just remind you that, by your standards, Barack Obama is a liar.

Oh, and, do you Palin-haters ever consider her accomplishments as governors or just focus on her “foibles” on the campaign trail (as one critic might put it) and the accusations (nearly all debunked) trotted out by left-wing bloggers.