-
The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal
June 18, 2013 | 102 comments
-
The IRS Ten: The New Keating Five
June 13, 2013 | 54 comments
-
Mark Levin: The Constitution’s Churchill
June 11, 2013 | 215 comments
-
George Clooney’s Perfect Storm
June 6, 2013 | 91 comments
-
IRS Commissioner Aided Tax Cheat Congressman
June 4, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
Is Sarah Palin Too Dumb to Be President?
Elites play game used on presidents from Washington to Bush.
The 2012 Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting is not very bright.
In fact, dumb as a post is a more accurate if blunt assessment..
Does this describe Sarah Palin? Yes — if you choose to listen to the Inside-the-Beltway elites. But just in case she doesn’t run for or win the nomination, don’t worry. Whoever the GOP nominates will quickly assume this “too dumb to be president” role — bestowed by many of the same people.
Why?
Because this “too dumb to be president” argument is precisely the same-old, same-old argument from liberal elites about Republican presidents or prospective presidents for decades. The argument is particularly relished when it comes to describing conservatives like the former Alaska governor. But even GOP moderates can never escape this tag once they morph from unannounced candidate (and therefore not a political threat to liberalism) to actual frontrunner, nominee or, God forbid, the actual president.
Barry Goldwater, the first modern conservative to win a GOP presidential nomination in 1964, would have been lucky to be tagged as being merely too dumb to be president. He was also said to be, according to Time magazine, “psychologically unfit to be president,” “emotionally unstable,” “immature,” “cowardly,” “grossly psychotic,” “paranoid,” a “mass murderer,” “amoral and immoral,” a “chronic schizophrenic” and “dangerous lunatic.” One psychiatrist breezily announced Goldwater had a “strong identification with the authoritarianism of Hitler, if not identification with Hitler himself.”
Reagan, also pegged as a war-monger, was called an “extremist” at the beginning of his political career and an “amiable dunce” just after his election to the presidency. They were a mere blip in the cascade of insults about his intelligence hurled in Reagan’s direction over almost a quarter century as a serious American politician. This particular man who was “too dumb to be president” won the Cold War without, as Margaret Thatcher said, firing a shot. Not to mention launching the American economy on a path to creating some 50 million jobs over the next three decades.
But I digress.
Perhaps the most instructive case of “too dumb to be president” is that of Gerald Ford. Elected to Congress in 1948, a man with a ready smile and outgoing personality, Ford had won rave reviews from the liberal press when he challenged the House Republican Old Guard following Goldwater’s defeat, becoming Minority Leader. All the way through his House career, and on into his surprise accession-by-appointment to the vice presidency following the resignation of liberal bête noire Spiro Agnew, the moderate Republican Ford was pictured as good-ole smiling Jerry, the steady, smart House leader who had not an enemy in the world. He played golf with his old pal House Democratic leader Tip O’Neill. Just a nice, smart, swell guy, said the press.
Then a funny thing happened to good old Jerry Ford. In the wake of Watergate he became president with Nixon’s resignation. Within a month he pardoned his predecessor, believing (correctly) that until the nation had rid itself of the Watergate/Nixon obsession he, Ford, would have an impossible time getting things done as president. Nothing dumb there. Ford had no sooner announced the pardon and disappeared from the television air waves than the re-positioning of Ford by the liberal media had begun. The man who had graduated from Yale Law School and been the epitome of openness and hard work was, in the blink of an eye, dumb as a post and a conniving liar to boot. Up from the mists came a Lyndon Johnson quote saying that Ford the college grid star had played too much football without a helmet. An on-camera tumble on the slippery steps leading down from the door of Air Force One led to the depiction of the most athletic president since Teddy Roosevelt as a bumbling fool. On a new program called Saturday Night Live, an unknown writer/actor named Chevy Chase rocketed to fame portraying Ford as dumbly prone to hilarious stumbles and dramatic falls over all manner of furniture. Chase anticipated the Tina Fey as empty-headed Sarah Palin routine by decades.
Then there’s the Romney saga.
That would be George Romney, not Mitt, George’s son.
George Romney was a liberal Republican, a spectacularly successful business executive as the chairman of American Motors. On the strength of his dazzling business career he was elected Governor of Michigan, where he became a popular political figure with both voters and the national press.
Then a funny thing happened to George Romney. In 1967 he began running for the 1968 GOP presidential nomination. The polls showed he was the man-to-beat for the nomination, the one man in the Republican Party who could take on and beat LBJ, the same LBJ who beat Goldwater in 1964 by a landslide. Then, returning from a fact-finding trip to Vietnam, Romney incautiously allowed as to how he had been “brain-washed” by the Johnson administration on Vietnam. And…. bam.
Within a media cycle the brilliant business executive and innovative Governor of Michigan had become — you guessed it — an idiot too dumb to be president. The dumb-as-a-post tag hung around his neck by a media concerned that old George was making just a little bit too much progress and that Tricky Dick, as they called Richard Nixon, would be easier to beat. Romney was finished. His last stint in government was not the White House but the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in Nixon days the equivalent of political Siberia.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (473) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/30/is-sarah-palin-too-dumb-to-be
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
MoeBlotz| 11.30.10 @ 6:32AM
From what Mrs.Palin has shown the country,I believe she does not pay attention to the slings and arrows. Instead the lady throws the barbs back from whence they came as the beltway pundits misunderestimate her fortitude.
Mike Rogers| 11.30.10 @ 6:43AM
Bang on! That old Bish-ism "misunderestimated, which is one of my favorites, right up with "strategery" :)
I predict that "Miss Underestimated" will continue to confound her critics, all the way to the White House, even if not this cycle.
I personally believe she's still building her street cred and her base at this point - could be wrong, though, and wouldn't mind a bit if she made it in 2012!
Let me take a phrase from Van Jones, and throw it back "Top down, Bottom up, and Inside out" - what Jones means is a pincer movement by government and agitators on the middle class, fomenting socialist revolution. What I'd like to see is a president like Palin, a vibrant TEA party at the grass roots, and the beltway elites squeezed inside out as we reclaim our government from "The Ruling Class"!
Mike Rogers| 11.30.10 @ 6:47AM
Memo to self: Don't type in low lighting or you'll be seen as a dumb hick - of course, what my keyboard meant to type was 'That old Bush-ism "misunderestimated" '.
Roger Roger| 11.30.10 @ 9:39AM
What about Ms. Demeanor?
Tomas| 11.30.10 @ 4:23PM
Clinton's response to any criticism was to immediately get in front of the media and - not only refute the barb - but treat it as a joke.
Palin seems to have an instinctive understanding of this technique. I hope she continues to use it, and not succumb to the advice of political handlers to behave in a more "dignified" manner.
-
Mike Rogers| 11.30.10 @ 9:46PM
Ah, Ms Demeanor - those are perpetrated by the Lamestream media ;)
COPS| 12.1.10 @ 12:37PM
"Miss" (not Ms) Demeanor had very similar Palinesque looks. Hope this is not the "authority" people want to see in the White House...
Wordmonger| 11.30.10 @ 7:29PM
Strategery is straight from the Institute for Conservative Studies,perfessor Rush Limbaugh presiding..
maudie n mandeville| 11.30.10 @ 9:12PM
Bang on!
John DerK| 12.9.10 @ 8:53PM
To those who might not understand (aka Congress and Senate); prosperity comes when a nation can clearly forsee and plan for their future. Chaos comes when when their government "shoots from the hip" and overspends (borrowing from Peter to pay Paul), surprising citizens with "CHANGE."
The American Dream is dying because Washington "plots" behind closed doors on the many ways to enact laws to take more taxes thereby forcing citizens to "circle the wagons" and await order to the chaos.
Where do you think America stands? Order or chaos? Who's in charge of all this "CHANGE"?
dkrivette| 11.30.10 @ 10:10AM
Thank you-every President in my life time, beginng with Ika-has been called "dumb" by the press-except Nixon-you can't be the Great Evil One and dumb too-but go down the list-when have we every had a GOP Pres that they thought could walk, talk and make phone calls at the same time.
JF| 12.1.10 @ 4:31PM
Actually, the lamestream press and libs in general did describe G W Bush as both "dumb" and evil. I believe that during the 2008 runoffs, Hillary Clinton claimed that the stupidest man ever to hold office fooled her with regard to those pesky weapons of mass destruction. Internally, I had to ask if someone is that dumb and could fool you, what does that make YOU?
James| 12.5.10 @ 9:37AM
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — [pauses] — shame on you. Fool me — [pauses] — You can't get fooled again.
DICK CONNORS| 11.30.10 @ 2:54PM
I wish ms Palin well - really. I hope,however, that she will help to get another deserving person elected as POTUS and be selected for a really good and demanding place in the administration. Get some high level seasoning and demonstrate her fortitude and abilities.
Pliny Merrick | 11.30.10 @ 3:20PM
You "well wishers" of Sarah Palin can take your pseudo-goodwill and jam it 'til it hurts. Palin will be our next President, and I truly hope it makes you puke every day for 4 years. Deal with it. 8^D
Tomas| 11.30.10 @ 4:30PM
When McCain chose Palin as his 2008 running mate, I jumped in the air yelling - to the chagrin of my liberal office-mates - "McCain just won the election!"
Don't get too confident in what you see as a fait accompli. As this article shows, there are many lies and efforts of personal destruction for Sarah to overcome.
-
Pliny Merrick | 11.30.10 @ 4:45PM
When I see someone like the "Dick" here saying that Sarah has to "Get some high level seasoning and demonstrate her fortitude and abilities..." I wonder how anyone could be so ignorant. Palin accomplished more in half a term as Governor than any other Chief Executive in America's history, during which time she also had a baby and ran for V.P. She is an unequaled one-woman dynamo of staggering executive accomplishment, and that this imbecile blithely states that he is unaware of her qualifications proves only that he's numb from the neck up, and basically a waste of other peoples' oxygen. McCain is why Sarah didn't win in '08. He won't be in 2012.
KBB| 12.19.10 @ 1:32AM
Pliny Merrick - You are absolutely right on!
MikeD| 11.30.10 @ 10:02PM
McCain's biggest problem was the same as the rest of us: Nobody really believed that Barny (Suck what?) Frank and Chris (Super thief) Dodd would conspire with obama (I still can't bring myself to capitalize it.) to bring down our entire economy to win the 2008 election. They did. It should tell the Republicans; and the rest of us, that Democrats will stoop to ANY depths to gain power. They are no longer a political party, they are a terror group that needs to be wiped out, peacefully, if possible. Don't even think of 'playing nice' with them. they are evil and hateful.
canuckistani| 12.1.10 @ 6:16PM
MikeD If you believe what you wrote, then you will believe anything.
I pity you.
MattZ| 12.1.10 @ 7:53PM
Agreed. That's a comment from someone who's too far gone.
MZ
idalily| 12.1.10 @ 11:57PM
After a decade now of non-stop, vicious, brutal attacks by Democrats on any conservative or moderate Republican who dared to present a view that opposes theirs, I would say Mike's point has some validity. This hate has been spewed by Dems; they can reap the whirlwind.
Barbara| 12.4.10 @ 2:50PM
McCain has done one good thing as senator he brought Sarah Palin to the fore front of public recognition.
McCain like Dole got the presidential nomination because he was the grand old man of the party and wanted to be president. So they gave him the nomination. Not because he was the best person for the job.
Sarah Palin as president OH YES!
KBB| 12.19.10 @ 1:39AM
Yes, on the one hand, I'm very thankful for McCain bringing Sarah out to us, so to speak. But on the other hand, I'm sorry that her national "debut" was linked to and wasted on such a miserable, inept, unenthused, lethargic Prez candidate as was McCain.
maudie n mandeville| 11.30.10 @ 9:14PM
8 years
Gina007| 12.2.10 @ 1:55PM
God forbid Ms. "winky, winky" will become the President of the United States. If it happens, I will move to Mexico and face the drug cartels :)
John DerK| 12.9.10 @ 7:19PM
Gina007...
I'll give you a bus if you will promise to load all your friends who share your opinion to go with you... We've seen liberalism and progressivism and America will take a PASS on it...
togolf1| 12.10.10 @ 12:28PM
I will provide your bus fare
KBB| 12.19.10 @ 1:40AM
Buh-Bye....
chas | 12.7.10 @ 3:20PM
GOD>>>> BLESS YOU!!!!!!...
Boomerbabe| 11.30.10 @ 4:45PM
Excuse me, what "seasoning" was it that President Obama had? 2 years as the Junior Senator from Illinois? I'll take 2 years as Governor over 2 years as Junior Senator, and raise you a common sense, well-versed American patriot - Go Sarah!
Nate W| 11.30.10 @ 6:26PM
Google this article: "Sarah Palin Would Win the Google Vote". I think we're talking about someone who has far more momentum at this stage of the pres-game than anyone else in recent history.
Go Sarah!
Tom McNichol| 11.30.10 @ 5:47PM
Dick, you are playing the same game. The "Get some high level seasoning..." was a dead give away. Sara has more than enough "seasoning" my friend.
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 6:05PM
Palin is not dumb--
she is intellectually dishonest. But she is pretty, and being pretty and dishonest will get you far in politics.
maudie n mandeville| 11.30.10 @ 9:18PM
Please to explain; I understand pretty.
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 9:43PM
Palin is smart; pretty, intellectually dishonest
(i.e. she pretended to think Rahm Emanuel was dissing her youngest child by using the plural noun "retards"[ in reference to healthcare leftists!])
She is too dodgy for her own good.
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 9:45PM
"Please to explain; I understand pretty."
If you are French, you know how pretty and dishonest can help a politician get elected.
JF| 12.1.10 @ 4:37PM
"Pretended to think Rahm Emanuel was dissing her youngest child" - isn't this one of the time-honored tactics of the Left? One of the reasons that people like yourself despise Palin is that she is just as skilled at using Alinsky tactics as your side is, AND she also knows a few things about governance, basic economics and human nature. And yes, she is pretty. Deal with it.
MikeD| 11.30.10 @ 10:04PM
Mr. Brooks, too bad you're not pretty; you've got 'dumb' pretty well sewed up. We tire of your antics. Get a life...or maybe a job.
Christopher Holland| 11.30.10 @ 10:25PM
What is intellectual dishonesty? It sounds like intellectual BS to me - like most of what you write. Either you are honest or you are not - intellect has nothing to do with truth. I never heard Palin say anything that I thought was a fraud, or stupid for that matter. The reason the media goes feral on her is because she says what she thinks and they never have the guts to do that themselves.
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 11:21PM
"Either you are honest or you are not - intellect has nothing to do with truth. I never heard Palin say anything that I thought was a fraud, or stupid for that matter."
Palin is not a bankrobber, mo. But, as Chomsky, she is an intellectual crook. She wants power, and she will be denied that power- which is not a promise, it is a guarantee.
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 11:33PM
If Palin wants influence, she has it.
But if she wants power, then I hope she is absolutely destroyed as a political factor; if she wants power, I hope she is brought crashing down as many have been brought down in the past.
MattZ| 12.1.10 @ 7:55PM
Hear hear. There's not enough lipstick in the world for this pig.
MZ
Margie| 12.1.10 @ 9:26PM
I agree, I don't think lipstick would make you look any better.. no matter how good you put it on!
Alaskan Resident| 12.2.10 @ 2:12PM
No, if she wanted power so badly, then she would've announced it by NOW. I should know, she is my neighbor & former Governor. I have a much better idea of who she is than most people commenting on this blog. She isn't a power monger, she only has a big heart to serve others, and if she can do so, then so be it, but, I really don't think she is going to run in 2012. Since it appears that there might be other good quality candidates, I'd be surprised if she decided to go for it. Not only that, but, power or not, a leader is the greatest servant of all, and it takes tremendous sacrifices, both personally and professionally for anyone who steps forward. Sarah has made those sacrifices, and taken huge hits from people, including stepping down from the power of the Governor's office so Alaskan's state office departments weren't bogged down with taxes used & ineffective time invested over the frivolous unfounded complaints & lawsuits against her. It is well known in Alaska that one woman, Andree McLeod (Democrat), did most of the official complaints on purpose just to throw Sarah off. McLeod was reported in Alaska news and was almost thrown out of a legal meeting due to her unhealthy horrific behavior. She attacked Sarah with more than 15 frivolous legal complaints, all of which were unfounded. Like for example, when Sarah was wearing an Arctic Cat winter jacket to Todd's snowmobile race, this woman complained that Sarah was using the jacket on Governor time to promote Arctic Cat - ROFL!! The problem with this is that Sarah was on personal family time, and the McLeod was just maliciously and intentionally using up our state resources over stupid stuff that obviously had no merit to begin with. Our Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell, was astounded by Sarah's wonderful high level of integrity and good character when she demonstrated the willingness to put Alaskans well being before her own by stepping down from power. Parnell praised her for the tremendous character she showed and the sacrifice she made in stepping down. Sarah has integrity, a high level of character, sharp as a tack intelligence, funny, full of good surprises, personable, down-to-earth, easy to talk with, and the willingness to sacrifice in order to put others before herself. I know, because I've had the opportunity to test this out for myself first hand, during my one-on-one experiences with her.
Mark Murphy| 11.30.10 @ 10:35PM
Palin dumb? Lincoln was a bumpkin, a railsplitter. The first Republican president. Eisenhower had a special talent for being incoherent and used it to his advantage. I could go on, but why?
I'm a Republican, I guess I'm dumb, too, and proud of it.
Christopher Holland| 11.30.10 @ 11:11PM
The lawyers who appeared in court opposite Lincoln never said he was a dumb - they thought he was a very sharp, capable attorney and it was a big mistake to underestimate him. The Mississippi bridge case that he won for the Rock Island Railroad was a big win in anybody's book, and the case where he got a friend acquitted of murder was pure genius. The qualities that Lincoln had as President were all there before he was elected.
Chuck| 12.1.10 @ 9:41PM
Amen with that I believe she is the only one right now that has the Guts to stand up for this country. This current adminstration and there leader obama have no clue what a leader is. Go Sarah
Unwissenheit| 12.3.10 @ 11:00AM
for those who know their Goethe, it is not her ignorance, it is her "militant ignorance" we should be afraid of...
wellsaid| 12.3.10 @ 1:20PM
Sarah Palin, is too stupid to be President is an under statment. Sarah Palin is so stupid she should not be allowed to speak in public, Sarah Palin is so foolish she is a threat to public safety.
Sarah Palin was a born idiot.
Appleby| 11.30.10 @ 6:35AM
I remember being taught that *You are stupid* is not an argument. (Of course, that was before Eff Yew became an argument.) I also remember being taught that any sentence beginning with the words *Everybody knows...* is false.
Lessons| 11.30.10 @ 8:34AM
Someone taught you wrong, dude.
"You are stupid" is a pretty good argument for not electing someone president of the most powerful country in the world.
So are others, like: "You quit the last job you got elected for..." "Everybody knows you are out of your league...," etc.
NavyBrat | 11.30.10 @ 9:04AM
"Stupid" is in the eye of the beholder. Obama is "stupid" for all the non-success he's had. Especially considering that he & his Obamatons keep telling us how wonderful everything is when those of us with two eyes, two ears & a lick of common sense know otherwise.
Mr. Lord is correct using the Ike example. Now, Palin isn't Ike. Not close. But the fact remains that Ike was portrayed as a doddard when he was far from it. Not only was he the man who saved Europe, but he also graduated from West Point. Gimme an Annapolis or West Point man over some supposedly "superior" guy from the Ivy League.
All you are is just another useful idiot who's far too enamoured with your own supposed intelligence to recognize that "pedigree" doesn't always equal brains. Just as money is no substitute for class.
Yikes!| 11.30.10 @ 10:59AM
Jimmy Carter was an Annapolis grad. Did that make him a good pres? U.S. Grant was a West Point grad.
NavyBrat | 11.30.10 @ 12:14PM
I forgot about Jimmuh. I stand corrected. And although Grant was a lush, what was so bad about him?
Michael L. Hauschild| 11.30.10 @ 6:31PM
Lincoln, in response to criticism of Grant's drinking of whiskey said, "Send a case of whatever he is drinking to all my other Generals."
MikeD| 11.30.10 @ 10:07PM
Sorry gang; your history is wrong. Grant drank only when he was stuck out in the wilds of California without his wife and family; and he drank to the extent that the other lonely officers did. After that, there is no evidence that he even drank 'socially' after the Civil War. Look it up.
Christopher Holland| 11.30.10 @ 10:33PM
Actually, this is one of the most common misconceptions around - Grant was not a boozer, he didn't drink. The same slander was used against General 'Hap' Arnold when he was appointed chief of the Army Air Forces. Arnold had been a teetotaller for years, but there was a whispering campaign that he had been drunk on duty in Hawaii (where he had never served!). Fortunately, President Roosevelt ignored it and appointed Arnold, who went on to make a critical contribution to winning WW2.
Derek Leaberry| 11.30.10 @ 12:26PM
Exactly. Carter was a highly intelligent fool. If intelligence was the only bar, why not have Robert Reich, Kris Kristofferson, Bill Gates or Bill "Dollar Brain" Bradley as president?
Christopher Holland| 11.30.10 @ 10:52PM
Intelligence is not the same as leadership. Liberals often mistake the first for the second, when it has little to do with it. There is a moral dimension to leadership, it involves courage, integrity and selflessness. Ronald Reagan had that; Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Obama do not. Ronald Reagan was a leader, the others were politicians who got elected.
unseen| 11.30.10 @ 2:16PM
grant defeated the south and won the civil war. Not bad for being "dumb"
REB| 11.30.10 @ 6:42PM
Grant got lucky,he was in the right place at the right time.
Quartermaster| 11.30.10 @ 7:25PM
Not to mention that he was willing to pile bodies to suffocate the Army of Northern Virginia. The man wasn't a General, he was a butcher. And that suited Lincoln to a "T."
Christopher Holland| 11.30.10 @ 10:44PM
The Vicksburg campaign was a model of manoeuver warfare that is still relevant today. Butchery did not come into it. Only an outstanding commander could have done that. Grant deserves a lot more respect than to be dismissed so lightly. Sure, Cold Harbor and The Crater were not great moments on his resume, but he pulled off important victories when they were needed, and that counts for a lot when the country is at war. If the likes of Grant and Sherman were around today, doing to the Taliban what they did to Atlanta, the country would be feeling a lot safer.
T H Huxley| 12.1.10 @ 10:29PM
Ike was tasked with creating war plans that defeated the Germans and Japanese in World War II. He documented evidence of Nazi atrocities for the Nuremberg Trials. He was made president of Columbia University, an Ivy League school. Yes, an elitist Ivy League School. He was the driving force for creating the modern interstate highway system. Sarah Palin couldn't even complete a governorship in Alaska. Who called Ike a doddard? I never read that in any of my history books.
Len Johnson| 12.2.10 @ 7:28PM
Obama is not stupid. Many err in judging his performance against the standard of patriotic, America First behavior we normally expect to be displayed by our president. Obama is pursuing a wholly contrary dream, that of fundamentally transforming the U.S.A., and succeeding to an astounding degree, by dint of Exec. Orders and the machinations of his parallel shadow government, by-passing the constitutionally prescribed Exec. Branch cabinet secretaries and the prescribed congressional oversight. Intelligence in the service of a diabolical purpose comes to mind.
FormerDem| 11.30.10 @ 9:08AM
Like wow man! Cool! Whenever I hear/see someone use the term "dude" I picture Cheech or Chong. I have to assume this is the category you fit into. , living in the drug induced stupor of the 60's or 70's. Whatever turns you on! Remember when the left made a point of knocking Bushs' grades . . . then shut up when records showed John Kerry had lower grades. This is the kind of childishness exhibited by the left all the time.I would be willing to bet Sarah Palin has a lot more going for her in the brains department than you do "dude". As to your statement about electing someone stupid to the presidency . . .I agree with you. Look no further than the current occupant of the White House to see the results of doing just that. Try to update your vocabulary. Have a nice day!
The Dude| 11.30.10 @ 9:22AM
But "The Dude Abides," no?
Yep, you are right. That "dude" has probably gone to far fewer colleges than she has (even if he had managed to earn more degrees than her...)
more colleges=more brains!
But what about not electing someone who quit their last elected job?
Or, is it like the colleges, the more you quit, the better?
JoshINHB| 11.30.10 @ 9:28AM
It's much better to spend 2 years not doing the job you're paid for while running for a higher office.
Oh and then quitting early.
Stephanie| 11.30.10 @ 1:08PM
Didn't Mrs. Billy Clinton do the same thing after PROMISING to serve the citizens of New York if "you'll just elected me to represent you?"
Sarah may not have gone to Haaavaaad, but she has more "regular folk common sense" than those entitlement elites in our White House.
Run Sarah. Please run.
Skeemudge| 11.30.10 @ 3:51PM
If I recall, someone didn't finish out his senatorial term before he became POTUS recently.
TGC| 11.30.10 @ 4:25PM
Tell me again how many "present" votes obama cast in the Senate. He didn't have to quit the Senate, he never started! Palin had more real experience than ANYONE running in that 2008 presidential election. And after 2 years of obama, that fact is painfully obvious to everyone, it's just that some on the left refuse to admit it...at least openly.
JF| 12.1.10 @ 4:42PM
And his accomplishments as a state senator leave much to be desired. Ditto for his achievements as a "community organizer." Ever visited the area around 95th and State in Chicago? It is the sum total of Obama's resume.
Quartermaster| 11.30.10 @ 7:31PM
You have to consider the motive behind her resignation.
She was being hounded by leftist morons who were abusing the ethics system to harass her. The State of Alaska does not pay your expenses in that system either, you are on your own. It was a serious distraction from her duties as Governor, and she did the right thing by Alaska, and her family, by resigning.
Of course the left and Republican establishment (basically the same thing) are dissing her for it, but then all they want is power so they run the country into the ground. They are simple minded nihilists.
VC| 12.2.10 @ 1:53PM
I don't think this red herring is going to work this time, for the patriotic hounds will find the real trail in spite of you.
Claypoole| 11.30.10 @ 10:54AM
Speaking of grades: correct me if I'm wrong, but we have not been permitted to see any of Obama's grades, from either Columbia or Harvard Law. Why is that?
A. C. Santore| 11.30.10 @ 2:08PM
I thought it was so we could not see the courses he took.
TGC| 11.30.10 @ 4:29PM
And unless I'm wrong, I don't think we have ever seen anything he WROTE while in college, or for that matter, we have never found anyone that actually even remembers him in school. If I'm wrong, feel free to point me to any interviews with old classmates from Harvard, or to any papers he wrote while there. His claim to be "brilliant" holds about as much water as his claim to have "saved" jobs. But, if you are dumb enought to vote for him, you are dumb enough to believe his claims.
MMP| 12.2.10 @ 1:30PM
Actually, I remembered reading a very interesting article by a Dr. who is a former marxist who talks about meeting him at Occidental College. It's a very eye-opening article - one that perhaps the MSM could have told us about if they hadn't been in the tank for Obama. Here's a snippet:
“The second time I went out to California to attend Mohammad Hassan Chandoo’s graduation from Occidental College, Obama was enjoying the lavish lifestyle being financed by his friend and roommate at the time - Hassan Chandoo. The wealthy patron provided Obama access to big houses, lavish parties & had him dressed in the slickest clothes. I could have sworn they were both Gay & wealthy.”
Those were some of the initial observations by Dr. John C. Drew, PhD, on his second encounter with Barack Obama who was attending Occidental College at the time.
http://www.allvoices.com/contr.....al-college
KBB| 12.19.10 @ 2:08AM
TGC, you are correct, we have never seen anything BO has ever written while in any college, including as the editor of the Harvard Law Review, which is really unusual and unheard of as the editor. Also, no one remembers him as a classmate. Early on, Fox News did a segment on him as a college student at Columbia. Over 400 people were interviewed who were in the same curriculum BO supposedly was in, who worked on campus, in the student cafeteria, etc. and not one person could recall ever seeing him or even knowing him.
KBB| 12.19.10 @ 2:04AM
No, that's not the reason we can't see them. Obama keeps his college records hidden, because they will likely show that he applied for education aide as a foreign student.
George True| 11.30.10 @ 9:13AM
Well, Mr Lessons, "You are stupid" was not considered a good argument for not electing the rather obvious intellectual lightweight Obama.
Double Standard.
"You quit your last job you were elected to" was never brought up when Obama effectively quit his job as U.S. senator three months into the gig in order to run for president.
Double Standard.
Everyone knows you are out of your league" was never brought up that Obama had not ever held a real job in the private sector in his unremarkable life, nor ever held an executive position, nor ever run anything before, not even so much as a Dairy Queen.
Double Standard.
Seems like YOU are the one who was taught wrong.....dood.
Dustoff| 11.30.10 @ 10:02AM
You are stupid" is a pretty good argument for not electing someone president of the most powerful country in the world.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++MMaybe, but as we talk now. One thing for sure, O-bummer has proven all is college classes didn't help him much.
Remember when Kerry was running for Prez and HOW smart the lib's said he was, then we saw his grades. OOPS.
Palin has done more gov work (for the people) then O-bummer has ever done and man how it shows.
MikeBee| 11.30.10 @ 9:58PM
Dustoff,
You're right! To me, Obama is yet another great argument for NOT sending my children to an ivy league college. The product coming out of these colleges is far too dense and closed-minded today. Instead of studying the great philosophical minds of the past, they study only the philosophies of Kant, Hegel, and Marx, basing their understanding of the world on such limited musings, and from such a limited period of time.
Engels| 11.30.10 @ 11:04PM
Hahaha..., you do realize the extreme irony of the "dense" and "close minded" classifications and your own statement, right?
BTW, out of curiosity, who are "the great philosophical minds of the past," which you find worthy of our ivy-league-deserving kids' attention, especially if your main criteria excludes people like Kant, Hegel and Marx and your role model is Sarah Palin.
Which thinkers and philosophers do you think have shaped Palin's own world views?
(Plz. no Disney characters)
MikeBee| 12.1.10 @ 10:03AM
Engels,
The irony is that we allow people to be world leaders whose entire body of thought is shaped by philosophers from a small, 160-year time period. Such limited focus at the Ivy league colleges has led to such things as the immediate acceptance of the premise that mankind is destroying the Earth with his contribution to global warming, or that man is causing it. Ivy league colleges should return to studying the works of such great philosophers as:
Western Ancient
Thales
Socrates
Plato
Aristotle
Plotinus
MikeBee| 12.1.10 @ 10:17AM
Engels (continued):
Augustine of Hippo
St. Anselm
Western Medieval Thought
Thomas Aquinas
Duns Scotus
William of Ockham
Macchiavelli
Western Reformation and beyond:
Rene Descartes
Thomas Hobbes
Edward Spinoza
Malebranche
Arnauld
John Locke
Leibniz
Berkeley
Hume
Kierkegaard
Schopenhauer
Nietsche
James
Russell
Wittgenstein
Heidegger
Sartre
This list only includes Western philosophers. There is also a rather large body of Eastern philosophical thought, which is largely ignored in the Western world. A truly open mind studies the contributions of all the world's great philosophers, and stands ready to both accept and refute ideas from each. Today's ivy league graduates can't begin to do this, only knowing a bit about Kant, Hegel, and Marx.
Kant, Hegel, and Marx should be studied, but only as contributors from the 18th and 19th centuries. Their contributions are small compared with the entire history of philosophical thought.
Where you come up with the idea that Palin is my role model is incomprehensible, like most of your ignorant musings. I have never stated the she is a role model, in any of my comments here at AmSpec. But, in assuming so, you display your own ignorance.
Friedrich| 12.1.10 @ 12:06PM
Sorry if I misunderstood.
Your comments above seem to advocate and promote Sarah Palin as a possible president (and remind us of Obama's middle name?) and the main topic/reasoning here seems to be intelligence, education, erudition... especially as it is exemplified by the closed-mindedness of Obama and Ivy-League schools. No?
That being said, if your extensive philosophy reading list is a requirement you can't meet at these Ivy League schools, you could always consider sending your kids to beauty pageant schools, North Idaho College and several other institutions (possibly in rapid succession)... where Sarah probably read "all of them"!
MikeBee| 12.1.10 @ 1:44PM
F.E.,
My comments (below, not above) in no way advocate and promote Palin as possible presidential material (while I like Sarah, I have never promoted her as POTUS). I simply state the obvious fact that she is more highly qualified than is B.H.O., as further spelled out by others on this page (something liberals like yourself seem to completely miss). ONE of the reasons that she is more highly qualified is BHO's ivy league college upbringing, which, in today's world, leads to a severe narrow-mindedness. As an example, I offer the narrow focus of ivy league colleges on the philosophical works of only three great Western philosophers, spanning the thought of a 160-year time period.
At the bottom of the college list for my children is the ivy league colleges. Not much free thought is promoted there; just narrow-minded propaganda is promoted. It's really a sad state of affairs at these colleges, which are supposed to be America's best institutions of higher learning.
Georg Wilhelm| 12.1.10 @ 4:32PM
Your subtle critique of the philosophy curriculum of Ivy league schools (factually justified or not) may have sounded like a credible and a relevant point of view, if it wasn't tied to some strange non-endorsement endorsement-like praise (more qualified, less narrow-minded?) of Sarah Palin (who hasn't read any of the philoisophers on your list and can't tell Plato from Pluto...) under an article about her inteligence and fitness to be president.
Not to mention the realy "subtle" references to"liberals like yourself" (I actually haven't expressed any political views) or Obama's middle name... which make you sound like the next dumb hick here (instead of a warrior for free thought and against narrow-mindedness and facile propaganda...)
MikeBee| 12.1.10 @ 4:59PM
G.W.F.E.,
My criticism of ivy league colleges was not subtle at all. It was quite explicit and open. It was also not a criticism of their philosophy curriculum; it was a criticism of the philosophical basis of most of their courses. I also was not subtle at all about calling you a liberal, or about using BHO's middle name. Both were quite explicit. However, I can see you still don't get it. I'll try to type more slowly.........
I have no endorsement of S.P. for president. The point about her is, even though many think she is ill qualified to be president, BHO is even LESS qualified. But liberals, including those who think S.P. is not qualified, voted for him for president. Get it???
You have no idea what S.P. has read. Again, you are full of assumptions -- about S.P.'s reading list, about what I think of her, etc., etc., etc. When you assume, you make an xSS out of yourself. Please continue, to the reading pleasure of the AmSpec crowd.
Immanuel Kant| 12.1.10 @ 6:42PM
Can we add Critique of Pure Reason to your list?
Actually, as we live in a democracy, it is the votes of the people that have already made Obama fully "qualified" for president... by some 30 states, 70 milion Americans, 365 electors... in 2008. So, he is already qualified, alright. He actually IS president.
How is Sarah Palin, in your twisted rational non-Ivy league philosophical worldview, already "more qualified" than him, 2 years before the next election and having only won one (a few thousand votes in Alaska?) election and actually abandoning what she was elected for there... is a fascinating mind twist, a sign and an exercise of a truly"gifted" mind?
Really? Why, because you don't assume she hasn't read Plato?
Why not just admit that you like her more, prefer her and "endorse her" honestly like the rest of the hicks here...
FarmerLeon| 12.1.10 @ 4:58PM
The Founders of our great nation studied those western thinkers, philosophers and the Judeo- Christian religeous underpinnings of western society and culture. Eastern thought and philosophy, which I've studied to some extent, does not include the individual as responsible for his own well-being. The attitude our founders brought to our guiding documents was extremely far-sighted and created the greatest, most prosperous, most generous and most effective country in a very short time, in human history. Anyone who subscribes to that ideology, with the moral character, fortitude and guts gets my vote. I believe Sarah Palin does.
Brian Mc| 11.30.10 @ 10:13AM
As a "dumb" voter, I sure do wish, (and I'm quite gratified), the mainstream media would point out to me who is the 'dumber' of the two choices. That way, I can vote for the 'smarter' and appear to be oh, so smart for having done so! The opportunity to vote in such a manner as this brings me great relief; I love to appear smart...since I'm so dumb.
Grzmlyk| 11.30.10 @ 12:06PM
Lessons, you are stupid.
Seems to me, that's a pretty good refutation of anything you could possibly say.
Furthermore, I think it's safe to say that everyone knows you couldn't spell "cat" if someone spotted you the "C" and the "T."
In fact, everyone knows you are too dumb to post on this site anymore.
So put down your crayon and get back on the short bus. You're drooling all over your bib.
Loreno| 12.1.10 @ 4:31PM
"So put down your crayon and get back on the short bus. You're drooling all over your bib."
Is this another liberal barb about Palin's child?
Dasboot| 11.30.10 @ 12:25PM
Agreed: so let's see your boy obama's SAT and LSAT scores. Oh, yeah that will never happen becasuse he is an affirmative action case.
MikeBee| 11.30.10 @ 1:25PM
Lessons,
Sounds like an appropriate description of Obama. "You are stupid" describes most of his big moves as President. "You quit the last job you got elected for" describes his senate seat, which he had to vacate in order to be President, and had to be quickly filled. "Everybody knows you are out of your league" describes general sentiment about Obama, this sentiment now spreading to members of his own party.....................
In fact, Sarah Palin is far more qualified to be POTUS than is Barack Hussein Obama. Those of us on the Right seriously question the intellectual capacity of those who voted for Obama as POTUS.
Penny| 11.30.10 @ 3:45PM
Your entire post fits Obama perfectly, even about quitting his senate seat to explore and prove the Peter Principle.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Now that's a 'lesson' we can all learn from - and have.
irish19| 11.30.10 @ 6:44PM
I always thought it was "Quid erat demonstratum."
However, my Latin is rusty. Please advise.
Penny| 11.30.10 @ 9:29PM
http://oxforddictionaries.com/.....onstrandum
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 11:35PM
"You are stupid" is a pretty good argument for not electing someone president of the most powerful country in the world.
So are others, like: "You quit the last job you got elected for..." "Everybody knows you are out of your league...,"
Finally, someone who is not snow-blinded by Palin's glamor. if she wants power, then let her drop into a bottomless pit.
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:06AM
Agreed. So you did not vote for Obama, then, right? Because with the above post, voting for Obama would make you a hypocrite.
Loadmaster| 11.30.10 @ 6:36AM
Jeff,
I would think that Obama has set the bar too low for any Rep (conservative) to be labeled too dumb. For ALL of his brilliants, he's acting dumber than a rock. As we say down south, he's got good book learning but he sure lacks common sense and this is the guy who is suppose to be the leader of the free world.
Sarah or whoever wins the GOP will be a breath of fresh air compared to Obama and his run a muck admin.
Question - did any of the potential GOP 2012 nominees speak out about the Wikileaks story yesterday? None but Sarah and she smacked down this incompetence admin. She is displaying a bigger set of "johnsons" than any of those hard tails who want to be POTUS.
Label her dumb but this lady from Wasilla will rock the establishment and by golly, we'll be right there with her....you betcha!!!
Lesser Weevil| 11.30.10 @ 3:22PM
He doesn't have good book learning either.
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 11:41PM
"So put down your crayon and get back on the short bus."
Grzmlyk, go give your Shakespearean lectures to a sychophantic audience. 1 farthing honorarium
Doctor_X| 11.30.10 @ 6:49AM
Palin is smarter than Obama, but that's not saying much! If Obama and Palin are the best we have to offer then we're in some serious trouble! neither one is fit to hold office.
Donna| 11.30.10 @ 8:04AM
Do some research before you comment. Have you read her posts about what/how the $600Bln Bond Buy back will destroy America? Absoutely the best explaination a President can give. She put the hay down where all the goats can get it. I didn't see anything from Obama or the Admin on the strategery of this. Just that it was the best they can think to do.
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:09AM
Not a strong Palin backer, myself, but I have to say I was impressed by the post you mention, Donna. Palin displayed a real grasp of the issues on that. A few more of those posts and I might be convinced. The problem is I think the damage already done to her by the savage and unfair Dem attack machine is irreversible. I don't think she could win the general election.
KBB| 12.19.10 @ 2:33AM
I think Palin's biggest hurdle will be the good ole boy GOP network. They do not want their playground cleaned out by her, and lose their place at the public trough. If Palin can manage to get the GOP nomination, she'll be the next Prez. We've had more than a good dose of liberalism, and at this point, I believe any GOP candidate will beat BO or any other Dem nominee they put out instead of him. I personally hope Hillary runs for the Dems and gets retired permanently by the GOP nominee. She has been revealed to be Obama-lite, as dedicated to Alinsky and socialism as BO. I think Americans have realized that, in order to get back on track, we have to have a Prez that is, not just slightly different from BO, but 180 degrees from him.
ggoblue| 11.30.10 @ 7:02AM
the smearing of millions of tea partiers will haunt the democrats for years to come. like the boy who cried wolf they just aren't to be believed any more.
the republican only needs to say [at the right moment] "i know right from wrong and barak obama does not".
and also "these are my college transcripts of which i am very proud, where are his?"
this is a different age and the elites of both parties are insulated from reality. sarah palin is being humanized every week on cable television and that will be insulation from her forthcoming demonization.
the problem for the democrats is the internet, their old methods and old media just don't work anymore. the seizing of websites is their first shot in the internet control war.
KBB| 12.19.10 @ 2:45AM
ggoblue, if you think smearing the tea partiers will haunt the Dems....just wait till BO is exposed as an illegal resident of the Oval Office. I say it's a matter of "when", not "if". That issue is never going away, even after he vacates the WH. And when that bomb explodes, it will fry the Dem party for a generation or more. They may never recover from the fraudulent assault that was dealt by Pelosi, Reid, et al upon the American people when they put BO up as the Dem nominee knowing he was not Constitutionally eligible.
Ret. Marine| 11.30.10 @ 7:02AM
As far as I was concerned, the "won", his high-assness. obamas Bin Ly'n, was the dumber part of dumb and dumber. Boy was I surprised, he actually is no smarter than a fifth grader. 57 States anyone? Of course it had nothing to do with the 57 States making up the islamic conference now did it, really. A slip, Don't think so.
I would relish the idea of the "won" going in a match with Sarah, of the Alaska clan, in a match, say the best out of 20, in a ar-15 match, winner takes all. That would make the elitist of the 57 states stand up and take notice of what others are thinking of out here these days. Call anyone of the 2012 nominee's what you want doesn't make it so....and just who reads the propaganda rags any more anyway?
ed| 11.30.10 @ 7:03AM
There are artists, scientists and politicians who come along who shatter the old rules by playing by new rules coming from their innovative, instinctive, intuitive originality. They change the world then others write new books of rules based on how they did it. Palin is one of them.
Deborah Hart| 11.30.10 @ 7:39AM
How so? How do you think has Sarah Palin changed the world?
Dustoff| 11.30.10 @ 10:08AM
First of all, she has no power to change the world (yet)
Has O-bummer changed the world, other than make us a laughing stock.
Stephanie| 11.30.10 @ 1:13PM
Give her time Deborah.
Margie| 11.30.10 @ 2:51PM
If Sarah were President.. you wanna talk about change we could believe in?
Bye bye Unions having the power that they do.
Bye bye artsy fartsy NEA.
Bye bye high taxes.
Bye bye politically correct war on terror, hello Fight to Win.
Bye bye Welfare State.
Hello small business freedom to grow!
Bye bye Leftist Supreme Court judges, hello conservatives.
I could go on.. and on, but just those few changes and we'd begin pulling our country out of the depths of despair to wealth and prosperity once again!
Go Sarah!
Christopher Holland| 11.30.10 @ 10:58PM
Supporting the Tea Party candidates in the last election seemed to involve a few changes. That was not the work of an incompetent, inarticulate sloth.
jweiss| 11.30.10 @ 7:19AM
same things were said about reagan - so this is great news! palin will be a 2-term president and i look forward to it. i would take a 100-year palin dictatorship over 1 day of obama. had obama gone under the same kind of scrutiny, he would have never passed the test NOR would he have even put up with it - he is thin skinned.
Deborah Hart| 11.30.10 @ 7:26AM
My impression of Sarah Palin is that she seems to be intolerant of anyone who doesn't agree with her on everything, and spends more time attacking people for their differing views than doing much of anything else. At least, in public.
greghawk| 11.30.10 @ 7:46AM
Thank you Ms Hart (or is it Trev?) for your thoughtful, intelligent, and persuasive analysis. Tell me, do the 'Chicago boys' pay you by the trick as you post comments here and elswhere?
Donna| 11.30.10 @ 8:15AM
Let me ask you a question. Would you tolerate being called and portrayed as, dumb, not caring for your downs baby, and all the stuff you have read about her? Just put yourself in her shoes the next time you read a disparaging remark about her and ask yourself if she should tolerate that.
Deborah Hart| 11.30.10 @ 10:27AM
No, I would not tolerate being called and portrayed as dumb, not caring for my downs baby, etc. - I think that kind of talk is rude, crude, and says lots about the speaker and nothing about the person they're attacking. No matter who mounts the attack. No matter what the provocation.
loulou| 11.30.10 @ 10:59AM
"My impression of Sarah Palin is that she seems to be intolerant of anyone who doesn't agree with her on everything..."
Well, I should hope so.
I'm sick of moderates who what to be loved.
Loshooligan| 11.30.10 @ 12:09PM
I am intolerant of the people who always bring up the canard of intolerance. What's wrong with being intolerant. Seems to me that that has been one of the biggest problems with our nation. We have stopped being intolerant of behavior that should be looked down on.
Intolerant Party 2012
Grzmlyk| 11.30.10 @ 12:41PM
Yeah, Loshooligan, but we make up for it by being intolerant of normal, Caucasian, law-abiding, employed, heterosexual citizens who have the unmitigated gall to think that deserve to keep the money they've earned by the sweat of the brow.
Sigh. If only I were an unemployed, NEA-educated, counter-cultural, African American, transgendered, promiscuous, tattoo-covered, new age-worshipping, America-hating, meth-shooting, oft-convicted, union card-holding part-time terrorist and full-time welfare recipient.
Then I'd be the darling of the New York Times, NBC and NPR.
I'd be livin' large, y'all. Maybe have my own reality show. That's right mo-foes! You gots to pay me now or I'll sue yo' asses and you'll pay me latuh!
Penny| 11.30.10 @ 3:55PM
Fabulous Grzmlyk! You only left out 'farmer', 'wannabe farmer', 'never was a farmer but want some of that dough they're doling out with Pigford 3' - or is it 4 or 5 by now? Never-ending trough right there, honey.
Bruce Berger| 11.30.10 @ 1:16PM
Deborah,
For a second there I thought you were describing Obama.
Christopher Holland| 11.30.10 @ 11:01PM
So the barracuda bites back when attacked. Barracudas do that, that is why the little fish learn to leave them alone.
Trev| 11.30.10 @ 7:30AM
palin is not just as dumb as a bag of rocks, she is an idiot.
Her becoming president will only prove what the rest of the world already believes.
It will be the worlds delight to see what a president palin stands for. I would not be surprised to see the beloved constitution changed many times under a palin regime.
I also would advise minorities to leave the US as soon as the elections prove that she has won.
Here is to the last bastion of freedom and peace. The world will now have to seek other places more kind to freedom.
Grzmlyk| 11.30.10 @ 12:17PM
Yeah, Palin's a moron.
Fortunately, however, if she's ever elected president, she will never be the dumbest president we've ever had.
I think it's safe to say Barack Hussein Obama, our puerile, petty, narcissistic, adolescent, ignorant, callow, foolish, emotionally pathological, mendacious, vengeful, lazy, ideologically blinkered, angry, shallow piece of shit in chief, will forever hold that title.
Gee, a tendentious, anti-conservative quote from Politico? Who woulda thunk it? Thanks for the news flash, idiot!
Tell me: How much do you make on food stamps every week?
Dasboot| 11.30.10 @ 12:39PM
Yeah, she will prove to the world that we are stupid unlike your genius obama. lets see his SATs. Bush had a 1260 . what about obama. im waiting.
Trev| 11.30.10 @ 7:36AM
"What man or mouse with a fully functioning human brain and a résumé as thin as Palin’s would flirt with a presidential run? It makes the political biography of Barack Obama look more like Winston Churchill’s, despite the fact that the 44th president breezed into the Oval Office as little more than a glorified state senator."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s.....z16liK7Emb
John Navratil| 11.30.10 @ 8:08AM
Trev,
I can't say that I would cite Joe Scarborough's opinion piece as authoritative, but let's look at the résumé.
Palin: (quoting from the article) city council member, mayor, president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors, chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, governor of Alaska.
Obama: community organizer, college lecturer, state senator ('97-'04), U.S. senator ('05-'08).
Who has the thin résumé for an executive position?
MikeD| 11.30.10 @ 8:12AM
That's assuming we can believe ANYTHING about obama. For the record, none of us has ever seen any proof he graduated from elementary school, high school, college, law school, or anything else because he has chosen to keep his background hidden. What is he afraid of Trev???
loulou| 11.30.10 @ 11:03AM
I'll answer for Trev.
Obama is afraid of the fact that he is not eligible to be POTUS will be exposed. The Muslim is an Indonesian citizen.
He's also afraid of his academic record. He coasted through this country's elite institutions on his half-black status aka affirmative action.
Trev| 11.30.10 @ 3:06PM
Miked,
Would it make a difference to you if he had all the education that realistically it takes to understand the problems that need to be solved? Let's face it does require a bit of fortitude to be in that office.
Quitting is not an option!!!
MikeD| 11.30.10 @ 10:19PM
Trev,
I guess you just conceded the point that obama didn't graduate from any of the institutions he's claimed. Frankly, we could take a random sample of 100 people and I'd trust any one of them to be president more than I'd trust the 'messiah', The reason is that obama really believes the crap he's been fed all these years. Nobody of his age could possibly be as stupid and incompetent as he has ceaselessly demonstrated; so his actions must have been intentional; which would mean he's intentionally evil. he is intentionally trying to destroy our country.
It doesn't matter which topic, he has been consistently wrong, or in denial. Global warming; cap and trade, allowing the unions to control our economy, illegal aliens, and on and on. At the risk of repeating myself, nobody could be that stupid, ergo: he must be doing it intentionally, which makes him evil and anti-American.
Charie| 12.4.10 @ 2:21AM
***Let's face it does require a bit of fortitude to be in that office.***
Which is a good reason to believe he shouldn't be there. He's so thin-skinned every time he hears of someone refuting what he says or he is thwarted they go on his enemies list. I'll bet half of the people who post on this website are on that list. lol I know I am. I'm a Tea Partying Christian who is a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment. That makes me an automatic. Pun intended.
Mike W| 11.30.10 @ 11:30AM
Why do the Palin supporters automatically throw Obama's lack of qualifications when someone points out her obvious shortcomings? That is damning with faint praise I suppose.
Why would Palin supporters assume that anyone that criticizes her is an Obama supporter (especially on this web site)?
The women is not cut out to be President. There have to be qualified Republicans to take on Obama.
Stephanie| 11.30.10 @ 1:19PM
"The women is not cut out to be President. There have to be qualified Republicans to take on Obama"
So, between the two Mike, who would you vote for? Hmmmm?
John Navratil| 11.30.10 @ 1:35PM
Mike W,
The point was made that Palin's résumé was too thin to be president. My response was that the current president had a thinner résumé. It was convenient because the topic was specifically about qualification to be president. If any other president in my lifetime had such a thin résumé, I could have used them.
You are right about one thing, the praise is decidedly faint.
However, Ford and Kennedy come to mind as other presidents with thinner executive experience.
John Navratil| 11.30.10 @ 1:38PM
That last line should have read...
However, Ford and Kennedy come to mind as other presidents with thinner executive experience than Palin.
Alice Moore| 11.30.10 @ 2:36PM
So, as Rush would say you want 4 more years of Obama?
KBB| 12.19.10 @ 3:12AM
"Why do the Palin supporters automatically throw Obama's lack of qualifications when someone points out her obvious shortcomings?..." ****You mean, like when the Dems always blame Bush for everything, even though BO has been in charge with a super-majority for 2 years now? You mean like that??
KBB| 12.19.10 @ 3:02AM
John Navratil, you forgot "Commander-In-Chief" of the Alaska National Guard on Palin's resume. Also, co-owner/manager of a thriving fishing business. Obama has never managed so much as a lemonade stand. Oh, yeah, he did work at Baskin-Robbins as a teen in Hawaii, so I guess he's pretty good at scooping ice cream.
MikeD| 11.30.10 @ 8:10AM
TREV;
You are the gift that keeps on giving! The 'messiah' was fraudulently inflicted on the country by a perfect storm of Democratic/Media duplicity unparalleled in our history. The Dems were perfectly willing to destroy our country via their criminal manipulation of Wall Street and the housing Mortgage Industry; springing the most dangerous "October Surprise" in history. Then, they made sure to come up with a light-skinned Black who looked good and could actually sound intelligent in front of a teleprompter as long as he didn't have to think on his own. Of course, since he is (sorta) Black we were all told that not voting for him would be proof positive of our individual and collective racism; although the Democrats have been the most racist group in history, starting with the first democrat, Andrew Jackson. (Just for giggles, research what Lyndon Johnson said when he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Hint: He used the "N" word.) But, the Blacks just traded real slavery for the political slavery imposed by the Democratic Party.
At the same time, the Media and you Libs had a field day doing everything they could to destroy Gov. Palin and, of course, John McCain, a man who certainly served his country much more than you or I. I just wonder what you would have done in his situation in Vietnam....
The internet has broken the lock the mainstream media has had on the propagation of news. It was evidentin the elections just a few weeks ago. Nobody can hide anymore, especially you Libs. Your time is done, as is the fraudulent messiah who is busily selling out our country to George Soros and other thugs.
Frank| 11.30.10 @ 9:32AM
Great post, you hit the nail on the head.
I hope to have the opportunity to vote for Palin in 2012.
Trev| 11.30.10 @ 10:32AM
miked,
You must be clairvoyant. How do you know so much about me already? We just got to know each other.
I will refrain from passing judgment on what or who you might be, but it is quite amusing that you decry the yellow journalism that both sides of the media use, yet you try to use the media to forward your bent facts and point.
I my opinion sarah palin is an idiot and she will be the demise of the country. After she is finished you can have your country back because no one will want it any longer.
Loshooilgan| 11.30.10 @ 12:39PM
Trev,
“I my opinion Sarah Palin is an idiot and she will be the demise of the country.”
Yet another leftist who is lacking reading comprehension skills. Please re-read Mr. Lord’s article. You obviously missed the point that speaking in platitudes doesn’t make a formidable argument. Or maybe you’re just a typical AmSpec blog troll that reads the headline and skips right to the comment section to start spewing your leftist BS.
By the way….MikeD doesn’t have to be clairvoyant. He can read into your openly ignorant arguments to draw a conclusion to who you really are. You’re an open book. A book with pages I wouldn’t wipe my ass with, if it was the only paper left in the bathroom.
Trev| 11.30.10 @ 2:14PM
No need to use your clothing to clean yourself?
I wouldn't do it for you.
Loshooligan| 11.30.10 @ 4:32PM
No need to use my clothes when I can wipe my ass with leftist like you.
MikeD| 11.30.10 @ 10:22PM
After obama, pelosi, and reid are finished, there won't be anything left.
loulou| 11.30.10 @ 11:06AM
MikeD, I have to disagree with you on a minor point.
Obama does not sound intelligent when he's reading his teleprompter. His sing-song delivery with its ghetto cadence betrays his stupidity.
KBB| 12.19.10 @ 3:35AM
Mention of the teleprompter reminds me of when Sarah was giving her dynamic nomination speech. When her teleprompter conked out, she didn't miss a beat. She ad libbed for several minutes and came out with that now-famous "difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull". She picked right up again on her speech when the prompter started working again. Contrast that with when BO was giving a speech and the prompter somehow got out of sync with what he was reading. He ended up MINDLESSLY reading what he had just read, which was introductions of audience members. Then, he came to a screeching halt in his speech, and said loud enough for all to hear, " uh, roll it up...uh, there....uh, more... uh, there". LOL!!! I think his brain has been fried from heavy cocaine and other drug use.
bluecollarbytes| 11.30.10 @ 7:44AM
How has Palin not only survived but thrived since McCain thrust her into the national spotlight?
PopMedia continues its assault on her, now joined in by professional Republicans, for the same reasons. Her public presence presents a threat to these folks whether she runs for the presidency or not.
Keeping govt a 'mystery', far above the heads of normal mortal Americans, is crucial to keeping us trained & harnessed.
I did a search on Palin within minutes of the first news leaks that McCain had picked her as his running mate. The over-riding 'theme', based on her actual life up to that point, was
'Sarah Palin- the self-starter, achiever, physically & mentally vibrant, a woman of the people, devoted mother & wife, voracious consumer of news since a child, and someone who knows who she is'.
This Is Sarah Palin.
-----
How 'smart' , honestly, is Barack Obama? There has to be either great stupidity or deception going on here with his words, decisions, and actions. Obamagenda is rooted in imaginary futures bearing no relationship to the nature of this country and its success since its founding. His life seems to have been a constant drumbeat of anti-Americanism, from Mum on down. His sense of the world is what was spoon-fed to him. Does this man ever 'free-think'? If he does, then stupidity is a forgone conclusion.
John DerK| 12.9.10 @ 7:28PM
I remain amazed...what did Progressives (aka Liberals) think they would get when voting for a "community organizer"? A Statesman?....nope. You get exactly what you elected...a community organizer (aka puppet) with no real practical political experience. It's not his fault....George Soros owns the Democrats anyway....
wodiej| 11.30.10 @ 7:49AM
the real question may be "is the someone too dumb to be president already president?" LOL...great article.
Ah, the liberal trolls are up early this morning spewing their Palin hate. Keep it up...you're giving her more energy and support!
FastJohnny| 11.30.10 @ 8:01AM
"Is Sarah Palin Too Dumb to Be President?", supposedly our current sitting President is
a smarty pants and look at the steaming pile he has created. Of course we know nothing of his grades from all of those vaunted schools he has attended, since he has kept them under raps. We just might find that he was the first affirmative action President when we finally see his grades. Eventually they are going to come out and a large group of people are going to be proven wrong.
wodiej| 11.30.10 @ 8:31AM
I think it is safe to say if his grades were stellar, they would be embossed on every website and he would have been bragging about them.
Dustoff| 11.30.10 @ 10:12AM
BINGO............
Stephanie| 11.30.10 @ 1:25PM
Perhaps we could get the Wikileaks guy to get ahold of obama's records.
Margie| 11.30.10 @ 2:57PM
Now THAT is an excellent idea!
Trev| 11.30.10 @ 10:09AM
I don't hate palin at all, I just don't believe that a person with her "understanding" and ability is capable of the broad thought that is required to make decisions that will affect the free world.
Dustoff| 11.30.10 @ 10:17AM
Yet you think O-bummer is capable?
So far everthing he has touched has gone sour.
Is the world loving us more because of him... not from what we have seen. How are the wars working out?
Might I remind you after O-bummer was elected, what did he tell the Rep's and America. I WON.
That pretty much say's it all and look where it has gotten him. Zip!
So please drop the idea he's a smart man.
Trev| 11.30.10 @ 11:00AM
dustoff,
I am a former American soldier living overseas and I can assure you that America is seen in a completely different light as it was before Obama took office. You might not want to believe that, but it is true. You might want to be blinded by the rage that you might feel that Obama is in the position that he is in, but he is doing what most of the world believes he can do with the mess that he was left to fix.
We can go around and around pasting facts and figures that will bolster both of our positions. In the end it will still not shine any light on sarah palins ability to govern a country with the diversity that is the United States.
Mr Boehner, where are the jobs.
loulou| 11.30.10 @ 11:10AM
No offense, but you seem like a moron yourself. Did you finish high school? Are you an American? There's something strange about your sentences and punctuation.
I'm getting a high school dropout vibe.
Bou Ner| 11.30.10 @ 11:54AM
I dropped out of elementary school (right after Phonics!) and I still know the correct way to pronounce Mr Boehner's name!
You guys are all doing it wrong.
(Palin=Boehner?)
Trev| 11.30.10 @ 2:46PM
Intellect was never your strong point was it?
Have you washed your sheets today?
loulou| 11.30.10 @ 3:05PM
I'm just making an observation that you seem, well... stupid.
Please answer the questions: Are you a high school graduate and are you an American?
Elvira| 11.30.10 @ 11:25AM
Then by all means, please stay where you are. Those of us in country will determine our fate whether you like it or not.
Stilton| 11.30.10 @ 11:51AM
I'm an American who has been living in Germany for about 20 years now. The Europeans have figured out Mr. Obama and they rightly figure him for a self promoting, long winded, chump.
Patti V.| 12.2.10 @ 1:56PM
Ha, ha,haaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Skippy| 11.30.10 @ 5:07PM
Frankly I care not a whit what folks overseas think of America; Obama or Palin.
The ticking time-bombs of their entitlement/welfare states should be plenty for them to occupy themselves.
Whenever I hear about how the world doesn't respect the US; especially re: American conservative politicians and policies, I flash-forward/backward to natural disasters; brutal tyrants; economic crises and recall who the world calls upon to fix things up for the seemingly helpless "world".
Nice try.
ardy| 12.1.10 @ 4:13AM
Exactly....
ardy| 12.1.10 @ 4:20AM
posted to wrong....one....Skippy
ardy| 12.1.10 @ 4:25AM
Exactly....
and Where are the JOBs?????....Mr. Boehner
W| 12.1.10 @ 10:23PM
Sorry, Trev, do not believe you are "former American soldier." If you were, you would say " i servead in the army, or navy, or marines...You never ever say "former," You are just another liberal trying to defend Obama by pretending you served in the military as a way to give you credibility. Despicable.
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:17AM
Why, oh, why is what other countries supposedly "think" of us more important to Dems than what we think of ourselves? And why can't Dems admit they voted for an educated idiot?
Charie| 12.4.10 @ 2:28AM
Ummmm....................... I don't think he's allowed to do anything about jobs until he gets into his new office and that will be in January. Until then you'll just have to put up with the same old Democrat asininity as they trot merrily down the primrose path.
P.S. Thank you for living overseas.
Trev| 11.30.10 @ 11:12AM
dustoff,
Obama is in office right now doing a very good job taking care of the utter mess that the last government left behind. George Bush is in Texas laughing his ass off. I do not have to just think he is capable. I know that he is.
Start at 14,000,000,000,000.
Ray| 11.30.10 @ 11:26AM
"Start at 14,000,000,000,000."
14 trillion. Isn't that Obama's projected federal defict for the next 10 years? I do believe that it is.
Math| 11.30.10 @ 12:04PM
Off topic, but don't you think we should introduce the computer notation for money:
Trillions (the deficit) should be called teradollars or T$.
Taxcuts cost gigadollars or G$
Palin is making mega dollars or M$
Your trailers (homes) probably costs a few kilodollars or k$...
etc.
Trev| 11.30.10 @ 2:35PM
This exchange is getting a bit to sophomoric for me. There are people that will not pay attention to their own personal hygene, others that are intent on proving their own illiteracy by correcting things they can not read and most disturbing is the blind aligence to a figure that is only dedicated to her own self aggrandizement.
Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs.
This will also make sence in time.
W| 12.1.10 @ 10:26PM
Trev, sorry to break the news to you, but Boehner is not the president. Obama, you guy, has been president for two years, and Pelosi, your gal, has been Speaker of the House for four years, and Harry Reid has been Majority Leader for four years, The Dems, your party, has controlled Congress and the agenda for four years.Wait four years before you blame Boehner.
Trev| 11.30.10 @ 2:51PM
Just for effect $$$$$$$!!
Better?
I had the impression that it was self evident.
John DerK| 12.9.10 @ 8:38PM
To commenter.."Math":
Off topic...your income has been reduced to k$ teaching grammar school too... How's that democratic Obama and all-democratic "CHANGE" working for ya? Huh?
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 12:21PM
By any objective standard, Obama is NOT doing a good job, unless that job was to degrade, both monetarily and militarily, the United States.
You're another fool who spouts the left's talking points.
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:19AM
You think Obama is doing a great job? Ok, now I understand everything I need to know about you. You are as dumb as Obama, so to you, he is smart. I get it now.
To Answer The Question| 11.30.10 @ 7:57AM
Yes
Smarter Than Any Liberal| 11.30.10 @ 11:17AM
We're sorry, you have answered the question incorrectly.
MikeD| 11.30.10 @ 7:57AM
Dear TREV,
I find it amazing that you really have no idea that you just verified everything the article claimed as soon as you opened your mouth. (Metaphorically, at least.) I haven't made up my mind about Gov. Palin, but I sure do love watching you idiot Libs sputtering and foaming at the mouth whenever she comes up in conversation!
On the subject of intelligence, you are also the epitome' of stupidity/insanity because you are so utterly predictable. Remember that the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over while expecting a different outcome. Liberal ideas are not only wrong, they are deadly dangerous. Several million Libs could help improve our Country with their absence; but they never do follow through on their tantrum inspired cries to leave whenever they are repudiated by the electorate that is usually much wiser than the 'elites' think. (Except when the media lies and covers up their pet candidates like in 2008.)
wodiej| 11.30.10 @ 8:30AM
Yes Mike, the liberals impale themselves on the Palin sword daily and it's astounding that they have not figured out the hate does not work on her or us.
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 8:00AM
The elites and the left are absolutely terrified of Sarah Palin, thus their need to belittle her and question her intelligence - it's all they've got.
Too dumb? Please. Compared to Obama, my neighbor's cat is more qualified for the White House.
Doctor Dolittle| 11.30.10 @ 8:14AM
your neighbor's cat won more than 365 electoral votes in a general election? kewl!
'coz this is what makes someone 'qualified' for the white house, here in America.
in case you didn't know...
where iz u from?
wodiej| 11.30.10 @ 8:28AM
You can't even spell so cool for us-it shows the country that thinking you're better than you actually are isn't a mandate for competence.
Q.E.D.| 11.30.10 @ 8:42AM
'kewl' was obviously a joke
"mandate for competence" obviously wasn't
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 9:24AM
Since you're obviously not that bright, I'll spell it out for you:
Obama is dumb. D-U-M-B. He's never done a thing in his life other than run for office. He's never had a real job, and isn't qualified to run a lemonade stand.
Any and all of his accomplishments are bogus because of two simple words: Affirmative Action.
He can't even speak to kindergartners without a teleprompter.
He's under-educated, and a slow learner. He's a joke, juts like his lame-brained supporters.
And he's dead-man-walking for 2012.
Got it?
You Seem Very Smart Yourself| 11.30.10 @ 9:38AM
This is still in relationship to the discussion of the intellect, accomplishments, education and political career of Sarah Palin, correct?
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 10:51AM
Yes.
Palin's accomplishments are FAR more notable than Obama's because she actually worked for them.
Nobody handed her a living because of the color of her skin.
And her electoral success was not due to one clearly myopic ethnic group + patronizing, liberal white guilt.
And...she can actually put two coherent sentences together without a teleprompter.
Negative Inaction| 11.30.10 @ 11:42AM
Wait, wait... so, to get your point straight, even if we forget for a moment the comparisons of academic accomplishments (like Harvard Law vs Matanuska–Susitna/North Idaho or whatever...), or the comparisons of class, race, origins... you are actually comparing an "electoral success" of getting 114k votes vs one of getting 70 million votes and these are your actual conclusions and explanations? Because you thinhk it is due to Affirmative Action and the ethnic group you clearly don't like?
You are one bright fella! You betcha!
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 12:29PM
No one is denying that Obama won the election in 2008.
Duh.
But what does that have to do with anything?
If the same election were held today, based on the midterms of November 2nd, McCain would clean Obama's clock.
And yes...It's REAL special to look at Harvard and compare it to North Idaho State, or whatever, but ultimately meaningless (especially since you ain't no Harvard grad either, Einstein). An Ivy-League degree is not an indication of future success or initiative. To assume that there's no intelligent students at State Universities is not only snobbery, it's plain stupid.
And yes, Obama got elected with the lock-step support of African-Americans, but since they ALWAYS vote Democrat (>90%), that's not really surprising. What's surprising is that they STILL support him despite all evidence to the contrary that he's unqualified, and doing a poor job.
And WHY African-Americans still support him, genius?? It's real simple: Because he's BLACK.
Gee...Now who are the racists??
Nice try portraying me as a racist. Whatever. You may not have noticed, but since Obama's election, that l'il game don't work no more.
And YES...I am a bright fellow. Compared to a moron like yourself, I'm practically, I'm practically a genius.
Now go look at Obama's picture and sigh, dipstick.
Dr Strangelove| 11.30.10 @ 1:11PM
Again, to clarify -- this train of thought, or of thoughts (meaningful, bright, if not pure genius as they may seem in your own mind...) are still in relation to justifying the suitability of Sarah Palin for the Presidency, right?
Lorenzo| 12.1.10 @ 4:49PM
"An Ivy-League degree is not an indication of future success or initiative." Yes it is.
"And WHY African-Americans still support him, genius?? It's real simple: Because he's BLACK."
That's the same reason you would not support him if he was doing a great job.
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:21AM
Great, so if Palin wins the electoral vote, she's qualified. Good to know.
ideally| 12.3.10 @ 9:59AM
Yes, sure. The vote of the people is what qualifies someone to be president, obviously.
Very similar to the way the vote of a jury qualify a bimbo to be a beauty queen... If this (Sarah Palin winning a general election) were to happen, pigs would be qualified to fly as well, so I wouldn't base my joy on such remote hypotheticals.
The way things stand right now, even her chances of winning a Republican primary in her home state Alaska are slim to none...
coal carrier| 11.30.10 @ 8:03AM
Look at who we have inside of the beltway, politicians that went to Ivy League schools and studied political science. Upon graduation they couldn’t get a job doing political science so they went to law school. They couldn’t join a law firm because their grades were not good enough. The next step was to become a special prosecutor but that didn’t work out either. So they ran for public office and clamed they were for the “little guy” and the grass roots organization behind them proved it. Any wonder why our country is upside down?
No need to brag about a “grass roots movement” anymore. Mrs. Palin is the grass roots.
Trev| 11.30.10 @ 10:19AM
Why don't we just skip sarah and elect one of her kids. I think any one of them would qualify. They can fish and they can relate to the rest of the world because they come from Alaska.
Only in America.
George True| 11.30.10 @ 11:04AM
Why don't you say something remotely insightful and well thought out, and then back it up with evidence?
Only in America indeed! Nowhere else would snarkiness and ad hominem attacks from the left pass for serious debate.
Trev| 11.30.10 @ 11:19AM
Did you mean something like this?
Yes.
Palin's accomplishments are FAR more notable than Obama's because she actually worked for them.
Nobody handed her a living because of the color of her skin.
And her electoral success was not due to one clearly myopic ethnic group + patronizing, liberal white guilt.
And...she can actually put two coherent sentences together without a teleprompter.
Loshooligan| 11.30.10 @ 4:29PM
Great idea Trev!! I say Sarah teaches Trig to read from a teleprompter, so we can elect him immediately. Then leftist like you will finally have to say that we found a conservative that was on the same intellectual level as Obama. This is the greatest idea yet.
coal carrier| 11.30.10 @ 4:52PM
Well Trev, I do know one thing, Mrs. Palin will tell the truth. Not like Clinton, “ I didn’t have sex with that woman.” GHW Bush, “read my lips, no new taxes.” GW Bush “your either with us or against us.”
I also know how she will vote on taxes, cap & trade, amnesty for illegal nationals, Obamacare, Islamic Terrorists, etc.
coal carrier| 11.30.10 @ 4:58PM
Not to mention the liar in chief we presently have in the White House. “I am not a socialist”.
Louis Jenkins| 11.30.10 @ 8:06AM
Palin is not dumb, not low browed, and certainly not a nitwit. Nor is she brilliant, at least, has yet to show her brilliance. But Palin is steady and rock solid. Do not underestimate her for she is a mover and a shaker. Nor can we get any dumber than Obama!
TennesseeVolunteer| 11.30.10 @ 8:09AM
The ruling class is afraid of her because she is not a member of the CFR, The Tri Lateral Commissions or the Bilderberg group.
She threw out the ruling class of Alaska, the oil companies and will do the same in America.
This is why they are afraid of the tea Party. We believe in individual freedom and much less government! Along with that, we will not brook the people behind the curtains who are trying to rule our life by linking all world debt together and exhausting the wealth of individual nations one by one.
True| 11.30.10 @ 8:21AM
Yep. She threw out the ruling class of Alaska, indeed!
Even their governor, I heard...
(she made that local ruling governor quit after a couple of years in office...)
George True| 11.30.10 @ 9:54AM
Actually, she beat Frank Murkowski for the governor's job. As in the Alaska ruling class family that appointed their daughter to the senate seat. The same daughter who feels that seat belongs to her, not the people, because daddy gave it to her. The same (Republican) ruling class family that only Palin had the balls to challenge.
You conveniently failed to mention that Palin resigned to avoid two more years of fradulent "ethics" charges filed by leftists, for the sole purpose of bankrupting her personally, and making it impossible for her to govern. (And by the way, every last one of those alleged "ethics" charges were found to be utterly without merit or basis in fact.)
But Sarah turned the table on them. And now she is a multi-millionaire, and she has a hundred times more political influence on the national stage than she did before. And she's just a private citizen, so she can't be touched. That must just stick in your craw something terrible.
Scuba divers know not to mess with a barracuda. It just may turn around and rip your face off.
Stephanie| 11.30.10 @ 1:33PM
I like you George. Great post!
I hope to God she runs.
Margie| 11.30.10 @ 3:04PM
Heh, Sarah's becoming a millionaire alone is cause for dumb Leftists to hate her.
Millionaire's need not apply. Only dumb Community Organizers.
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:23AM
Don't kid yourself, Margie. Obama has MILLIONS. Trust me. They pulled it right out of the Chicago political machine. Ka-ching.
KBB| 12.19.10 @ 4:03AM
Stephanie and Margie: Know what I like to see? Females (like Stephanie) who support and (like Margie) seem to support Sarah Palin! So many women will not vote for another woman because of jealously or something stupid, like they don't like her hairstyle or....she's too pretty, which I think is the real reason many women hate her. A woman who supports another woman as strong and beautiful and SELF-MADE (no riding hubby's or daddy's coattail) as Sarah is, is a woman who deserves credit for being supremely confident in themselves.
John| 11.30.10 @ 8:19AM
Mr. Lord, terrific article.For Democrats/Liberals it is more important to TALK than to DO. Clinton and Obama never had real jobs, community organizer and whatever Clinton did. But they are considered smart by the media because they share the same liberal agenda, and not because of any accomplishments. Look at the incompetence of Bill, Hillary, Obama, and their crowd. They can't even complete a tax return, prosecute terrorists, prevent disclosure of state dept. cables, and we are told they are smart. Of course, consider the source, the media touting these people have the same resume/background/mentality.
I am sure your article will provoke all the liberal loons who will rant about Sarah. Actually there is probably one left wing loon who posts using different names (Ted/Alan) because there can't be, I hope, that many loons.
Dennis| 11.30.10 @ 8:33AM
ED: Spot on as Sarah will be seen as a historical innovator. The way I see it, since the end of the Nov. 2008 election Sarah Palin has been attacked continuously without provocation. This has given her permission to be the proverbial political dart thrower with a ticket to ride.
Of course she innovated with her own method of daily response through Facebook, with which the LEFT not able to help itself suffering from PDS, attempted to debase her by altering her words. This resulted in Sarah Palin being drawn into the "Room Of Ideas" like the Trojan Horse, being drag off the beach to be ridiculed only to strike a dagger into the heart of the media beast. Sarah Palin has become the 'Dernier Cri' in which every writer who has a membership in the Guild, every pundit who wishes face time on You Tube, competes for their daily spot on Google's line-up of Sarah's first page, by coming up with some original disparaging remark.
What the LSM fools haven’t quite been able to pin her down on is the fact that she really has never stopped campaigning and the other GOP nominees have had their oxygen masks removed from their gasping near lifeless torsos. Stupid or not, it is not going to be brains, or resumes’, or endorsements from well-known Washingtonians, that will determine the nominee. It going to be: Who is the true Anti-Obama. Who is going to appear as the most obvious candidate to deconstruct all that Obama has built toward his Socialist agenda? Who can articulate the incompetency of the LEFT’s ability to govern, while the LSM’s full assault of personal destruction rains down on the family’s life? Who comes across as being self-tefloned, from what the article above states: that the winning candidate will certainly get Palinized. Only Palin has learned to toughen herself and her family for the up-coming war. Those that don’t make it will be tagged with the label of being Quayled, not Palinized. A label Sarah is scrubbing off her reputation as we speak, after it appeared what had began to stick, may be beginning to unstick. Palin’s road to victory can be swift. Three things will bring immediate victory and a short Primary.
1.) Immediately following her announcement to run, she pulls in eye popping, jaw dropping amounts of cash to her campaign coffers. This is a must, if VIP’s which she desperately needs to fill up her interior campaign ranks, as well as having outside voices supporting her through the personal attacks that will surely come. She can’t be the one answering whether she is smart enough. VIP’s need to be doing that.
2.) Immediately following her announcement she needs to see a large increase in Republican Registration. Many Conservatives throughout the country can only vote in the Republican Primaries if their registered Republican. If the numbers go up dramatically, then turn out the lights the party is over. The T.E.A. Party has officially arrived.
3.) If Sarah’s supporters organize and are seen as omnipresent. If she literally appears to have started an entire new Party with her organization, the GOP faithful will surrender the field. We will know this when the talk of a 3rd Party moderate is demanded from the GOP faithful and Jeb Bush is summoned to take to contest. My bet is they’ll hand it over to Sarah and she gets this one shot, and if she wins great, if she loses Alaska will be her Elba.
TLDR| 11.30.10 @ 8:55AM
too long, didn't read
u r like sarah, dude.
not a reader, but a writer!
awesome.
Andrew B| 11.30.10 @ 8:39AM
I have long wondered about the weird, self-defeating defense mechanism employed by Democrats when they label their opponents "dumb". So, every Republican since Lincoln (heck, they called him a gorilla, so we should throw him in, too) has been stupid? And so Democrats have, repeatedly, been defeated by idiots? Is that supposed to make us flock to Democrats, if they are such patsies that they can't even beat such self-evidently inferior opponents?
If I, as a big, strapping man, kept complaining that a little girl was beating me up, would you want me to be your defender and advocate?
Richard Baker| 11.30.10 @ 8:41AM
I believe it was Rush Limbaugh who said that the liberals will tell you who or what they are afraid of by their criticisms.
Deep Thoughts| 11.30.10 @ 8:49AM
What?
"...fear itself?"
John DuBose| 11.30.10 @ 8:43AM
Temperment is a big part of being a successful president. You have to sit in your office a lot and talk to a lot of people. Then you have to make one close call after another and live with the heat. And you have to make a lot of comprimises.
There is much to like about her. But..
Palin makes me nervous about that requirement. It would be wisdom to pick a nominee that does not make people nervous.
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 10:56AM
WTH?!?!?
What's with all the nervous-nellies out there in GOP-land???
The days of picking our nominee based on liberal perceptions are OVER.
The Left, with their endless derision, is practically BEGGING us not to select Palin.
REMEMBER: Leftists LIE, and they're stupid. What they say is the opposite of truth, whether they intend it or not.
So when they say "PLEASE nominate Sarah Palin because that will ensure Obama's re-election, they mean "PLEASE DON'T nominate Palin because Obama will look like a stooge next to her!"
STOP WORRYING about what the Left thinks!
They will always hate Conservatives.
They will always ridicule Conservatives.
That will NEVER change.
Ted R.| 12.1.10 @ 1:52PM
Man oh man we have got you right where we want you... haha.
Look, what you say has an element of truth to it: the emotions of loathing and fear are closely related, after all (even on a neurobiological level). Part of the liberal psyche certainly does fear that the country that elected that jackass Bush - TWICE - might just possibly elect Palin, if Obama continues to struggle. But you apparently have no clue how willing we are, to take that chance. The elites in you party are sure more scared of a Palin candidacy than we are. Really, the Democrats can only wish that Republican primary voters were fool enough to put Palin up there. But it brings us pleasure enough, just to see how the prospect of her candidacy is splitting you people. Palin is going to sow deep dissension in the GOP during the primaries; we can't WAIT.
KBB| 12.19.10 @ 4:16AM
Doctor Right, you are right. Remember when the Left via the NYTimes backed McCain to be the GOP nominee? Then, as soon as he got the nomination, they dropped him like a rock, wrote that lie about him having an affair, and basically kicked him to the curb thereafter. The NYTimes backed McCain because they knew he was a lame, lazy, ineffective, timid candidate who would lose. We cannot let that happen ever again. Whoever the Left hates the most is who we want! WHY, pray tell, would we ever want the one they cozy up to??
Ray| 11.30.10 @ 11:32AM
"It would be wisdom to pick a nominee that does not make people nervous."
I believe it should be the other way around.. I, personally, want a President, a Commander in Chief, that makes people nervous, especially those people who wish to bring harm to America and it's citizens. We don't want "likable" people as out elected leaders, we want capable people as our elected leaders.
A Strong leadership requires a strong spirit, a strong will, a strong commitment to oneself and one's own beliefs. That will always make some people nervous.
Charie| 12.4.10 @ 2:42AM
Well, go get yourself some Prozac then. If Obama and his Chicago thugs don't make you nervous and Palin does, you probably need more than Prozac. I'm gonna suggest a lobotomy.
P. LaMontagne| 11.30.10 @ 8:43AM
Wow. We are treated yet again to Jeff Lord's hero-worship of pro-Republican celebrities.
It really is Entertainment Tonight for the Fox News crowd!
Anthony| 11.30.10 @ 10:24AM
The hatred and vilification of Sarah Palin will continue until we finally have enough with the left and engage in some old fashioned ass kicking.
We have been silent too long and allowed the sniviling elites to control the narrative. It's way past time that we finally slap the left upside the head. I've had it with them!!
Same with that Wikileak guy. He needs to be stood up in front of a firing squad on prime time T.V., as a warning for those who might try this espionage against the U.S. ever again.
Our culture is dying because we have become comfortable with the elites who cower and bow to the rest of the world and refuse to defend and stand up for the basic principles that have made America great, probably because they don't bellieve in them, like Obozo.
P.S. If you want stupid for president, just look to any Democrat, starting with Obozo and O'biteme.
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 10:58AM
OK...So who do YOU think should be the GOP's standard-bearer?
Or are you a 3rd-Party man through-and-through? A real glutton for punishment?
P. LaMontagne| 11.30.10 @ 1:18PM
Pat Buchanan, obviously.
William R| 11.30.10 @ 9:14AM
Palin won't be President so get over it. Reagan had a long history of writing and speaking about liberty and limited government. Palin on the other hand was discovered by Bill Kristol and groomed by the NeoCons to continue the endless wars in the Middle East. The GOP needs a serious player in 2012 and I think a dark horse will emerge. Someone that will reject Neocon foreign policy and focus on getting our economy on the right track
WayneFarmer| 11.30.10 @ 12:22PM
Herman Cain!
John Navratil| 11.30.10 @ 1:57PM
That would surely make it interesting. Great guy!
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:27AM
Wait, wait. You think Bill Kristol groomed Palin? Ok, that's the best laugh I've had in this whole thread.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 9:23AM
Mr. Lord,
Thank you for the well presented historical context.
I finished Sarah's new book a few days ago. My my, what a splendid insight into the woman from her own keyboard....and heart.
I continue to earnestly pray she runs.
I would not blame her if she did not. Unlike a poster said above, Alaska is NOT her "Elba". Alaska is her beloved home.
Heh, Alaskans and Texans have a lot in common...except Alaskans get colder.
In fact, a lot of we Texans have moved to Alaska after working there on a job and experiencing the frontier attitudes.
If you have read her books as well, you know that this latest one is darned near unique. It is neither a biography, nor is it a political application form.
I have not quite gotten the right word or descriptor phrase yet. Heh...a "refudiation"?
Perhaps a profession of faith...In God and American ideals.
I do know that her words resonate with me as the finest example of Christian thought, and the Christian ethic.
Have you noticed her essential spirit of forgiveness and acceptance of human beings all across the spectrum, Christian or not?
It seems to me that she effortlessly embraces anyone who is of "good will".
Even her sharpest jabs at her haters reflect that element of "here, let me help you understand ...love, and life, and joy."
Oh, she will be hated. But Christ taught that 2,000 years ago...and she learned it and accepts it pretty gracefully.
Evil hates the light.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 9:54AM
Ken,
A couple of questions, if you don't mind:
* Who qualifies as a Sarah "hater"?
* Who determines which people are of "good will"?
She Fights Haters| 11.30.10 @ 10:03AM
I think your two questions are answered beautifully by this famous Christian song:
"Haters gonna hate...
...lovers gonna love"
Chapelle| 12.1.10 @ 12:11PM
So much win!
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 10:46AM
Mr. Grant,
Do you have a Bible?
Jesus Christ defined "haters" very well there (in the New Testament by the way),
.....or are you too intellectually lazy to look it up.
People of good will?
Agape' love defines those folks.
(If you don't know the term, look it up if you are not too intellectually lazy.)
I'll give you a hint:
faith
hope
Agape'
and the greatest of these is Agape'
edward del colle| 11.30.10 @ 12:31PM
mr texican, you are an extremely solid voice and stand up guy, but mrs. palin would be a total disaster. with this socialist regime in power it is a point of no return stated eloquently by dr. thomas sowell. i knew right away that Obozo was not qualified for the office when the revelations alone about jeremiah wright were composed. as for mrs. palin the lone fact that she quit the governor's alone disqualifies her for the highest office. no caveats please. she was hounded by cruel people, but she has gone the way of paydays and she is not that smart at all, and would be totally polarizing with soccer moms because of her anti-abortion views , and i agree with her pro-life stance and not from a religious view, the right to privacy is not in the u.s. constitution. you need a fresh dynamic, very well rounded person to go up against this impostor, obama! chris christie running as a union buster might be one idea.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 3:11PM
"...you need a fresh dynamic, very well rounded person to go up against this impostor...running as a union buster might be one idea"
Agreed.
Sober, competency. As for whom, I'm still looking.
Occam's Tool| 11.30.10 @ 12:44PM
The best Presidents now are hedgehogs, as the complexity of modern society makes it ridiculous to centralize anything too greatly. What a President needs to do is actually simple (as opposed to easy):
1) cut taxes and spending.
2) Kill America's enemies if possible, frustrate them if not.
Sarah, unlike Obama, is fully capable of doing these things. She was an effective Governor. I know one thing---I am Jewish, and my family lives in Chicago. I do not sleep well with Mr. Obamas in office, and I have good cause not to. I would sleep well with Sarah in there.
Great note, Ken.
Occam's Tool| 11.30.10 @ 12:45PM
Sorry, Obama---no "S."
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 9:25AM
Intellectually lazy, not dumb.
Intelligentsia| 11.30.10 @ 9:57AM
I want to agree with you, but I am probably too intellectually lazy (or dumb?) to understand the subtle difference... as it relates to the office of the President.
Is it like the difference between Iran and Iraq?
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 10:30AM
Bob Grant's Unabridged World Dictionary:
Intellectual Laziness: One who possesses the ability to learn and understand new situations/concepts but lacks the desire/motivation to invest the time or psychic energy to do so.
Ex: Gee, I'd love to spend time researching and discussing with experts the world currency crisis so I'll have a better understanding this complex issue but I need to attend a book signing at Barnes and Noble today.
Dumb: Inability to understand anything but the most rudimentary concepts, if that.
Ex: Can't you just print more money?
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 10:58AM
Mr. Grant,
see my response above.
PS: Sarah did not advise printing more money. She was warning against it.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 11:06AM
Ken,
I never implied she was dumb.
You accuse me of not fully reading your posts. I need to ask you to do the same of mine. Thanks.
Intelligentsia| 11.30.10 @ 11:02AM
Thanks. And by rudimentary concepts, you mean talking points, right? I see. Yep, she is too dumb to be president then. Thanks for clarifying!
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 11:05AM
More snobbery.
On what basis do you conclude that Sarah Palin is "intellectually lazy"??
Let's see... a motivated housewife who runs for city council who then runs for Mayor and who chairs the state's Mayoral Council and then is appointed State Energy Commisioner and then runs for Governor, and wins by beating an entrenched hack, and who then reforms the state government by cutting waste and who then is asked to run for Vice President.
Yeah...She's REAL intellectually lazy. A real doofus.
Meanwhile, what you really can't stand about is likely that:
1. She's not an Ivy-League-er
2. She's not an establishment, "intellectually serious" candidate (ie, unelectable RINO)
3. She's a woman
Either way, you're not making sense, just like your washed-up hack of a moniker.
Or perhaps you ARE the real Bob Grant. If so, hang it up, Bob...No one's listening anymore.
Doctor No| 11.30.10 @ 11:19AM
Wait, i am confused, I thought we picked "dumb" over "lazy" in the end? Just ask Putin, he may still be in our airspace...
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 12:15PM
I don't discount what she accomplished while in Alaska. She seemed to do well. Let's not kid ourselves that this would necessarily translate into becoming an EFFECTIVE president.
I stand by my observation that she seems to not want put in the grunt work to be highly knowledgeable on the various national issues.
That doesn't mean she's is not a good conservative; only that she - at this time - is focused on growing her family bank account and not becoming a policy wonk. And yes, you have to be one to be an EFFECTIVE president!
As far as point number 3., sounds like you are accusing me of being a misogynist which is equally offensive to have been labeled a racist.
I don't have a clue who this other Bob Grant is.
George True| 11.30.10 @ 9:28AM
Wow, the PuffHo trolls are out in force here today. Let's see, Lessons (dude!), Deborah Hart, Trev, Dr Dolittle (kewl!), and P. La Montagne. Isn't it pathetic that they think they can successfully astro-turf the false impression that everyone agrees with them?
It is truly amazing that the left continues to have a collective stroke over someone who is a private citizen. The way they demonize Sarah Palin is an obvious tell that they fear her more than any other. Hey lefties, wanna play some poker?
Dewey| 11.30.10 @ 9:42AM
No I do not think she is. However I sure think Obama is as dumb as any presidents we have ever had. He could have had the staring role in Dumb & Dumber. The man thinks the country has 57 states. And yes I would vote for Sarah.
Denio| 11.30.10 @ 9:47AM
Jeff...
Great article! Now you need to write another one as to why the media portrays the democrats as the smartest... example as when Clinton was elected Hillary became the smartest woman in the world.. even though I read she failed her bar exam the first time or Obamas 57 state comment or why Bush 43 scored higher than Gore in his exams...
Again Great Article ...
owyheewine| 11.30.10 @ 9:58AM
Well done Mr. Lord.
The point isn't Palin's capabilities, but the MSM/Dem axis of evil's portrayal of any candidate not in the ruling class inner circle, and that needs to be the focus of debate. I firmly believe that schools of journalism were created to put intellectual defective ruling class members and wanna be's so that the otherwise low standards of higher learning institutions would not have to be further lowered to accomodate them.
In that context, we need to judge candidates not on MSM/lefty criteria, but on their ability to rein in the monster federal government and give us our country back.
Who is better equipped to do that than Palin?
MacDaddy| 11.30.10 @ 10:18AM
Unless the Dems nominate Joe Lieberman, I WILL vote for whomever the Republican nominee will be...Christine O'Donnell, even. Now if Joe were to get the Dem nomination (snowballs chance in hell) then I'd have to make a choice between the persons...
MikeD| 11.30.10 @ 10:41AM
Until recently I would have agreed with you, but Joe has betrayed some frightening left wing tendencies recently. He has learned to enjoy the deference with which he has been treated because of his self imposed status as an "independent", which he surely is not. He caucuses with the Dems and votes with them down the line. He has disappointed me too many times to see him as anything but what he really is: A Democrat.
This really surprises me because of the terrible way he was treated by the more left-leaning 'elites' of the Party when they endorsed Ned Lamont for the Senate race last time around. Joe is just another reminder of the inherent corruption of the Democratic party, especially in Connecticut and the rest of the old crumbling northeast. As long as the dems will lie, cheat, and steal whatever they have to, no Republican will win in New England, except in 'fluke' years like 2009. And THAT was a reaction to a horrible, arrogant, shameless candidate nominated by the dems and a race they thought was so easily won they didn't think they had to rev up their 'steal the vote' process.
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 11:07AM
Is this a joke??
Joe Lieberman, despite his common-sense approach to national defense and fighting terrorism, is a LIBERAL through-and-through!
WHY would anyone who considers themselves to be a Conservative EVER vote for Joe Lieberman???
Radioman777| 11.30.10 @ 10:21AM
The one's slinging around the "dumb" label are usually Ivy League types educated beyond their intelligence.
Gramma| 11.30.10 @ 11:26PM
You mean the ones who know how to use pronouns (possessive, numerical, plural...) correctly?
: - )
Did they stop teaching these at North Idaho College?
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:32AM
At least at North Idaho College they know how to pronounce corpsman. And how many states we have.
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 3:16PM
Oh, and what is a numerical pronoun? You'll have to explain that one.
One's Ones| 12.3.10 @ 10:15AM
the ones one learns if they stick to one college as most people. many don't understand this, some do. all of the palin supporters won't know many, because half are brainwashed and some are stupid.
Harry Flashman| 11.30.10 @ 10:23AM
Barack Obama was presented in 2008 as a brilliant intellectual with stellar Ivy League credentials whose calm, cool and collected low key style would transform the culture of Washington and lead America into a new harmonious postracial era while achieving miracles of bipartisan cooperation.
We all know how that worked out.
There exists a widespread and growing speculation that Barack Obama's meteoric rise up the educational and career ladders was largely the result of multiple affirmative action decisions and that his vaunted intellectual reputation was a deliberate fabrication.
In short, just another leftist ideologue big city machine politician with more than a touch of narcissism who has cleverly used his race to get ahead and get over.
Quite apart from observing the current president in action since his inauguration, astute observers in corridors of power around the world and other quarters attribute a high degree of likelihood to this analysis largely from the damaging fact that many consider to be Obama's greatest long term political liability.
The current president continues to conceal virtually the entire paper trail of his existence from birth to the White House in a tight shroud of secrecy.
American voters clearly remember the Obama 2008 campaign repeatedly promising that their administration would uphold the highest ethical standards with a particular emphasis on transparency.
A vast majority of these voters believe that the process of running for the office of President of the United States should be the toughest public job interview on the planet.
The sad fact remains that the current president could not be hired as a janitor in a federal building with the amount of verifiable background information that he has provided.
Barack Obama's original typewritten long form birth certificate, school records, SAT and LSAT scores, college and law school admission records and grade transcripts and thesis papers, medical records, passport history, Illinois state senate tenure records, presidential campaign foreign donor lists, complete White House visitor logs and other relevant records and documents have all never been released or allowed to be subjected to any sort of scrutiny, despite several years of repeated requests for disclosure by numerous individuals and non-traditional media organizations.
The Obama 2008 campaign and subsequent administration have to date spent a considerable sum on legal fees, estimated in the millions of dollars, to fight Freedom of Information Act filings and other requests to examine this material.
A computer generated laser printed short form version of a birth certificate that a child could have forged was posted on the Obama 2008 website, but it only served to intensify the filings and requests to see the original typewritten long form document, which has never been released or allowed to be scrutinized.
They also produced a one page letter from a physician attesting that Barack Obama was in excellent health for a man of his age.
This constitutes the complete extent of any release or disclosure of any records or documents from Obama's past. Virtually the entire paper trail of his existence continues to remain deeply hidden away.
The mainstream media has given Barack Obama an astonishing free pass on this basic issue of personal truth and transparency. It had become customary in modern postwar times for presidential candidates to allow for the release and scrutiny of the substantive body of their personal records and credentials, indeed up until 2008 in large measure precisely because of a strong interest from the mainstream media.
The appearance of Barack Obama upon the national political scene changed this dynamic, and he received a special exception from this important traditional practice.
In their eagerness to "make history" by covering the campaign of the man whom they were clearly interested in helping to become the first black president, the mainstream media failed in their essential national responsibility, namely to report on significant events with thoroughness and impartial objectivity. They ignored their duty to search for the truth and should be regarded with disdain by all people who value information in a free society.
Democratic incumbents at all levels of government, as well as rank and file voters, might well demand to know exactly how Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the rest of their party leadership allowed a person who was obviously given only the most cursory sort of vetting to become their presidential nominee.
Barack Obama's true origins, past associations, ideological convictions, behavioral influences and ongoing relationships are matters of great concern to a fast growing number of people who just want to know the truth about this man.
What is being hidden and why are they hiding it?
TLDR| 11.30.10 @ 10:55AM
Another one who writes more than they read -- the model Sarah inspired! Keep up the good work!
Read or Write| 12.3.10 @ 10:34AM
Ha ha ha: "Chukcha not reader, Chukcha writer!"
Subtle. Thanks.
Frank Drackman | 11.30.10 @ 10:29AM
Lets see...
First Black President, Basketball, Fat Lip....
there's a joke in there somewhere...
hunter| 11.30.10 @ 10:35AM
If I hear about mommy grizzlies one more time I will puke....Palin best get out the history and geography books. The mommy grizzly reference may ring a bell with the left wing feminists, but I belive its only a view of the real Palin.
Paul from SA| 11.30.10 @ 10:47AM
Did you see her show with the mommy grizzlies? Do you get naseated when you write mommy grizzlies? What's your real problem with her?
Dyslexic| 11.30.10 @ 10:57AM
Supporting the Right to Arm Bears?
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 11:09AM
hunter, child,
Your post simply demonstrates that you have never confronted a "momma grizzly" in the open as opposed to in the zoo behind bars.
I have done so, while carrying arguably the most powerful rifle of thirty caliber in the world. I was very very terrified.
I was elk hunting, and oops, there she was with her cub...thirty yards away. When she went up on her hind legs...I knelt down and pointed my rifle, and prayed that she would simply go on and hibernate...and that I was no threat.
So...you just go ahead and puke. I did so, once she decided to go on about her business.
whew. Get out of mommy's basement once in a while.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 11:53AM
So Ken,
The metaphor I'm taking away from your grizzly story is we should collectively hope Sarah (mama grizzly's of mama grizzly's) will "...simply go on and hibernate..." ?
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 12:17PM
Heh, Bob, not exactly.
You might say I was talking about a grizzly deciding what to do....and having the power to do so...regardless of the threat.
By me kneeling down, her focus shifted to taking her cub to the cave for winter.
Every time you diss her, you are making her more disposed to "eat" your puny little ass.
As I have noted before, she has already accomplished more than you will in your whole life.
Sit there and snark...
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 11:10AM
Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly. Mama Grizzly.
Did it work???
Occam's Tool| 11.30.10 @ 12:50PM
I certainly hope so.
What I've always thought of Sarah, and she's welcome to use this on Facebook should it be brought to her attention (and Todd, please don't hurt me), is that she's "beauty and brains, all in one chick," as a girlfriend of mine was once described by a frat boy. I'm a Mensan myself, and my job includes assessing intelligence levels.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 1:41PM
Heh, Occam's Tool,
I was once, (well three times), invited to join mensa.
I was honored, but declined.
The best way I can describe it...Mensa is digital...and I am analogue. (smile)
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 3:46PM
I'm a Gemini, myself.
owyheewine| 11.30.10 @ 10:38AM
Chris Muir's Daybyday cartoon this morning says it all.
cchaseCFI| 11.30.10 @ 10:40AM
I am amazed at how some people, even on our side, who can watch Sarah and come away thinking the she is a bubble headed bimbo beauty pageant queen ditz who is not qualified for office.
If you would read her 1st book, Going Rogue, you would find that every political opponent she has faced used the same tactic, that she is a bubble headed bimbo beauty pageant queen ditz that is not qualified for office. She is undefeated in every general election she has run in including a primary against a very popular incumbent Republican gov.
You know, when you lose an election it can be humiliating. When you lose to a bubble headed bimbo beauty pageant queen ditz who is not qualified for office it is 10 times more humiliating.
When Sarah left office she had an 80+% approval rating. Not bad for a bubble headed bimbo beauty pageant queen ditz who is not qualified for office.
I can see the Democrats and ruling class Republicans are preparing the same tactic. Good.
I too hope she runs. I am concerned that she has said that she may let these snobs in the Republican Party run her off. I hope she is willing to take them on. We need to get rid of them.
wodiej| 11.30.10 @ 11:06AM
lol...loved your post. I have to wonder if liberals and some RepubliCons really think Palin is not bright enough to be President, why the need to trash her and/or dismiss her.
I think the problem is about more than one thing. Her gender is a big issue for some. I am certain if she was a man the RepubliCons would be hailing her as the next nominee now.
The other issue is Sarah does not play favorites. She will clean house regardless of party and there are just as many slimy RepubliCons as DemoRats. They all have their hands in the cookie jar and a Palin Presidency would stop it. That is what this country needs and she's just the person to do it.
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 4:00PM
Why do they trash her? That's easy. She threatens them.
She threatens Liberals because she represents everything THEY can't stand - a real woman who managed to "have it all" (career, marriage, children) but who maintains a Conservative viewpoint while openly mocking liberalism. Sarah Palin is truly self-made; no one gave her anything. She's the epitome of the modern woman, and that woman - the one who hunts, "beats" mackerel, loves her man, and chooses LIFE - does not wear a Liberal face. She doesn't whine or complain about being held back by the "glass ceiling", she doesn't hate men, she's not a bitter, child-less, 40-something career-woman, she loves being a Mom, and she's currently the most famous person in America (Rachel Maddow secretly keeps Sarah Palin's picture under her pillow). Sarah Palin is the living embodiment of the lie that is liberalism and especially feminism. She's also from fly-over country (Alaska!), didn't go to an Ivy League school, and doesn't speak like Pamela Harriman. She's not interested in Washington DC or New York City. In short, she's a Liberal's worst nightmare.
Establishment Republicans hate her because she didn't come-up through the "old boys/old gals" system of GOP-patronage (the same system that gave us Jerry Ford, George Bush '41, Bob Dole, and John McCain), she didn't attend "the right schools" (ironically, the same elite schools that Liberals cherish), and she doesn't summer at Kennebunkport or the Hamptons. She's stealing their thunder - almost effortlessly, in fact - wrecking their "establishment" candidates, and making them look like the idiots that they truly are. She gets all their press attention and despite letting the Left savage her endlessly, she's still far more popular than they are. AND - worse luck - she's been credited with spearheading the GOP's success at the recent midterms. In short, she's a RINO's worst nightmare.
It's one of those rare alignments of the stars...Both the GOP establishment and the Left are praying for the destruction of the same person...
...And they'll both fail.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 7:49PM
You failed to mention the third group. A rather large group of real conservatives, independent, and libertarians (both male and female alike) who agree with what she stands for but who have issues with her PERSONALLY.
They feel SHE'S not qualified to be president. They feel, based on her actions as governor and post-governor, SHE has made poor decisions to prepare herself to become a viable presidential candidate.
If she thinks people will buy into her shoot-from-the-hip style, she's horribly misjudged the American people.
I agree whole heartily with Peggy Noonan and Mono Charen when they say most Americans will look for a sober, competent person to lead the country; someone who doesn't go out their way to divide the country even more so than our current occupant.
Sarah Palin is on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Funny| 11.30.10 @ 11:11AM
I liked your opening comments at first but then you lost me at "If you would read her 1st boook..."
Graham O| 11.30.10 @ 11:19AM
err, I don't believe she won the race to the White House.
cchaseCFI| 11.30.10 @ 11:28AM
Sarah Palin has never run for the White House...
JimH| 11.30.10 @ 10:42AM
I guess Sarah Palin missed her era. Back in the thirties the elites were all for homespun folksy wisdom ala Will Rogers. Oh Wait, they were for it as long as the folk wisdom agreed with Roosevelt. My mistake.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 11:00AM
It's also humorous how those same folksy-lefty-intellectuals, ex: Gerry Spence (trial lawyer), Garrison Keillor (writer) are far, far, far, removed from those people for whom they have championed. Spence lives in Santa Barbara when he's not enjoying his spacious compound outside Jackson Wyoming. Keillor is protected inside the cocoon of the intellectual circles he's moves among in Minnesota.
Oh, I forgot the worst offender >>>> Ted Turner.
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:37AM
Sorry, nothing beats Jimmy Carter in a sweater doing the fireside chat thing. So heartwarming I wanted to puke.
Charie| 12.4.10 @ 3:02AM
Two thumbs up, Idalily. It was the only "warming" thing at the time. With the fuel shortage we wore our coats in the house and ended up walking home because we couldn't get gas for the car.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 11:03AM
Oh. I forgot to put quotation marks around championed.
"championed"
Paul from SA| 11.30.10 @ 10:44AM
I would like to give all candidates a test on the U.S. Constitution. I always thought Al Gore sounded like one of the dumbest people around.
Sarah Palin is criss-crossing the country fighting the liberals, talking about the constitution, the rold of gov't in the 21st century, economic policy, fiscal policy, monetary policy, foreign policy, national security, taxation, current events, ... pushing conservative ideals and values.... Meanwhile prominent elistist Repubicans are attacking her. This has to be the one of the biggest disappointments of the last two years. Republicans attacking me -- saying I'm too dumb, I don't read, I don't know how to read, and calling me names, like nincompoop. That is why this conservative is not a Republican.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 11:14AM
Paul,
(smile)..."we must all hang together...or I will assure you we will all hang separately."
'member who said that? A pretty bright guy as I recall.
Graham O| 11.30.10 @ 11:17AM
Interesting that the author doesn't actually ever directly confront the abundant and well documented *evidence* for Palin's dumbness. Instead he employs a blatantly invalid argument: viz " people said X,Y and Z were dumb too. And none of them were." So ...? Even if none of them were the conclusion that Palin is not dumb does not follow. But in fact ome of the people he mentioned were dumb (George W. Bush for example) so that collective judgment was not always wrong. Still, none of them is or was as dumb as Sarah Palin, although some (like Goldwater) may have been more dangerous (hard to tell). The incontrovertible fact is that, on the evidence, Palin is as dumb as they come, as Joe Scarborough has aptly pointed out today. She cannot string together two correct sentences, and has never actually formulated a coherent idea or argument. By her own admission she did not read newspapers. But no-one ever did badly in american politics by underestimating the intelligence of the american voter, so maybe a bare majority of those who vote can be made to vote for her. It will be an embarrassment to the GOP if she wins their nomination. But it will be an indictment of the US political system and its voting public if she gets elected President, and a disaster for the country and the rest of the world.
Ray| 11.30.10 @ 11:35AM
You have made a lot of assertions about Palin without any evidence to back up your claims. Do you, per chance, write for the AP?
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 12:34PM
Heh, Heh.
W| 11.30.10 @ 7:57PM
no, Graham writes on bathroom walls. It appears that "Graham" is another name for Ted or Alan Brooks or some other lefty that trolls here.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 12:20PM
Graham,
You are simply a loser ...a liar...and a wimp.
Heh
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 12:36PM
See, Ken, the difference between a Sarah hater and a Sarah critic?
Bruce Berger| 11.30.10 @ 1:40PM
Graham,
I agree with the very end of your paragraph; the bit about the American electorate being fooled into voting for someone who is unqualified. Indeed it happened in 2008.
Sapwolf| 11.30.10 @ 2:18PM
Read her books a-hole.
She isn't a dummy, but you are for not examining her record and what her beliefs are.
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 4:04PM
To prove your pathetic, utterly unsubstantiated point, you're quoting...Joe Scarborough?!?!?
Nice talking points.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 6:40PM
I'm not a Scarborough fan but I do agree that fellow conservatives/republicans are presently too cowed to speak their mind(s) about Sarah.
It's not just RINO's, elites, wannabe elites, or crypto socialists who have serious issues with her but are afraid to speak. Remember, she has FOX and talk radio (both of which I support immensely) to do her bidding.
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:39AM
Dumbness? Sarah can't talk?
George S| 11.30.10 @ 11:27AM
Back in 2008, tens of millions of people looked at Obama and saw in him what they wanted to see in a President. They didn't see the obvious, a Marxist with an agenda to destroy American because no one would ever want to suspect that someone running for president would actually do what he always believed in. Yet, try as we did, people did not want to open their minds to that reality because everything they wanted in a president was cemented into Obama and nothing was going to shake them out of it.
Today, we look to Palin in the same fashion. She is our One, and nothing will shake us out of it. This is a sure fire set up for a massive disappointment. Whether she is "smart" or "dumb" is irrelevant. She is over 35 and a natural born US citizen. Ergo, qualified. Case closed. But can she do what we all expect her to do? No. That takes Congress and the Courts and the Bureaucracy to all get on the same page as her; an impossibility if there ever was one. Can she make the deficit disappear? If not, will she allow the raising of the debt ceiling? Can she roll back ObamaCare? How will she propose we fund Medicare and Social Security? What will she do about the impending dollar collapse? Will she face China with military action if they move on Taiwan? Will she alienate the House of Saud -- and threaten oil prices -- by targeting them as enemies for bankrolling Islamic jihad? There are many many not so pretty things we have to face in the next ten years or so... I'm curious to know what she (or any Republican) plans on doing.
That's why I want to see what answers potential presidents will give to these questions. Arguing about the competence of Palin is not going to accomplish anything, it will only distract us in facing the reality of our situation and possibly blind us from seeing who can really do the job. I am not saying Palin can't do it, but I think there are others who may do it better but we will never give them our attention.
Getting her as president will surely burst the bubble of a lot of people somewhere down the line. That's the reality when you place all your marbles into one candidate to the exclusion of all others. Is she dumb? No. Will the media be fair to her? Who cares, they don't speak for me and I don't see why anyone should be concerned with what they think. Is she the best? I would like to defer that until I see others.
Elvira | 11.30.10 @ 11:39AM
MR. Soros, is that you?
Sapwolf| 11.30.10 @ 2:16PM
Sorry dude, but I've been studying the record of Sarah Palin (and other GOP prospects), and I don't project after days and days of study.
Right now, unless she sees another common-sense constitutional conservative step forward to take the lead, she will run because she has to.
DeMint is not running and is needed in the Senate.
I believe she likes Perry, but once again it appears he is not interested this time around.
Romney, Huck, Newt? Terrible candidates whose campaign will implode once the media turns their guns on them. Plus they'd be poor presidents due to their lack of courage turning back big government.
Pence? Probably running for governor of Indiana, although if he had the guts to take over the daily battle with Obama, could get Sarah's endorsement.
Jindal, Christie? Not running, and CC is a moderate anyway.
Daniels? This is the guy I suspect will be backed/convinced to run due to Romney being so unpopular. Combine GOP Establishment with Tea Party Establishment (think FreedomWorks) and you probably have Sarah's main competitor here.
Thune? Coward, and do we really want another Senator with no leadership experience?
Santorum? Obviously wants it so bad it is unseemly and craven almost.
It is Sarah's primary.
She'll win, IF all the anti-Obama forces UNITE after the primary.
Buck Grant| 11.30.10 @ 2:52PM
"...She'll win, IF all the anti-Obama forces UNITE after the primary..."
That's a big, questionable if...SAP.
Natural Born Texican| 11.30.10 @ 11:29AM
Personally, I think Palin has a LOT of potential.
She's forthright and honest. She is plain spoken, doesn't mince words, her morals and values are some of the highest and most admirable ever seen in a poltential politician, if not one of a very few of THE highest.
Her work ethic is stellar - she's not one single bit afraid of getting dirty while doing physical work, but stays on the "clean" side concerning what she says and how she says it.
She has high morals, is honest, hardworking, forthright, a learner and a listener, and she is a mother (that means able to handle all things that are thrown at her). She is gracious, respectful, and observent.
With a few more yers of seasoning, I would most certianly vote for her for president.
Sapwolf| 11.30.10 @ 2:08PM
You will vote for her because after she wins the primary your choice will be between her and Obama.
davelnaf| 11.30.10 @ 11:37AM
Individuals who once regarded themselves as liberal, or thought of themselves as small ‘d’ Democrats, had, by the time they were about thirty, taken that transitional good long look at liberalism and determined that it was incompatible with the real world. But for some reason a minority of our fellow Americans never took that good long look. They continued to march forward into the liberal alternate universe. Some eventually see the light and make it out, but few of these poor souls ever do. But there is a sort of compensation to the majority for this on-going tragedy. We are guiltily entertained every day of the year by our fellow American liberals—without them where would talk show hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, get their laughs? It's the best deal the majority will ever get from liberals.
Tom Osterman| 11.30.10 @ 12:10PM
Liberals and leftists dismiss Republican candidates as stupid out of their own vanity. "PBS minds in a Fox News world" have an insatiable need to assert the other side's inferiority to reassure themselves that they deserve to win even if some Republican pol actually gains popularity and influence. This allows them to ignore the arguments of Novel-prize winning economists like Milton Friedman or Friedrich von Hayek, or legal scholars like Robert Bork, or even the late William F. Buckley, whose Yale degree and skill in debate bought him zip with the Ruling Class.
Face it: liberals cling bitterly to their own self-image and won't surrender it, ever. To do so would mean admitting they're unworthy of the absolute power they need to impose their agenda.
DRed| 11.30.10 @ 12:20PM
Buckley was as ruling class as they come. If you think that only Democrats or liberals can be members of the ruling class you have no idea what you're talking about.
Dixie Pixie| 11.30.10 @ 12:15PM
The Liberalism prerogatives to rule rests on three “Axioms of Liberalism”.
The first is Liberals are born to rule by virtue of their superior intellect.
The second is Liberals are trained to rule by their superior Ivy League education.
The third is Liberals are destined to rule by virtue of their superior morality.
Since by the first Liberal Axiom the Liberals are the intellectually superior ones. The Liberal axiom automatically implies the opposite intellect quality. Then by definition the Conservatives are the intellectually inferior people. Sarah Palin is a conservative so she must be dumb. QED.
The second axiom is since Sarah Palin was not trained in an Ivy League institution, that fact alone reenforces the first axiom that Sarah Palin is not intelligent. If she could not hack it at Harvard then that is proof she does not have the intellect to be President. Since she was trained in obscure collages only can reenforce the ideas she simply does not have the proper training to be President.
The third axiom is automatic. Only Liberals can have a superior morality, never Conservatives.
After all Sarah Palin has not demonstrated the level of morality achieved by the members of the Catholic or Jewish faiths. Ergo Sarah Palin can not be President due to insufficient morality and intellect.
As the Sharia Laws are for Muslims, The “Axioms of Liberalism” are for Liberals. Both create the intellectual conditions to enforce their respective rule. Any violation must be crushed by any means necessary or the whole intellectual structure will fall apart. Ergo Sarah Palin must be crushed as the anomaly that disproves the intellectual foundations of Liberalism.
Mark| 11.30.10 @ 10:23PM
Excellent synopsis of the liberal worldview!
DPJ| 11.30.10 @ 12:28PM
The article makes some very good points. But, for me, the question doesn't come down to brains. Palin is certainly intelligent enough to be president, but she has not shown that she is intellectually serious enough. Of all the examples used in the article, none of these presidents or would be presidents would have been taken to the woodshed by Ms. Colonoscopy, as Palin was during the 2008 campaign. Palin just doesn't show she is willing to study or understand the details. And, more than anything, this pop-culture-icon-status -hasing should disqualify her.
simon templar| 11.30.10 @ 12:42PM
Whther or not Palin becomes president or not is irrevelant. Be forewarned...I and and many of the conservatives here will fight you to our last breath. You will not take this country down without an historical civil war..and a fight like never seen before for freedom and liberty. It looks like things are really coming down to the wire..we can sit here all day pontificating and responding to your lefty wing troll propaganda but the fact is....you will not push us over so easily as you have every other country in the western hemisphere..you might want to remind your boss, G. Soros, of this reality.
simon templar| 11.30.10 @ 12:29PM
The issue here is not whether someone is dumb, lacks gravitas, is mentally ill, has or has not potential or holds a degree. These are typical left wing propaganda distractions. The current resident in the white house is not dumb. He is a very clever, astute, and dangerous socialist. Liberals are not ignorant they just know so much that is not true. They fear Palin because of her values and vision of America. These values and visions are more in line with a majority of America that is rediscovering its Republican self government roots. The Classic American Liberalism, Republican self government, and American free enterprise is anathema to the Progressive socialist agenda. So, the game is to distract and slander the target..the personality of the opposition and therefore render the values and philosophy of the opponent meaningless. Every leftist from Marx to Lenin to Castro uses this technique. Its not about who dumb or dumber. Its about losing our republic to a small, but well financed and organized clever minority that seeks to usher in a new world order and their socialist global utopia.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 12:45PM
Agreed. Obama is a Bait-and-Switcher, i.e., liar.
Example: look at how he got his first book published. Not only did he pull the ole switcheroo on the publisher, he pulled one on the University of Chicago who sustained him while writing it. He told the publisher he was writing a book about race relations and the University of Chicago voting rights. He came clean after the book was almost to completion that he was writing his memoir, Dreams From my Father.
Look at how he pulled the bait and switch on the American People when he campaigned as a moderate only to show his true colors after he was sworn in.
Look at how he and his party pulled the bait and switch when passing the health care bill.
Obama, the bait and switcher.
Tom Osterman| 11.30.10 @ 2:34PM
...and here we get to the reason the Left and the RINOs fear and hate Palin: she's willing to stand up to the slime barrage, and the American people know it. This is also a huge component of her popularity. And not only stand up to it but keep pushing on with a smile. The Left hates her because she's in their way; the RINOs hate her because she inspires people and shows them up as the spineless courtiers they are.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 12:50PM
Dixie P,
Pretty damned sharp! Thanks.
There is an overwhelming irony playing out here is the fact that the ONLY way the communists, (pardon the shorthand), can silence Sarah, is for her to become President.
Then she has to keep secrets for the good of the country. (big grin)
Whether she runs or not...several dozen million Americans truly love and respect her.
Do the math, folks. 40 million Americans at ten dollars each, and Sarah OWNS the bully pulpit, President or not.
Someone above mentioned a hoped-for dark-horse. Ain't gonna' happen. Jim DeMint is gold, but I cannot see another viable candidate.
Dixie Pixie| 11.30.10 @ 3:38PM
Thanks Ken
I do appreciate the feedback and comments both good and bad.
However I respectfully disagree on the idea the GOP lacks viable candidates.
In fact, the GOP has a surplus of executive talent.
It is the Democratic Party that lacks talent.
The GOP can call on the executive talents of the private sector as well as the GOP politicians.
The Demo's can only draw on trial lawyers, academia and the MSM for executive talent.
Not a lot of practical experience in those groups
The disparity will keep growing greater as the GOP comes up through the ranks of the local and state governments. Best of all the TEA Party conservatives are gaining the practical executive experience in the lower levels of government. The future can only grow brighter for the conservatives as the conservatives progress upward through local,state and federal governments.
PS..... Did you catch the similarities between the operational tactics of Islam and Liberalism / Progressives / Socialists.
Both groups use the Law to pursue political, economic and social dominance.
Both openly rig the political system for their benefit.
Both will go to the outer limits of evil to maintain their positions.
Is it any wonder they consider each other soul mates.
They have a common cause in opposing Conservatism and will seek any opportunity to do so.
dave| 11.30.10 @ 12:50PM
the problem with Palin is that there are moments when she does not display a sense of being prepared for cross examinations from people like Bill O'reilly. Bill asked her how many troops she would want on the Mexican/U.S. border and got impatient when she gave a generalized "as many as it takes" sort of answer. if she cannot give confident and specific responses to questions people ask her, how is she going to handle a White House press conference or any other situation?
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 12:59PM
dave,
She gave the only correct answer.
"As many as it takes"
The same as "how many dollars on national defense?"
Correct answer:
"As many as it takes."
dumb-bunny...are you going to run?
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:43AM
I agree. It's a trap question. Remember the liberal demands for Bush to give an exact timetable for exiting Iraq? It's a trap question, and she gave the right answer.
Yackums| 12.1.10 @ 7:04AM
"As many as it takes" is the proper answer. Noone campaigning for President can possibly answer more specifically and not be talking out of their asses. (The only exception would be a former general with combat experience to the current conflict.) That's what generals' recommendations are for. The right number of troops to send is the number that the commander tells me he needs to finish the job. Full stop.
Yackums| 12.1.10 @ 7:05AM
That should read, "with combat experience similar to the current conflict."
Anommynous| 11.30.10 @ 12:52PM
Why does Saturday Night Live have such an influence on public perception of Republican candidates, to the extent that people attribute Tina Fey quotes to Sarah Palin?
Sapwolf| 11.30.10 @ 2:01PM
SNL doesn't.
However, many Rinos in blue states believe SNL decides the election.
Palin does not have to win all 50 states, just what McCain won plus the five close-finishing eastern states plus one more. Bingo, first female POTUS.
The Mama Grizzly Movement (MGM) will help Sarah get half the female vote. Added to the 55% of the men's vote she will get and it easily gets her there.
Anommynous| 11.30.10 @ 2:42PM
But SNL was influential in the 2008 election, at least amongst the youth vote that turned out in unusually high numbers to vote for The One. These are the same people who rely on The Daily Show as their main source of news. I'm guessing their enthusiasm will be down in the next election, as the novelty of Obama has worn off. But goodness, do those young'uns have a hatred of Sarah, and I just don't understand it.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 2:57PM
Hate to rain on yer parade there Sap but for her to get near 50 percent is highly questionable, considering the path she's on now.
As a matter of fact, her immediate challenge to for her to shore up the conservative female vote.
...something about putting the cart before the horse :-)
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:44AM
Exactly!
fundamentalist| 11.30.10 @ 1:11PM
Jefferson once called Washington something like a block head. Yet Washington was brilliant as general and president while Jefferson was a terrible president. Wisdom accounts for more than raw intelligence. There are a lot of intelligent idiots out there. Hayek wrote in "Fatal Conceit" that intelligence is highly overrated, especially by self-styled intellectuals.
However, Palin won't win because the women of the US are too jealous of her looks. In fact, I don't think a woman will win the Presidency for at least another generation because women are too jealous of women in power.
But thanks for advertising the hypocrisy of socialists in the US. Of course the media act as accomplices. I noticed in the last campaign that the Saturday Night Live made fun of Obama, Biden and Clinton for being mean, arrogant, wooden, bitchy and all kinds of things, but never stupid. Democrats are never stupid. But the Palin and McCain were always stupid in every skit. As far as the media is concerned Democrats may be mass murderers and baby eaters, but under no circumstances can they be stupid.
Sapwolf| 11.30.10 @ 1:58PM
Sarah will run and win the primary.
Then she will defeat Obama because Obama is an idiot, is lazy, and a Prog.
She only needs to win the McCain states plus the following:
Indiana (won already)
Ohio (indies abandoned the Dems)
Virginia (Bob McDonnell proved the indies have went back GOP)
North Carolina (won already)
Florida (pick West or Rubio and its covered)
ONE more state from the following:
Colorado
Nevada
New Mexico
Iowa
Wisconsin
New Hampshire
I don't see Obama holding all six of these states. Palin will do quite well in Wisconsin and Iowa and could pull off the upset in NH as well.
The GOP in CO needs to reorganize and unite with the Tea Party.
Obama is Carter II.
Mark| 11.30.10 @ 10:36PM
And therein lies a big problem.
Looking at what states went which way in 2008, the only GOP state that may flip Dem would be WV. (NE has their odd split system and the Dems did get one vote in 2008; hard to say if that happens again or if the GOP takes all NE's votes.)
Of the Dem states, I agree with all of the must wins except Ohio. I just don't see the indies being all that enthusiastic about Palin so I can't see it flipping. Of the others, Iowa could flip but I don't see any of the others doing so.
One thing which needs to be taken into account is the intervening realignment of the electoral votes due to the census. It looks like GOP stronghold Texas (my home state) may pick up 3-4 new seats, Florida 1 or 2, while Dem stronghold California gets NO NEW SEATS and many Rust Belt states LOSE seats. Will that be enough to make a difference?
Sapwolf| 11.30.10 @ 2:20PM
You people who think Sarah is not ready for POTUS, just try to stop her.
Go ahead and push your favorite in the GOP Primary, and we'll see who wins.
A little competition is a good thing.
Clinton Lovell| 11.30.10 @ 2:59PM
There's one way to find out. She can run and the electorate will decide and I have a feeling this is the one thought Democrats would rather not have anyone ever express. We just exercise the franchise and let the chips fall where they may. Can't be any objection to that. If the people want Sarah as president, then she will be president. If not, they will pick someone else. One thing is certain, it is not likely to be Obama picked as president ever again.
Louis Jenkins| 11.30.10 @ 2:59PM
Jim DeMint would be an excellent candidate for president, but I believe his heart is still in the Senate. The next person on my list would have to be Palin. Let's be honest, we tried the black man for president, and it went bust. Now it may be time to try for the fairer, and dumber, of the species.
loulou| 11.30.10 @ 3:09PM
Correction: We tried an affirmative action black man for president.
You're right though--Obama has ruined it for black men who want to be president.
Charie| 12.4.10 @ 3:11AM
I don't believe that for a minute. I know several of them who I'd vote for. Number one on my list would be, if he were a little younger, Thomas Sowell. Can anyone deny his intelligence or competence?
Clint| 11.30.10 @ 9:18PM
Tea Party Rebels want The Senate's Point Man and The Tea Party Kingmaker Jim DeMint to run for The Presidency in 2012.
Steve A| 11.30.10 @ 3:03PM
The fact of the matter is this: Palin is clearly the one Progressives (Dem & Repub) fear the most out of the long list of potentials. She absolutely must be destroyed by any means possible. If she were the "dunce" they portray her as, the strategy would be to lay low & let her secure the nomination & walk to another 4 for Obama. For me, personally, I would absolutely love to see a Sara / Barak debate on full display. I would bet the ranch she would clean his clock.
Clint| 11.30.10 @ 3:05PM
Quinnipiac University Survey November 22,2010:
"Palin, the party's 2008 nominee for vice president, receives 19% of the vote in the national survey of Republican voters. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who finished second to John McCain in primaries and caucuses won in 2008, is backed by 18%.
Another 2008 candidate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, gets 17% of the vote, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich finishes with 15%. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is a distant fifth at 6%"
Turnditch| 11.30.10 @ 3:46PM
If the elitists and their complicit media want to label me as "dumb" for voting for Sarah Palin in 2012, well, so be it. They both said the same thing seventeen days ago, eh?
Something tells me that the elitists and their media will be in total shock come the first Wednesday in November 2012...
Papa Grizzly| 11.30.10 @ 4:10PM
The way for Sarah to win is to take on Michelle Bachman as her VP.
Those two would be awesome!
Judge W| 11.30.10 @ 4:13PM
Those who think Palin's "good looks" are an asset will be bitterly disappointed a few years from now.
She will age badly. In five years she will be gut-churningly ugly. Take it from one who has seen a lot of women get old.
And she will still an idiot.
Margie| 11.30.10 @ 4:18PM
Another dumb Liberal speaks. Well Judge W, everyone grows old, but since it is the spirit that gives life, Sarah will NEVER be or look ugly.
"It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Jn. 6:63.
Judge W| 11.30.10 @ 4:23PM
Margie - I admire your faith. I have no quarrel with your assessment of the enduring powers of the spirit. But those who speak of Sarah's physical beauty are in for one unpleasant surprise in a few years.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 6:26PM
Of all the things to criticize Sarah on you focus on her potential future ugliness?
Get a grip!
By the way, how did you acquire such powers to be able to project future attractiveness?
Hey Kreskin, how about Hillary?
Judge W| 11.30.10 @ 6:37PM
Hey, Bob, you grumpy old fool, it's not I that "focus on her potential future ugliness" but your low-class tea-party colleagues who think that physical attractiveness is relevant to being president.
It isn't, in case you didn't know.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 6:45PM
Are you a newbie to this site?
RARELY do I see a post where people mention her physical looks.
Put...the...crack...pipe...down!
Bye the way, I'm not much in Sarah's camp either.
T D| 11.30.10 @ 5:27PM
You're right, Margie. Look at Margaret Thatcher. Still beautiful because the spirit shines through.
Clint| 11.30.10 @ 7:00PM
Regrettably, Margaret Thatcher at 85 suffers from Dementia .
Margie| 11.30.10 @ 7:10PM
And Tim*.. oops I mean Clint, pray tell what does that have to do with it?
Don't like Thatcher? Anarcho-Capitalists don't consider her conservative, do they?
Clint| 11.30.10 @ 9:07PM
Apparently, You suffer from Dementia.
Now, tell James III you're back.
Margie| 11.30.10 @ 11:47PM
I'm not the one hiding behind another screen name. (Yet another.)
Not sure if that's Dementia or cowardice?
And as usual, I've got you pegged.
But the Leftist never deals with what has been said... does he? Heh.
T D| 12.1.10 @ 1:51AM
The issue is beauty and aging. Margaret Thatcher in her 60's, 70's and beginning 80's is still beautiful. Do a search on Harry Borden's photo of her in 2006. She's beautiful. It won third prize in the Royal Photographic Society's 2007 competition.
As for dementia, you are obviously confused about how it works. It doesn't necessarily affect how you look, nor does it mean that you become a blank slate with no character. The spirit still does shine through. The memory/thinking skills start to dim. But, it can be a long process. So, far 10 years and counting for Margaret Thatcher.
Margie| 12.1.10 @ 9:19PM
Heh, TD.. Clint (Tim*) really knows that. He's got an agenda. You see, he's an Anarcho-Capitalist and anti-semite. He despises the conservative Margaret Thatchers of the world.
Thatcher| 12.3.10 @ 10:27AM
I knew Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin is no Margaret Thatcher.
Charie| 12.4.10 @ 3:17AM
Well, "here come de judge...' I hope your mama gave you that name because it isn't from any considered judgment, it's plain to see.
Sarah has good bone structure. She'll still be beautiful when she's 80.
As you've seen so many women get old I'm sure you're no spring chicken yourself. Plese don't post any pictures.
ejp| 11.30.10 @ 4:18PM
Don't forget Jeffrey that the flip side to what you so brilliantly note is how these same liberal elites and historians have also made a career of elevating the intellectual prowess of liberals who didn't deserve to be so regarded. Adlai Stevenson is the most notable example, who was supposedly this well-read intellectual of the highest caliber but as we later learned was a man whose only book that he kept on his end table was the Social Register. Then there's the strange fixation of the liberal elite in making Senator William Fulbright, one of the most notorious segregationists there ever was, some giant intellectual even though the love and adulation he got stemmed solely from his anti-Vietnam war stances and his echoing of every New Left interpretation of American foreign policy in the 20th century. And Sam Ervin was not exactly the most distinguished of legislators (nor particularly enlightened on race) until he found himself a hero as chairman of the Watergate Committee bringing down evil Richard Nixon.
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:50AM
+1. An excellent point. When they aren't trashing conservatives as dumb and bigoted, they are pushing their own intellectual midges at us. Bigots and chauvinists, too. Robert Byrd anyone? John Kerry? Al Gore? Teddy Kennedy? Ah, yes. The fair-minded, intellectual giants.
Amanda| 11.30.10 @ 4:35PM
Palin is the ONLY ONE who has a record of fighting corruption and reducing spending, as a city council member for two terms, as mayor for two terms, as oil & gas commisioner for one year and as governor for 2 1/2 years. Additionally, Todd and she have owned their own commercial fishing business for years. She has the brains and the grit to do what needs to be done.
Why else are they all afraid of her? Because their cushy little jobs and money the politicians give themselves and their friends will dry up like a shriveled testicle under her administration.
I think this country is doomed without her.
Eliza| 12.1.10 @ 11:25PM
Actually, under Palin, the spending went UP during her various tenures. The commercial fishing business has done so well that Todd had to hold other jobs over the years.
Her "fighting corruption" had more to do with getting revenge against those who opposed her than with fighting any real corruption.
A prime example is that "bridge to nowhere" kerfuffle... Yes, she turned down the money FOR THE BRIDGE, but not the money itself. She accepted it and channeled it into pet projects, including a stadium for Wasilla (where her son, incidentally, was in HS sports). The bridge was nixed not because it was going "nowhere" but because it would have diverted traffic away from Wasilla and family businesses.
And, never forget--she QUIT halfway through the job because she got a taste of the big time and she wanted more.
virginia| 11.30.10 @ 4:42PM
Dumb is as dumb does a.k.a obama
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 5:33PM
Mr. Lord,
Perhaps the real question that should be asked:
Is Sarah "dumb enough" to be the servant of the American people in the Presidency?
I hope she is that "dumb".....and gracious.
T D| 11.30.10 @ 5:42PM
First rate!
Abraham Lincoln began the list of Republican presidents/candidates defamed as "dumb". He talked funny and used backwoods phrases and comparisons too.
You are right that the key issue regarding wisdom or foolishness regards the person asking the question in the first place. True dumb is when you don't learn from experience.
Thank you for writing this.
Da Monk| 11.30.10 @ 5:45PM
YES SHE IS!
BackToBasics| 11.30.10 @ 5:50PM
Maybe she has the brains, she has intelligent-looking eyes, but her sentences do not hold a straight line of thinking. As one who would like to see her do well, I cringe as I listen to her just as much as I cringed when Bush was speaking. - Although actually I think she's got Bush beat by a little in that department. But I want her to do better and so it's painful to see her struggle so much at times.
She also speaks in what sound like talking points rather than having coherent sentences that come from much knowledge and thought gained over the years. I've wondered if she's intimidated by the negative press from speaking her mind and her true beliefs.
Yet, she obviously has some strengths and I think at her core she is probably intelligent. I just wish the Republicans could find someone who is very articulate AND conservative and remove all doubt in doing so!!!!
I also know she's not tough on fighting illegal immigration. If she was tough on this I'd vote for her despite my doubts. But if she continues to be soft on immigration, given my other doubts, I'll vote for someone much more conservative, if offered, in the primaries.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 6:33PM
Talk radio and FOX has set it up to where she will be the nominee. When that happens, it's hello Hussein Obama another 4 years.
That, my friends, is why I come here to talk sense into like minded people.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 7:45PM
Bob Grant, BacktoBasics,
That is called "faint praise" re, Palin.
First of all, Daffy Duck ought to win against Obame after another two years...or a civil war of snipers in the mean time.
Punch out a couple of hundred communists, (pardon the shorthand), and our country could begin to heal.
C'mon, people! Push your minds two years into the future.
Thank God we got the House back.....gridlock under constitutional conditions.
Obama has no option but to go "extra-constitutional" and get fired....or cause a national revolt.
America said NO!
Texas said NO! first...ie: my new novel
www.texassaidno.com
Read it and you will never need hair conditioner again, (grin).
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 8:13PM
Give me excerpts and I'll consider purchasing the whole shebang.
Book Peddling| 12.1.10 @ 12:21PM
Great, another one using us to peddle a book...
Sarah Palin's example and legacy has truly inspired many. Why not become her running mate, tour the country or pitch a TV show too?
It will be better for sales.
jose goldfinger| 11.30.10 @ 6:52PM
Sara Palin has a shot at being a very successful president. I do not want to see her waste that opportunity by making her move too soon. My advice: Keep doing what you've been doing (TV, books, fund raising, endorsements, and political commentator) then run and win as senator from AK - serve a full term & develop a real track record - then run & win the presidency.
She will never convert the Establishment and the libs but a stronger resume' will bring over enough so called "Independent" voters to put her over the top. Another reason: She is just too good looking for many female voters - 8 to 10 years will solve that problem.
Puzzled| 11.30.10 @ 7:09PM
Can someone explain why it is that the Republicans keep putting up presidential candidates, each of which is worse than the previous? Let's start with Nixon. He was a paranoid bastard, but he was also a very, very smart man. Then we get Ford. Parodied in the press, but still a pretty smart guy. Next up is Reagan. Now things are looking a little dubious. A second rate actor with the thought processes of a bright high-schooler. OK, not a total nitwit but not exactly what one expects of a world leader. Next up GHW Bush. Now we are getting really into it. A clever fellow, but not much of a thinker, as he himself admitted ("I'm not into the vision thing"). And most recently, GW Bush, who, however much the right wing tried (and still tries) to spin it, was a total mental washout. What do you expect from someone who pickled his brains for 40 years.
And now, we are supposed to swallow a Palin presidency? Sure, she's got a lot of charisma and resonates pretty strongly with a lot of Americans, but what intellectual qualifications does she bring to the table? Nothing, really. Just a lot of "common sense". Well, "common sense" is certainly an essential ingredient, but it is not enough. A president also needs to be able to conceptualize and understand complex problems. A president needs to be totally informed on hundreds of issues at once. A president needs to be able to relate to hundreds of other world leaders at once, and not just by bullying but by being able to find the common ground which allows for the peaceful resolution of disputes.
I fail to see that Sarah has any of these qualities, or the capacity to develop them. The very fact that she has adopted the "mama grizzly" as her image shows that she knows how to fight back to defend her own, but not how to negotiate nor how to lead in a positive direction. She's very, very good at demonizing her opposition but totally useless when it comes to working with them. And this is just a recipe for national paralysis, or worse.
Bob Grant| 11.30.10 @ 7:19PM
Terrific. You tell us you don't like Sarah ( I have issues with her as well), but throw us some living examples of who you would consider possessing presidential timber?
Do you mind telling us who you voted for in '08?
ejp| 11.30.10 @ 7:29PM
"Next up is Reagan. Now things are looking a little dubious. A second rate actor with the thought processes of a bright high-schooler."
Your credibility just went into the toilet with that one, given that you're spouting a dated mantra from the 1990s that went out the window with the emergence of Reagan's own handwritten radio scripts, diary etc.
But you see there is a nice example of the phoniness in the left in trying to presume intellectual superiority when all they do is demonstrate (as the Gipper said in his great 1964 speech), "they know a lot that just isn't so." :)
Puzzled| 11.30.10 @ 9:32PM
Geez, I was being generous when I said Reagan had the thought processes of a bright high schooler. If you can't see that those diaries only confirm this, it must be because you are a dim grade-schooler.
Bruce Berger| 12.1.10 @ 9:57AM
Puzzled,
I don't think you know what you are talking about. In my opinion, Reagan was the best President of the second half of the 20th century and the second best was Truman (high school education only). I'll take those guys any day over the simpleton that occupies the White House today.
Gretchen| 12.4.10 @ 4:07PM
My late Mother would have described "the simpleton that occupies the White House today" as an "educated fool."
Ydnar| 11.30.10 @ 7:54PM
You’re right about Nixon, very smart; however, not smart enough to keep his folks under control (nor very good at damage control). As for Ford, remember he was thrust into the position but was endeared by much of the left because he was seen as pliable. Not a stupid man by any stretch, just not a dynamic leader. As for Reagan, c’mon, he called this recent move by the prog’s more than 40 years ago. He was always suspect because he was once a Hollywood insider. Very maligned by the left because he was able to call them as he saw them and didn’t care if someone got their panties in a wad. Not a huge fan of GHWB mainly because he gave up on the election when it “looked” like Clinton was gonna get left in the dust. Bad move on his part (actually his campaign manager should have been given the boot) because I think he would have done better during the second term. Lastly, GWB... Much like Reagan, when he made a decision he stuck with it and didn’t waffle just because the press or public wasn’t sure or didn’t understand his thought process. Not my favorite pres but still a damn site better than who we currently have to look at on the evening news.
Personally, I believe that a president has to have tenacity of spirit (our current leader is a gumby). This allows a president to make those tough decisions with conviction and this ultimately shows the world the strength of our political system. That tenacity combined with the ability to see things from an outsiders perspective, provide the common sense approach and actually connect with the people is what separates Palin from the others. However, any president is only as good as the people that he/she puts in positions of trust and authority. Those folks are the ones that will make or break a president and as much as I believe she would make a great leader, I have my doubts about who she would pull into the inner sanctum of the White house. For instance, Clinton was a terrible leader but he knew how to put together a staff of advisor’s that kept his presidency out of most conflicts (primarily thanks to Hillary). Even though her husband is a down to earth type of guy and smart in his own right, I can’t put my money on his ability to enhance or influence, to any great degree, Palin’s decision making process.
All in all, if she decides to run, the person she picks as a running mate will ultimately determine the outcome of the race. If she picks anyone with strong beltway ties, she’s pretty much lost the fight before its begun.
Puzzled| 11.30.10 @ 9:29PM
Do you like grape or orange Kool-Aid?
Puzzled| 11.30.10 @ 9:40PM
There is nothing commendible about making a decision and sticking with it when it is the wrong decision. Or are you prepared to argue that invading Iraq was a good idea? Are you prepared to argue that increasing the national debt by a factor of 6 (Reagan+Bush+Bush) was a good idea?
Charie| 12.4.10 @ 3:28AM
****What do you expect from someone who pickled his brains for 40 years.****
We've finally gone into the theater of the absurd. Are you implying that George W. Bush started drinking in his cradle? Stop throwing numbers around before you put your mind in gear!
I know an old guy who has been drinking for 70 years and he could still think rings around you.
Ydnar| 11.30.10 @ 7:17PM
As much as I believe the country is ready, and would benefit from a femal president, I think there are too many folks out there that will point to her last outing with the press and say she is not presidential material. Personally, I think she'd be a great leader but it remains to be seen if she is firmly embraced and totally backed by the very folks that would have to vote to put her in office. Got my fingers crossed, the last thing we need is Mitt Romney in those hallowed halls.
Spiritof76| 11.30.10 @ 7:19PM
John Quicy Adams may be an elite but I do not agree with your characterization of Andrew Jackson. Just because he was from the frontier, it does not automatically elevate him into some sort of a hero opposing the elite. In fact, Jackson was a much bigger elite than Adams. He broke all treaty obligations with the Indians and cause their "mass-killings" much like Kruschave did in Ukraine. Jackson was the author of the destructive Manifest Destiny that gave license to ignore laws and pillage much of the west. Geroge Washington would have been appaled seeing what the nation had become, had he lived to see the destruction being sowed by Jackson. He was also the pioneer in the government patronage jobs for the purpose of soldifying power.
The other thing the author fails to point out is all the dumb presidents including Obama who were touted by the "lamestream" communist propaganda machines as brilliant. Obama is a failure. His policies have failed. Trillions spent with no discernible results. His foreign policy is a failure. His propensity to treat Americans as terrorists at the airports in the name of secuirity is another failure. The list is endless.
We have to start attacking the failed socialistic policies of the Democrats and their Republicans allies.
Ydnar| 11.30.10 @ 7:57PM
Well said!
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 7:58PM
Spirit of 76,
I am very sorry. We cannot cure stupid here.
My paternal grand-parents were both half "native Americans".
I learned a lot from them.
Did you know that tobacco mixed with saliva kills bug stings?
Native Americans killed each other rather than vote though....long before "Manifest destiny" became all the rage.
Led Display | 11.30.10 @ 9:09PM
He must be deaf and dumb. The voters just spoke and they said, "We want federal spending cut by $2 trillion, plus we want Obamacare repealed or defunded."Solenoid Valve
55inchlcd | 12.1.10 @ 12:03AM
Yes I think so
yanqui704| 12.1.10 @ 12:47AM
I like Sarah and I will vote for "anybody but Obama". But I'm pretty sure she can't win (unless O's approval numbers are in the low 20's. There are too many that won't vote for a woman and a lot that will come out to vote against "that woman". Look at the polls - for every one of us that really like her, there are an equal number that despise her. They've already made up their minds. The Lefties aren't rooting for her to run because they are afraid of her. Maybe initially, but they see her negatives have stayed high even with more exposure. Her candidacy would have the "high floor, low ceiling" issue like Joe Miller. It doesn't matter if she would be a great president if half the country would not consider voting for her. Let's beat Obama.
led display | 12.1.10 @ 3:42AM
I think so
Foreign watchdog| 12.1.10 @ 3:55AM
Sarah Palin would make an excellent president. It isn't what a person knows or whether she is intellectually superior, but what ordinary common sense she can bring to the job. She would soon come to grips with the position and give a new fresh breeze of confidence to the country. What I've seen and heard of her, she would handle the presidential work like no other. You definitely need a conservative leader, the liberal left have gone too far.
Alison| 12.1.10 @ 5:24PM
You are talking about someone who didn't even have enough ordinary common sense to go to the hospital when leaking amniotic fluid and having contractions when 8-months pregnant with a special needs child. Instead, she bypassed hospitals with NICUs in Dallas, Seattle, and Anchorage to have her child in a small local hospital that doesn't even like to deliver twins.
JeffT| 12.1.10 @ 9:53AM
And Obama is brilliant, right? When off TOTUS, he is a complete and utter (apologies to all cows out there) disaster. Check out The Obama Gaffe Hall of Fame and compare his verbal gymnastics with any of Bush's or Palin's. http://townhall.com/video/obam.....l-of-fame/
Dot| 12.1.10 @ 10:23AM
Sarah Palin is a quitter, plain and simple. It's lovely that you all would want a President who quit who previous job because it got in the way of her grabbing as much cash as she could with both hands. I suppose that's a virtue to conservatives, which accounts for all the love being shown to someone of marginal accomplishment. H. L. Mencken's prediction will yet come true...
GBinPA| 12.1.10 @ 1:12PM
Dot, let me guess...you're a Democrat.
UnRiel| 12.1.10 @ 4:00PM
You have the wrong understanding of why she quit Dot. Question the attack machine that was preventing her and Alaska from moving forward. She could have stuck it out; she would have too except she was selfless enough to know that the state she loved and served would no longer be best served with her as governor. She made the smart and honorable decision. Credit should be given where it is due. You should get off the bandwagon and invest a little more though into your statements and beliefs.
Alison| 12.1.10 @ 5:18PM
Considering most members of the "attack machine" filing ethics complaints were Republicans, I can see why she could no longer serve as governor. If even your own party doesn't want you....
Charie| 12.4.10 @ 3:34AM
Alison, get real. Those Republicans were the CRBs and I'm sure you know what that means. Your posts smack of a personal grudge as well as stinking of Democrat Party talking points.
GBinPA| 12.1.10 @ 1:10PM
This article hits the nail right on the head. The liberal furor over Palin tells me they're afraid of her. By the way, how dumb is a President who appoints a pervert as the safe-school czar? How dumb does he think we are?
Alison| 12.1.10 @ 5:16PM
Well, Palin appointed a man reprimanded for sexual harassment (Chuck Kopp) to Public Safety Commissioner. How dumb is that?
Ted R.| 12.1.10 @ 2:55PM
Look, what you say has an element of truth to it: the emotions of loathing and fear are closely related, after all (even on a neurobiological level). Part of the liberal psyche certainly does fear that the country that elected that jackass Bush - TWICE - might just possibly elect Palin, if Obama continues to struggle. But you apparently have no clue how willing we are, to take that chance. The elites in your party are sure more scared of a Palin candidacy than we are. Really, the Democrats can only wish that Republican primary voters were fool enough to put Palin up there. But it brings us pleasure enough, just to see how the prospect of her candidacy is splitting you people. Palin is going to sow deep dissension in the GOP during the primaries; we can't WAIT.
UnRiel| 12.1.10 @ 4:10PM
Ted R you make a better point than you realize. The Republican party is being split but the elites are going to lose and the Republican Party will be the only party capable of winning this country back from socialism/progressivism/statism. Unfortunately for the Democrat Party, you're elites have already won.
The good thing for you is that as wrong minded as you are, when Sarah saves you, she won't even ask for an apology or a thank you.
UnRiel| 12.1.10 @ 4:13PM
Sorry for the grammar "your elites" I meant
John| 12.1.10 @ 3:11PM
Ted, please tell us who you and the libs want on the Democrat ticket in 2012,and why
Ted R.| 12.1.10 @ 4:23PM
Well, I'm a left-liberal partisan. And the fact is, that in this center-right country (one suffering from cognitive dissonance, by the way), there are almost no left-liberal partisans at the national level. Of course you folks here don't believe it, but that is certainly how many committed Democrats see it. Now, Nancy and Hillary qualify as left-liberal partisans, but for different reasons they are not outspoken enough.
The left wants someone who is a fighter. Someone who aggressively pushes not just liberal policies, but the liberal vision for America. The Cons howl all day long about how "radical" today's Libs are, but you have no IDEA what being in a REAL ideological battle would be like. The liberals need - our elected officials need - to be as aggressive ideologically as conservative politicians are. But we're just too timid. The only ones debating vision in America are the conservatives, and that is what is killing us.
We are extremely frusturated with Obama. He wants to stay above the fray, when we think he should be calling out the Cons - by name - as damaging the future of America. He's never played the class-card - believe me, if he was, you would KNOW, and you'd know what a fight WAS.
For all that, Obama's by far our most talented politician. We think he's governed responsibly, even if he's been too cautious. So there's no question he's our guy in '12. Given the weakness of the Republican field, especially, we think he's got a solid chance of winning re-election.
In case you're wondering, Hillary would not have been a better choice in '08. Assuming she would have been elected, she is too much of a lightning rod to credibly mount an ideological offensive. Indeed, if she were president the partisan rancor would be just as bad if not worse, and moreover, you'd have the twisted spectacle of Republicans lamenting that Obama was not the Democrat nominee, "because he'd be so much more REASONABLE and BIPARTISAN!" I swear that's JUST what the Republicans would be saying.
Obama can beat anyone in the Republican field right now, in my opinion, with the POSSIBLE exception of Newt Gingrich. Yes, I kid you not. Newt has greater experience and intelligence than anyone else in the GOP field, and he is a very talented communicator. The 90's scandals are long enough ago, that the center may be willing to give him another look, especially if Obama is still down in the polls.
Anyway, a long-winded answer - but it's probably a benefit to the people on this site to know what an actual liberal actually thinks, than what you bandy about in the echo-chamber.
UnRiel| 12.1.10 @ 4:49PM
Ted, what would you have your liberals argue? The truth? Liberalism may have once meant liberty under the law, but it has come to mean central planning and social engineering which are anti-liberty. Liberalism means dependence on the government for all services. Liberals cannot win on the merits of that argument, they must lie, obfuscate, attack, insult and malign which they excel at. I don't know if this applies to you, but if you want to have an idealogical debate, I'm your huckleberry.
John| 12.1.10 @ 5:12PM
Ted, interesting analysis. What is the liberal agenda or liberal vision? Specifically, what laws should be passed to achieve what goals?
I think Newt is smart, but there is something about his manner of speech that is off putting, he is not likeable. Obama, Clinton, Bush are likeable. Hillary, Kerry, Gore are not likeable
Ted R.| 12.1.10 @ 6:02PM
Hmn, I see your point about Gingrich. I sure get irked when he goes on the offensive; I just figured that whatever would tick me off would enthuse Republicans. The likeability factor is important - but let's not forget that your party could get someone like Nixon elected, so as a factor it might be an over-rated one. Hillary isn't likeable, either, but she would have stood a good chance if she had been the nominee.
On matters of substance: The cardinal value, for liberals, is authentic Equality of Opportunity. This idea trips people up, because while substantive equality of opportunity requires the redistribution of resources, it is neither a zero-sum redistribution nor is the redistribution intended to effect TOTAL equality of outcomes - only outcomes which are necessary to bring everyone up to a roughly equivalent starting-line in life.
Redistribution for the sake of equal opportunity concerns two kinds of goods: goods that all citizens, by virtue of being citizens, are entitled to on the grounds of equal dignity (like Social Security, police and the courts, and a decent baseline of health care access), and goods that yield positive externalities (goods that provide more individual benefit, the more widely they are shared), like public education, pollution controls, financial regulation, and - again - a decent, common baseline of health care services.
Providing these services - providing, that is, some decent level of universal health care, universal education, and a national energy policy that encourages innovation by increasing the price of dirty-carbon fuels, takes more money than the government currently collects. In the liberal's view, it is the wealthy that benefit the most from life in an advanced industrial society, and so it is incumbent upon them to have a greater proportionate share in the tax burden, in order to provide the services to individuals that make the country as a whole strong.
Instead, what we have seen since the Reagan years, is a society organized to benefit the wealthiest the most. Not only do liberals think that this is unfair, that the rich are getting more out of our system than they are putting in, but it represents also a misallocation of national resources, causing us to fall into debt and causing innovation to lag.
The financial debacle of the last few years is a case in point. The financial sector doesn't produce anything; they don't make anything that people can consume. What they have done - especially once regulatory controls were removed - is direct human ingenuity in the direction of developing accounting tricks and exotic paper instruments to create a lot of paper wealth. I'm not saying that Democrats were not complicit in these developments; but to my mind, the reason for that is that in the go-go Conservative era that ran from 1980-2008, the Democrats felt compelled to cozy up to Wall Street, just to remain politically competitive.
All that is just a precis of a true liberal policy vision, and of its policy ramifications. It is what ties together our views on taxes, regulation, and GENUINE equality of opportunity.
UnRiel| 12.1.10 @ 9:35PM
An interesting post Ted. The problem is, liberals got everything they wanted and there policies have simply failed. Liberal policies require central control and central control in all systems has failed, whether it be the hard socialism of the east or the softer socialism of the west incl the US. China can only maintain control by playing with capitalism, stealing tech and manipulating its currency.
We have universal education now and we keep dumping more and more money into it without improvements; arguably, it has gotten worse. The Conservatives recognize that that is because the wrong people are controlling the choice and the services.
The same with health care. The laws are stacked against the competition that would make it more affordable and extend access and make vouchers from govt for the poorest feasible.
We have the cleanest air and the best energy technology in the world, but our own laws and onerous regulations have outsourced local energy exploration and production to countries with neither the expertise nor incentive to do it well.
Finally, by any measure the wealthiest are already paying the most, it is simply the corrupt progressives in both parties that are so greedy that they cannot subsist on the taxes collected.
Ted R.| 12.2.10 @ 1:08AM
I would say that there does not exsit genuine equality of opportunity in the secondary school system, because of the way that schools are funded - by local property taxes. That creates a situation where there is going to be considerable disparity across districts, in the quality of education being offered. I would propose that all property taxes go into a state pool, for equal distribution.
But that is not the most important factor affecting school quality. The most important is the stability of domestic family life; and for various reasons - partly economic, partly sociological - more families are failing in the basic tasks of bringing up the young. When young people are inadequately socialized, they are going to run into (and cause) problems in the school environment. Teachers cannot be expected to pick up parents' slack. More competition (for a price, of course) in schooling is not going to fix the real source of the problem.
On health care, conservatives delude themselves that choice and competition can create efficiencies in the health care market, they way they do in most other markets. Health economists (including one of the great 20th century economists, Kenneth Arrow) have understood this for half a century, now. Health care services, especially in crisis situations, are big expenditures that have to be decided on with limited time and often limited information. That is not how most of our big-ticket purchases work in the market. It is too much to ask of consumers, to make them primarily responsible for these decisions. Experience has shown us that it not reliable to delegate these decisions to interested third parties, either (the insurance companies), because the decisions of these third parties are guided by profit, and it is profitable to deny claims, not to pay for them.
The laws "stacked against" more affordable health care, include laws which stipulate the level of expertise that doctors must demonstrate in order to practice (reducing the number of quack doctors around - though there still are plenty), and laws which regulate where insurance companies can operate (another key protection for the consumer, in my view).
Energy policy is yet more complicated. We have short- and long-term goals when it comes to energy, and those goals are at odds. In the short term we need energy, a lot of it, at affordable prices - and we get this overwhelmingly form dirty-carbon sources. In the long run, for the sake of greater economic efficiency, ecological sustainability, and international stability, we have got to reduce or dependence, posthaste, on dirty-carbon fuels. It is in our long-term economic interest to make this shift, but it is almost no one's short-term economic interest to act. It is in a situation like this, that government action to disincentivize dirty-carbon consumption, and promote innovation in clean- (or cleaner-) energy production, is vital. It is very difficult to do, politically; but it is as pressing as it is hard to do.
As for the question of what the wealthy's share of the tax burden should be, here we simply have a philosophical divide.
In my point of view, it is obvious that the wealthy are not responsible solely, perhaps not even primarily, for the wealth they accrue. The wealthy depend for their ability to innovate and accumulate, on a complex system of property rights, which requires a state for their implementation. The wealthy depend on a well-educated general population, who can serve as employees and as individual consumers economically productive enough in their own right, to be able to afford the products that the wealthy entrepeneur makes. Entrepeneurs, then depend upon an exceedingly complex surrounding system of production, in order to themselves have any chance of thriving. This system does not exist outside of the context of states; and states do not exist without taxation.
Again, since in the democratic-capitalist political economy, the wealthy benefit the most, it is only just that they contribute the most to the upkeep of that system.
Finally, economists like Schumpeter, Kersner, and Alchain have pointed to the dynamism of the captialist process, and the particular unpredictability of success in the market. What their thought reminds us, is that luck (and bad luck) plays a very prominent role in a given entrepeneur's success or failure. Given that that is the case, any given wealthy individual (or for that matter, ANY individual who inherits or earns) cannot claim SOLE responsibility for the wealth they have accrued. They not only are dependent in part on the state for their opportunity to accrue, but to Lady Fortune as well. Given this, it is NOT accurate to speak of one's money as "all one's own" - because to a significant extent, one did NOT "earn" it, "all on their own." And it follows from this, that the state is entitled to a share of everyone's income, for the sake of the maintenance of the political economic system; for, absent this system, life would simply be "nasty, poor, brutish, and short."
In the last analysis, our system works best when there is genuine equality of opportunity. Enacting redistributions of income to promote that equality as best as possible, reduces egregious income inequality (which experience shows is not good for free societies), and promotes the good of the economy in the long run. That is not to say that it produces the best results for every individual business; but Adam Smith taught us long ago, that to be pro-market, and to be pro-business, are not always the same thing. That's a lesson that conservatives have yet to learn.
UnRiel| 12.2.10 @ 8:38AM
Ted, you do provide a lot of detail, but you are clouded by your library of factoids. The one point in particular that is my personal pet peeve is your point about families bringing up the young. Liberals refuse to concede is that the welfare state has attacked the family structure; especially in the Black urban communities. When there is so much incentive for under-privileged and poorly educated people to have children without marriage, if they do not have to work for their shelter and food, what is their incentive to keep their children in line? And for another matter, schools have more than a little in common with a prison's general population, where smaller children are bullied, drug use is out of control, sex is expected and STDs are commonplace. Forget small classrooms, we need to have small schools and alternatives to the traditional school model, but that would take money and power out of the unions for whom the children are simply chits. And if you ask a Conservative if they support disciplining their children in school and at home, you'll surely get resourcing support. We haven't even gotten into the stranglehold the unions have on the schools and the public sector disguised as serving the working man. The DC voucher system was a critical success and Obama killed it to satisfy the unions.
As I said, you got everything you wanted. Now you quibble with details explaining if we tweak this and modify that centralized social engineering can succeed! But these are just postures and distractions for keeping the power centralized. You are a smart man; clearly well educated but I am persuaded that you are trying to make liberalism work in your mind when it has failed in action. On the other hand, we've only experimented with Conservatism in the past 50 years. Reagan and GW Bush only succeeded in implementing a few Conservative programs and these few things have indisputably (yes I know you will dispute them) saved the country and the world and made the US the most prosperous nation in the world and in history, but at each opportunity the Liberals wait and pounce determined to strip that progress away.
Liberalism had its chance and if I have anything to say or do with it, your chance is over.
Best regards!
Ted R.| 12.2.10 @ 12:35PM
Alright, UnRiel; I do acknowledge that there is a connection (the details of which need to be investigated, established) between the AFDC and Food Stamp programs, and chronic poverty and dependency in black urban communities. Informed liberals like Daniel Patrick Moynihan acknowledged this general connection early on, in fact.
Recognizing that there is a problem here, though, is only the first step in trying to craft a solution to it. The plight of inner-city black American today is a signal example of how the past reaches right into the present, influencing current events. The obvious problem with the black community, is that in contrast to all other immigrant communities, black Americans never achieved full integration into the mainstream of American life. And this was because of our Original Sin of segregation.
There is plenty of evidence that, in the first few generations after emancipation, black Americans were keen to integrate and enjoy all the opportunities of the American way of life. This was a time - the first half of the 20th century - before the black community had internalized an image of themselves as a victimized community, before they began indulging in grievance politics. But White America was not prepared to accept blacks as social equals, and acted, by both legal and informal means, to stifle opportunity for blacks. Three or four generations of this had, by the 1960's, a very adverse affect on the belief of many black Americans that they were able to control their fate, either individually or collectively.
Also beginning in the 60's, the share of national employment provided by the industrial sector of the economy, began to shrink. Many black men who had been well-employed in manufacturing found themselves without work; and education and retraining was neither something that was on the public agenda, nor was it really within the mental horizon of these men. The unravelling of the black family, the prodigious rise in single-mother households, greater black family dysfunction and greater crime in the black community, all date from this time. I acknowledge, no doubt, that the social upheavals of the 60's and 70's, in which greater sexual promiscuity and drug use in the culture as a whole emerged, wreaked havoc amongst blacks.
A few generations of these conditions have left much of urban black America in a poverty trap. There are many blacks who have broken out of it, but they have been the lucky ones.
I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem, at least in the short-to-intermediate term. The dysfunctional culture of many black urban communities means that throwing money at the problem, will very quickly yield diminishing returns. Reform absolutely has to come from within the black community itself, but there does not seem to me to be much impetus for that at this time. I'm open to any ideas for ameliorating, revivifying the culture of these communities, including market-oriented ideas; but I don't think that vouchers or charter schools are the only or the best solutions. Instead, something has to be done to restore the black family; and that, I'm afraid, is a Herculean task.
John| 12.1.10 @ 10:51PM
Ted, you are giving me the standard generalities. I asked for specific, concrete examples to achieve the ends you desire. How do you achieve authentic equality of opportunity? and what does authentic mean? You say everybody should start out equal. I agree, but that is an impossible goal to achieve in a free society. You would a government so powerful to dictate everything that the cure is worse than the disease, Think of Cuba, North Korea, USSR.
We all start out differently due to differnces in intelligence, looks, family wealth, family conncections, schools attended., and plain luck etc. It is better to be lucky to be born a Kennedy or Rockefeller in the US than to be born in North Korea, no matter how smart you are. Or to marry someone rich like Theresa Heinz,when she married John Heinz, or when John Kerry married Theresa.
We have numerous laws to provide for equality of opportunity and it is up to the individual to use that opportunity. I believe the key is education. But the educational system is a monopoly run by the state, We need competition in the primary and high schools, as we have in colleges. Look at the high schools in Detroit or Philadelphia or D.C. They are terrible
If you are proposing more government involvement to achieve equal outcomes, that will fail.
You cannot blame Reagan, that is standard boilerplate liberal nonsense. All Reagan did was to lower the income tax rate, this was done with the Democrats joining in the bipartisan law, remember Senator Bradley? Those tax cuts stimulated the economy to create jobs. It allowed people to keep more of their money to spend. It is not the government's money to allocate to citizens, it is our money to earn and keep after we pay taxes for the necessary functions of government.
To achieve perfect equal starting place for all, the government would have to require everyone to attend the same schools, have the same amount of money for education and training, which means a dictatorship, and a loss of freedom. the net result is everyone would have a lousy education, and low standard of living, but we would all be equal.
We have problems to resolve, but not the way you are implying.
Ted R.| 12.2.10 @ 2:00AM
I agree that absolute equality of opportunity cannot be achieved. That's why I expressed the ideal as bringing everyone up to a "roughly equivalent starting-line in life." One simple reason that we can't have absolute equality of opportunity, concerns the differential effects of inherited private property. Some will be born into households with lots of resources (including vital human capital, like family connections); others will lack these advantages entirely. These are benefits that the individuals inheriting them did nothing to earn; yet often as not they profit as a result. This to my mind is just one of those things that you have to accept, if you want a system of private property. But it definitely militates against any possible absolute equality of opportunity.
As far as concerns the dissolute course our economy has taken in the last generation, I do blame Reagan. He set the nation on the path of a credit-card mentality; he was the one who instigated the Con mantra 'Don't tax, but spend anyway.' It was the lassiez-faire dogma that he championed, that later Cons seized on when they held tax cuts and deregulation of the financial industry as ends in themselves. Just the combination of government debt and malign financial deregulation, have led us to the current ruinous pass with the economy.
I am doubtful about the stimulus effects of the tax cuts. One thing they have done for sure is increase income inequality, pushed it up to astronomical levels. Income inequality is essential in a free society, but there comes a point where it becomes socially corrosive. We have been at that point for some time now, in my view.
From where I sit, the budgetary, fiscal, and public policies of Reagan conservatism have hurt our Republic, badly. They have encouraged the greed of the already powerful, and have torn at the social fabric. During the era of Reagan conservatism, too much of our economic growth was debt-fueled (both public and private). It was an unsustainable path, but it was one that conservativism ceaselessly promoted. We are now living the reckoning.
A much better course to have taken, should have been to raise taxes, progressively, as government liabilities grew. Then we could have experienced, in real time, the cost of the programs and regulations we wanted, and could have decided back then if we really wanted to fork over more tax m0ney for these services. Our deficit would then be of a much more manageable size, and growth and innovation would not have been affected much, if at all...
John| 12.2.10 @ 1:07PM
Tax revenues doubled under Reagan. But Congress spent the money. You cannot blame Reagan for people using credit cards. That is absurd, there is no cause and effect.
You still have not told us of specific concrete methods to achieve your results. Nobody will dispute that everyone should have equal opportunity, but how do you achieve it. Tell me what law you would pass, if you were a benelovent dictator, to achieve the authentic equal opportunity. It is not enough to just say we should all have the same opportunity. And by opportunity I assume you are talking about making money, getting a job.
So tell us, skip the generalities, of how the government can achieve what you want. Specifics. If they are good, we can push to have them enacted as laws. Blaming Reagan will not work. Praising Obama will not work.
Ted R.| 12.2.10 @ 3:13PM
Whether or not you choose to believe it, health care reform and entitlement reform are linked. The whole purpose of Obamacare is to reduce costs and increase access; and the whole point of the individual mandate is to better reach those two goals. Republicans have never been serious about health care reform - they have never even been serious about trying to privatize the whole system, which according to their rhetoric is their preferred way of addressing the problem. Their lack of seriousness has merely let the problem of affordable care to linger and get worse each year. They cannot be trusted to offer solutions, now.
Taxes need to return to 2001 levels. First, for the rich; then, after employment falls below 7.5%, for everyone else. We had a marvelous, rip-roaring economy in the 90's with the Clinton tax rates - we can afford them, and the country will return much sooner to fiscal health when we do.
Beyond this, we can probably afford to raise rates on the wealthy (I'm flexible about who falls under that definition). These revenues can be directed to finance universal health insurance access, or to pay down the debt; again on this point I'm flexible.
We need to downsize the military. We no longer live in a uni-polar world; there is no justification for our continuing to shoulder all the burden of policing it. The quickest way to get others to up their contribution, is for us to draw back from some of ours. We have some 800 bases located all around the world; we should consolidate many of these. Our presence in the Middle East, particularly, needs to be retrenched.
We should probably cut at least 100 billion from the Pentagon budget; this money can be used for various purposes - health care finance, Social Security finance, public higher education, paying down the debt.
We should eliminate the DHS. I think it's an unecessary bureaucracy and a waste of money.
We should eliminate farm subsidies. These are only costing Americans more money at the grocery store. Importing more of our foodstuffs would help economies in developing countries, as well.
On energy: We need a national strategy for shifting the U.S. energy foundation away from absolute dependence on dirty carbon and toward other, more sustainable, and cleaner, energy sources. The problem is, that energy production is capital intensive; none of the big concerns are going to risk too much in innovation when we can continue to exploit the old sources. So, we need somehow to adjust the calculus of incentives in the energy arena. There are two ways we could do this: we could slap a tax on carbon, and use the proceeds to aggressively research alternative technologies. If we want to leave our energy needs more up to the private sector, we can place caps on emissi0ns; when businesses go over the cap, we will fine them. We can then take the proceeds and give them to the public, to offset the expected increases in energy costs that will come with the re-tooling that Big Energy will be undertaking. These are just two ideas in this area. The bottom line is, we need to move away from dependence on fossil fuels, for future economic, ecological, and foreign policy reasons; and these are not reasons that the market, with its focus on quarterly earnings, is going to responsive to. We need to give markets a nudge in the right direction. We began doing this, under Carter in teh 70's; and we immediately enjoyed real gains in efficieny. We can do it. Only the Cons are telling us that we can't.
John| 12.2.10 @ 9:42PM
I agree to reduce the Pentagon budget, eliminate DHS, also eliminate the Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, Farm subsidies,I would eliminate the income tax and IRS and replace it with a national sales tax. This would produce the same amount of revenue, reduce costs associated with IRS, and equally importantly stop the unreasonable invasions of privacy by IRS. It would also reduce the power of politicians who grant tax breaks as a reward for contributions.
Disagree about energy policy. Let the free market develop new forms of energy. For the present, drill, drill, drill, for oil in Alaska. This would reduce our involvement in the Middle East.
For health insurance, the issue is not health care, it is health insurance. First, everyone in this country receives health care. If you are disabled on Social Security, you receive Medicare, regardless of age. If you get hurt at work, Workers' Compensation pays for all the medical care for that injury, If you are hurt in an auto accident, the auto insurance will apply. If you are indigent, you qualify for Medicaid and state run medical insurance associated with welfare, If you are a minor, most states have CHIP programs to provide health insurance for minors whose parents' income falls below $40,000 per year. If you go to an emergency hospital room, they have to treat you regardless of insurance. The list is endless. The point is everyone receives health care.
The issue is to reduce the cost of health insurance for those who actually pay it. There are numerous ways to do it. Restrict medical malpractice suits. Allow expanded medical savings accounts so people are directly involved in paying and can better monitor the cost of procedures. Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. Have government run clinics, similar to VA hospitals, to treat indigents. The list is endless.
My approach is more libertarian, free market, to achieve the same goals.
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 12:56AM
There is no equal opportunity when there is forced redistribution of wealth. Why do you liberals keep yearning for something that is impossible. It's like yearning for golden eggs by killing the goose.
It. Doesn't. Work.
Ted R.| 12.2.10 @ 2:05AM
Every. sentence. here. is. exactly. wrong.
idalily| 12.2.10 @ 3:23PM
Robbing Peter by force and giving the money to Paul makes Peter poor. It NEVER makes Paul (or anyone else) richer. NEVER. I will reiterate: you cannot have equal opportunity via legal or illegal theft. Period.
It. Still. Does. Not. Work.
Ted R.| 12.2.10 @ 4:05PM
Well, do believe we should have a state at all?
idalily| 12.3.10 @ 6:05PM
Of course. I just don't believe in totalitarianism. As John so eloquently said above, there is no way for government to make us all "equal" without a totalitarian regime. I wish people would get off this Utopian bandwagon that somehow life can be made fair and all people made equal by legislation, regulation, and government programs. It cannot be done.
UnRiel| 12.1.10 @ 4:02PM
I think Sarah is great, but I've been on the fence as to whether I thought with her baggage she should run for office. That is behind me. EVERY Republican candidate is going to be attacked viciously. Sarah has already shown the thickness of her skin. If she runs, she will be the first candidate I send money to.
Alison| 12.1.10 @ 5:21PM
That's funny. I've always thought she was thin-skinned, as demonstrated by her various diatribes against minor slights.
Alison| 12.1.10 @ 5:00PM
I have never thought Palin was too dumb to be president. However, I do believe that she is too intellectually lazy and willfully ignorant. She could correct this if she would apply herself and in the process become a formidable candidate. Unfortunately, she shows no desire to do so. Instead, she would rather surf on her charisma and hope that she doesn't wipe out.
Ted R.| 12.1.10 @ 6:05PM
Well said, Alison. Though I would aver that if someone is Willfully ignorant, that entitles them to label 'dumb.'
Margie| 12.1.10 @ 9:16PM
I have a suggestion for both of you: let's see you make a run for the Presidency!
Please! Bless us with your superior intellect! Honor us with your knowledge! Guide us with your excellent principles! Bestow upon the American people your perfect leadership! Teach the rest of us who are like Sarah Palin the way we need to go! We eagerly await your announcements!
Lorenzo| 12.1.10 @ 5:06PM
Yeah, she's the grass roots gal, you betcha. She don't need no high falutin education.
She is a media star and that's what we need now. The lamestream media she pretends to dislike covers her every move. While repubs who actually have something substantial to say are ignored by the lamestream media, her every utterance is covered.
And all you idiots can say in her support is that she is more qualified than someone you believe is totally unqualified.
She is an uber ambitious attention craving semi-literate woman from an Alaskan village who decided to quit her job to run for a job that would get her more adoration and above all, make her rich. Buy my books, watch my TV show and worship me because I'm just like you, only richer.
Let's see some posts comparing her to other potential nominees.
deo| 12.1.10 @ 6:49PM
$arah is an idiot.
Habit| 12.1.10 @ 7:34PM
Are you kidding me? Did you see the interview with Katie Couric? Palin is DUMB!
MattZ| 12.1.10 @ 7:59PM
You forget petty, pandering, and cowardly.
She resorts to Facebook like an angsty teen when slighted - petty.
She talks about folksy real Americans and the lamestream media - pandering.
While she refuses to confront said lamestream media because they ask real questions about her "empress has no clothes" political career - cowardly.
Send her back to Alaska and cut her adrift on an ice floe; she'll make Russia by morning.
MZ
konastephen| 12.1.10 @ 9:20PM
Habit. No. You're dumb.
Nathan| 12.1.10 @ 8:39PM
George W. Bush was an MBA, a Graduate of Yale and Harvard, a Jet Fighter pilot, a son of a President and a twice elected Governor of Texas. He was Einstein compared to Palin, and a darn sight better person.
konastephen| 12.1.10 @ 9:17PM
Palin's exactly what this country needs. It doesn't take a genius to be right about what to do next. That's the easy part. What's needed to gitterdone are more along the lines of balls and brashness than irradiate ideation.
Speaking of balls, in all the shrill cacophony of left-wing Palin-hating, I can't recall ever having heard anyone accuse her of cowardice. No one would buy it if they did. The woman has already weathered more than any 20th century political candidate ever had to go through and she's done it with a cheerful, sparky grace that her haters only wish they could emulate.
The thing is, with all her indomitable optimism and chutzpah, Sarah's winning the hearts and minds of people both dumber and smarter than she is all over the country. That's the sign of not just a good leader but a great one. (The word Reaganesque comes to mind.)
By the way, it doesn't take a genius to be right about most things. The worst kind of wrong people are the ones with lots of letters behind their names and nothing but conceit in their hearts, as we all know all too well right now.
Eliza| 12.1.10 @ 11:30PM
Really? You want to compare her to Reagan? I suggest a crash course in what Reaganomics did to the country. Of course, this was also the man who thought it funny to make jokes about bombing Moscow and nearly starting WWIII.
Charles Elliott| 12.2.10 @ 2:30PM
Any time I hear the phrase "What Reaganomics did to this country", I hear someone who has never studied Reagan and his presidency.
Just another intellectually lazy liberal who relies on unfounded claims by liberal pundits for their information, instead of doing any research on their own.
Turnditch| 12.1.10 @ 9:51PM
Palin-Pence/Pence-Palin 2012
No matter which one wants the leading role...
Eliza| 12.1.10 @ 11:36PM
Please stop pointing out Ford as an elected president. He was NOT elected! Ford was appointed as a safe and non-threatening antidote to Agnew because Nixon still thought he was going get through Watergate without a scratch. OOPS!
When Nixon resigned, a man not really prepared to be in that position of power was stuck with it. Remember WIN buttons? Some of the worst economic stats in decades? Congratulating Poland on being such a free country? Falling UP the stairs?
The only thing I saw Ford ever do that was worthwhile was to embarrass a Colonel by giving his troops an entire week off for the 4th of July one year.
general summerall| 12.2.10 @ 12:09AM
One time the wsj printed a 1914 ivy league college entrance exam for bright young men who were to be future Leaders. Almost all of the questions were about Latin and Greek grammer, and one question about the form of a Mozart rondo. Good lofty stuff, but I found nothing in it that would prepare anyone for what was going to happen in the 20th century after what was to happen after the summer of '14 changed the world. And one time on the Sat. afternoon foxnews show on the weekly press, the talkers all jumped all over Mr. Thomas when he mentioned the Progressives in the early 2oth. Why was he bringing up all that old stuff. Maybe my point in this rambling is that I am a great believer in our Leaders being trained in History and World Affairs. And in lists of great Western books to study I recommend Mandeville's Fable of the Bees; from private vices come public virtues.
Etiquette Man| 12.2.10 @ 1:28AM
This is an outstanding essay--informative but not professorial, erudite without being in the least elitist. Thank you, Mr. Lord.
ari| 12.2.10 @ 1:22PM
voted for her once. happy to vote for her at the top of the ticket. you betcha.
Alaskan Resident| 12.2.10 @ 2:24PM
If Sarah Palin wanted power so badly, then she would've announced it by NOW. I should know, she is my neighbor & former Governor. I have a much better idea of who she is than most people commenting on this blog. She isn't a power monger, she only has a big heart to serve others, but, I really don't think she is going to run in 2012. Since it appears that there might be other good quality candidates, I'd be surprised if she decided to go for it. Not only that, but, power or not, a leader is the greatest servant of all, and it takes tremendous sacrifices, both personally and professionally for anyone who steps forward. Sarah has made those sacrifices, and taken huge hits from people, including stepping down from the power of the Governor's office so Alaskan's state office departments weren't bogged down with taxes used & ineffective time invested/wasted over the frivolous unfounded complaints & lawsuits against her. It is well known in Alaska that one woman, Andree McLeod (Democrat), did most of the official complaints on purpose just to throw Sarah off. McLeod was reported in Alaska news and was almost thrown out of a legal meeting due to her unhealthy horrific behavior. She attacked Sarah with more than 15 frivolous legal complaints, all of which were unfounded. Like for example, when Sarah was wearing an Arctic Cat winter jacket to Todd's snowmobile race, this woman complained that Sarah was using the jacket on Governor time to promote Arctic Cat - ROFL!! The problem with this is that Sarah was on personal family time, and McLeod was just maliciously and intentionally using up our state resources over stupid stuff that obviously had no merit to begin with. Our Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell, was astounded by Sarah's wonderful high level of integrity and good character when she demonstrated the willingness to put Alaskans well being before her own by stepping down from power. Parnell praised her for the tremendous character she showed and the sacrifice she made in stepping down. Sarah has integrity, a high level of character, sharp as a tack intelligence, funny, full of good surprises, personable, down-to-earth, easy to talk with, and the willingness to sacrifice in order to put others before herself. I know, because I've had the opportunity to test this out for myself first hand, during my one-on-one experiences with her.
Alaskan Resident| 12.2.10 @ 2:36PM
I was sooo impressed with my interactions & experiences with Sarah Palin, that I voted her in for Wasilla City Mayor, Alaska Governor, AND for President / VP.
Donald Ward| 12.2.10 @ 2:42PM
To assert that George Romney was "...a spectacularly successful business executive as the chairman of American Motors." is oxymoronic. That's like asserting that the captain of the Titanic was spectacularly successful at evacuating the sinking ship. American Motors? The Titanic of doomed auto makers?
Bill Jones| 12.2.10 @ 2:45PM
Good discussion. But also an excellent reminder of why I no longer subscribe to TAS. I can't take the spin. George Washington was denied a commission in the British army, not because the Brits thought him a provincial rube, but because as a Colonel in the Virginia Militia he led a strike team that slaughtered a group of unarmed French diplomats, thereby starting the French and Indian War. The Brit officer corps may have been snobs, but they recognized bumbling incompetence when they saw it. By spinning the tale to suit their theme, TAS simply denigrates their message.
Ginger| 12.2.10 @ 10:17PM
I love Sarah Palin. Whatever she decides will be fine with me. Obutthead said he doesn't think about Sarah Palin. I bet he loses sleep worried sick that she might knock him off of his invisible throne. LOL Go Sarah!
general summerall| 12.2.10 @ 10:21PM
If the British military recognized incompetence, why was Braddock a General?
Hitler Palin's Welfare Alaska| 12.2.10 @ 10:59PM
Hitler Palin in the Welfare State of Alaska, and her band of Neo Nazi militia TBaggers . . .Go Sarah Go . . . make our economy into a banana republic.
FYI. Take away the hair, her manly jawline alone with the touch of a Hitler Mustache would be fitting.
Montana| 12.2.10 @ 11:23PM
The half term governor is a “Dan Quayle” in heels. Since we already had an idiot “W” that caused our current economic debacle, America knows not to trust in fools who think they are brilliant. One of the reason for “W” failure was his drinking, Palin just has bad genes.
E.| 12.3.10 @ 5:42AM
Sometimes, people are considered dumb just because they are. She makes Dan Quayle look bright. There is a real problem with giving such people power. She's shown herself to be less than bright, to be vengeful, petty, a liar. Let her go.
hrh| 12.3.10 @ 9:28AM
E, please stop describing yourself.
If you want to talk about Palin, do some homework and get back to us.
Start with Going Rogue. Follow up with America by Heart. Then Sarah Takes on Big Oil by the editors of PetroleumNews.com.
Move on to www.facebook.com/SarahPalin and www.palintv.com.
Wasilla | 12.4.10 @ 4:57AM
You have a great article! God help us all if Sarah Palin was able to somehow actually make it into Presidency...
I also found this amusing. It's the f*ck Palin facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/.....0642270383
Daniel| 12.5.10 @ 1:44AM
I'm reading many far right partisan comments that praise Palin, and condemn the Democratic party. Not surprising. But simply saying Obama is dumb and Palin is a shining beacon of light in politics is divorcing yourself from reality. Remember a time when you weren't a total partisan shill. Many of you wouldn't say these things in public. Grow up and act like adults who are capable of respect and consideration. Who know who you are.
Daniel| 12.5.10 @ 1:50AM
Seriously people. Why don't you just say it. You hate Obama because he's a nigger. That would at least be honest. I can't believe the hate I'm reading here. You guys have no class. I'm not a right wing guy but I must point out that many of you are so extreme it's simply embarrassing.
mzk| 12.5.10 @ 5:39AM
Wow, Daniel! So if we don't accept the MSM view of who is intelligent and who isn't, we must be racist!
Obama is proof of what happens when you take a State Senator and make him president. Palin is definitely more experienced in things relevant to the Presidency, if you look at reality, as opposed to MSM "reality".
Palin also appears to upderstand the world better, in that at least she knows the lessons of Munich, which Obama seems to have forgotten of ignored, if he ever know of them at all.
mzk| 12.5.10 @ 5:47AM
Can one be in the middle somewhere? It is precisely because of the lessons of Obama's inexperience that I am a little leery of a Palin presidency. It is certainly not her fault the the Democrats used Lawfare to unfairly drive her from office, but she does need more experience, something along the lines of Reagan's GE tours. It is a shame she was not made VP; that would have been perfect training.
But I would still vote for her; at least she understands the country and the world - and she certainly has better experience and instincts than the ameteur currently making a laughingstock of the United States.
AMERICA| 12.5.10 @ 2:24PM
We have ONE of the DUMBEST SOB,s I ever CREATED on this Earth so Sarah would be a breath of Spring !When people get THIS LOW you KNOW they are running SCARED ! It took a REAL IDIOT to write such a STUPID column. she is a Govenor and the STATE is doing just fine..IF o,bumma,s IQ was one point lower he would be a plant..in fact..there IS a PLANT at Wal-mart..ya pour water on his head ( already some water inside on the brain ) and it GROWS...just like his EARS, that BOY certainly is DUMBER than a BOX of ROCKS ! He thinks Wheeling W. Virginia is a JOB..SARAH will CRUSH him...she will CRUSH ALL DEMOCRAPS..ha ha ha
Brenda Kidd| 12.15.10 @ 4:52PM
If she wants to try again it will be by choice. If given a chance she may or may not be a good president. That is something that we all will have to wait and see. Like all of us, I am sure that she will do her best. Will I vote for her, that will be posted on another comment.
I asked that people tweet a twitter message out for anyone in need for things that they must need to survive. Now I ask for a donation in honor of what you do have to give to 5 people. Your donation will allow three kids, boy age 5, girl age 3 and girl age1 to received toys and clothes for Christmas. Your donations will also stop two adults a daughter and a mother that lives in two different houses from going into foreclosure. They cannot make their mortgage payments. A letter was written from Habitat that stated, failure to make your payments is a serious issue and will result in your account being sent to foreclosure. Foreclosure would result in you losing your home and having to move out. Please remember that once your account goes into foreclosure, you will be responsible for the remaining balance of the loan, late fees, default interest, as well as any incurred expenses including attorney’s fees, end of letter quote. They have no, where else to go. Please help save their homes by sending donations for Ms Kidd and Ms James to Habitat for Humanity P.O. Box 16422 Mobile, Alabama 36616 (251) 4767171 and please send all clothes and toys to 1523 Airview Drive Mobile, Alabama 36605. Don’t let them loose the only places that they can call home. They need immediately help. Their house notes should have been paid once again on or before December 10, 2010 and has not been. As of December 13, 2010 they will be receiving another letter from Habitat. So please help them. Please help spread the word through other means, blogging, Facebook etc. Thank you
http://helpustomaintain.blogspot.com
danshanteal| 12.24.10 @ 4:02PM
I'm loving all the comments. I voted for Obama in the Oregon primary and McCain and Sarah in the election. Once I heard the Reverend Wright, I knew there was something wrong. But the remark that keeps refraining in my mind is that of Valerie Jarrett when she said about Van Jones...we've had our eyes on him for a long time. Then I knew Mr. Obama would be a one-term president.
jj9| 12.28.10 @ 8:55PM
Sarah palin is a run down runner up, a quitter, a woman who had more baggage than samsonite and someone who could not name one newspaper that she read. I like most democrats are hoping that she will be the republican nominee for president in 2012.
Bill Arnott| 1.3.11 @ 1:45PM
I think Barbara Bush was right "Let her stay in Alaska"