The American Spectator

Captain America| 11.7.08 @ 11:31PM

Note to Ambinder and Robert:

Unless you can add names to innuendo, don't waste the screen space. Nothing separates you from the National Enquirer, which I don't read.

Tom Paine| 11.7.08 @ 11:34PM

Maybe Palin knows that Africa is a continent, and maybe she does not.

My question to Palin supporters is this: exactly what evidence do you have that leads you to believe she could not possibly have been so ignorant?

What policy speeches, interviews, or press conferences has she given that display such acumen and erudition that such a gap in her geographical knowledge is unthinkable?

Has she really struck you as so intellectually brilliant?

I'm not attacking Palin. I'm sure she's a lot smarter than I am. She's certainly more successful.

I'm just interested in how people can be so sure the stories now circulating about Palin are so obviously false. I think there's good reason many of these stories are rumor-mongering and people trying to save their professional necks after a disastrous (well deserved) loss.

But I wasn't too impressed by Palin herself, during those few instances she was exposed to the press.

TRUE Conservative| 11.7.08 @ 11:52PM

STOP BREAKING Reagan's 11th Commandment and at the very least give Gov Palin the benefit of the doubt!!! Since when did you let the media control your mind?

Tess| 11.8.08 @ 12:51AM

Everybody, remember the two political figures who have been the most hounded and smeared this campaign cycle: Mitt Romney and Sara Palin.
Who knows who is behind the smears, but whoever it is knows that both Mitt Romney and Sara Palin are dangerous because they could be very viable candidates. My guess is that whoever is behind theses rumors is laughing himself or herself silly because this is like killing two birds with one stone.

Steven Yoder| 11.8.08 @ 12:51AM

My evidence that Sarah Palin knew Africa was a continent is that Rick Davis said so in an interview. He also stated she was extremely well-informed about what was going on in Darfur.

philly| 11.8.08 @ 1:20AM

The ongoing destruction of Sarah Palin can be traced to a number of McCain's operatives whose loyalties clearly lie with George W and Jeb Bush.

Nicole Wallace and her husband owe their careers to Jeb Bush and George Bush. Tracey Schmitt is also a product of Bush political patronage. Steve Schmidt was a lackey for Karl Rove, who destroyed McCain in 2000. Rick Davis was manager of Bush's 2000 campaign, and his management of McCain's campaign can best be described as sabotage.

Nobody hates John McCain more than George W Bush, and Jeb Bush is the invisible 800 pound gorilla in the room for 2012.

The "mismanagement" of Sarah Palin by Wallace and Schmitt is so complete that it cannot be assumed to be pure incompetence. Wallace set up the "hide Sarah" strategy, the wardrobe disaster, the Katie Couric debacle, the "diva" leaks, the "rogue" leaks, and now the "Africa-is-a-country" and "What is NAFTA?" leaks.

The blame of Romney on all of this seems like a red herring to me, a theory based on his supposed consuming desire to be nominated in four years. But Romney operatives are NOT in control of Palin. Bush operatives are. Wallace and Davis are likely the guilty parties because they are out mildly defending her, probably on orders from McCain.

Maybe blaming Romney is a smokescreen put up by the Bush brothers. Publicly smearing Romney with that tar will weaken another potential rival to Jeb Bush. George W Bush certainly prefers leaving a path to the Presidency open for Jeb in four years than to elect the hated McCain now and to set up a complete stranger as VP.

Sarah now will have filth and abuse rain down upon her from the liberal MSM, the Romney crowd, and, most importantly, the Bush family.

God Save Sarah Palin!

truthie| 11.8.08 @ 2:11AM

A third Bush? Are you kidding me? We won't have any republican party left. We've barely survived two.

mark west| 11.8.08 @ 9:02AM

The McCain campaign was fun while it lasted, but now it's over! So let the ship sink.

Only 4 Romney aides join ed McCain. They were jr. staff. . .

bluecollarbytes| 11.8.08 @ 9:04AM

What skulduggery. Who said what about who, and who's commenting on who said what, about who?

Quick notes: Jeb Bush is probably toast on a potential run for the presidency. The effort it would take to redefine Jeb as something other than one more Bush probably isn't worth the brain damage.

Romney couldn't get any traction until some stauch anti-Romney folks realized the alternative was McCain.

Sarah Palin, thrust into the national meat grinder overnight, survived. She's not likely to ever be "loved" by PopMedia and Democratics anymore than Reagan was. But the Republican Party's hopes for anything more than "respect" as the minority will depend on its ability and willingness to follow its younger up and comers who prove themselves. I'm not claiming Palin has 'proved herself' sufficiently to start counting chickens. But it's folks like her the Party needs to look at if they need a clue. And they need all the clues they can get.

Mark Steyn's take on the election is far more balanced than many who are trying to diminish the danger and Reality of what Obama's ascendancy means. Obama's going to push forward and succeed in implementation. Republicans would be foolish to count on his presumed failure as "outraged voters" rebel in 2010 or 2012. Obama the activist isn't going to lay down or slow up waiting for Republicans to redefine themselves.

Glen| 11.8.08 @ 10:01AM

People will attack Palin because they are afraid of her. Normal people like her and can easily relate. The left spent a lot of time and money to denegrate her culture and attack her as a person. Don't buy into it. Obama isn't any smarter, definitely not Biden.

runner| 11.8.08 @ 10:49AM

I could see Jeb Bush run for senate from Flordia in 2012 against Bill Nelson but i would be shocked if he runs for president in 2012...now if he gets elected to the senate in 2012, than obama also wins in 2012, maybe you got the famed bush vs clinton match-up in 2016...of course, i think obama might change up his veep in 2012, put biden at state and bring in the current gov of kansas as his replacement which might change things up in the 2016 dem primary...nice cat fight there cause if hill and bill are healthy i doubt she doesn't run in 2016, her last shot at the age of 68...As for the palin smear, clearly somebody wants two birds with one stone, smear palin, than smear romney for the palin smear...My advise, how about a palin-romney ticket or a romney-palin ticket come 2012...and flip the bird to whoever is with this smear job.

slyfox| 11.8.08 @ 11:12AM

If Obama's nomination and election--and his mantra of change--means anything, it is that the country is tired of the Bushes and Clintons in the White House. The Republican Party will go the way of the Whigs if it keeps turning to yesterday's retreads as its standard bearer. The first place to start would be a little back bench rebelliion in the House and Senate caucuses. But don't count on it. The Republican Party in Illinois is a pathetic excuse for a political party. And what happened here is about to get repeated on the national stage. Somebody needs to grow a pair and wise up.

Robert Stacy McCain| 11.8.08 @ 12:05PM

Bluecollarbytes writes: "Sarah Palin, thrust into the national meat grinder overnight, survived. She's not likely to ever be 'loved' by PopMedia and Democratics anymore than Reagan was."

I have argued, and will continue to argue, against taking for granted that conservative Republicans must inevitably suffer from bad press relations. Reporters are human beings. Even if they will not respond to appeals to reason, they can still be motivated by incentives. The big problem with the GOP's media relations strategy over the past few years can be boiled down to "too much stick and not enough carrot."

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 3:02PM

I think the press responds to and respects strength, that's why they have been particularly vicious to President Bush. His inability to articulate well invited their ridicule. They tried to savage President Reagan but he was too adroit to let them define him. They kind of remind me of a pack of wolves; show weakness and you are toast, especially if you are a conservative. Say what you will, but I think any conservative, pro-life female candidate will be targeted, that's one of the reasons I feel protective of Sarah.

DJ| 11.8.08 @ 6:35PM

You people are all insane if you think Palin or Romney is the answer.

Gov. Mark Sanford is the only republican on my radar that can restore our liberty after 8 years of Bush and 4 of Obama. Ron Paul will be far to old by the time 2012 rolls around.

Sanford will have the ability to unite the conservatives. He'll make the fiscals happy, I don't think the socials will be too upset with him. You'll get the libertarian vote unless we pull some fantastic candidate out of our rear end. You'll get civil liberties democrats. The chances are endless if you can get Mark Sanford the nomination.

That being said I expect the republican party to nominate another fraud along the lines of Guliani or the Governator.

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 6:45PM

Yeah, we're insane. Who the hell is Sanford, another weak, squishy white guy? No thanks.

DJ| 11.8.08 @ 6:46PM

Mark Sanford is the Governor of South Carolina.

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 6:52PM

Sounds like McCain.

Alex M| 11.8.08 @ 6:54PM

Romney people spread the same kind of smears against his opponent Shannon O'Brian in Massachusetts, it's uncanny. Romney is the worst sort of flip-flopper, one day he's pro-choice the next day he's pro-life, one day he says he's "better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy" (actual quote), the next day he's bashing gay people in every speech, more militant than any mainstream conservative. Mitt Romney actually paid for anti-Mormon robocalls in Iowa so he could then complain about "religious intolerance." Romney is deeply disgusting to me.
I'm a life-long conservative, but if Romney is ever the GOP candidate, I'll be voting Democrat.

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 7:08PM

I would never vote for a Marxist.

DJ| 11.8.08 @ 7:18PM

ruth | 11.8.08 @ 5:52PM
Sounds like McCain. >>

Do your research before you make up your mind. Go to google.com and type in Mark Sanford, plenty of info on him there.

DJ| 11.8.08 @ 7:19PM

ruth | 11.8.08 @ 6:08PM
I would never vote for a Marxist.
>>

If you voted for McCain you were only a step or two away from doing so.

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 8:16PM

Like I had a choice? Who did you vote for, Paul? Forget it, conservatives won't vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Nice way to throw your vote away.

Ivan Ivanovich| 11.9.08 @ 6:37AM

Mitt to Palin : Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.

DJ| 11.9.08 @ 7:41AM

ruth | 11.8.08 @ 7:16PM
Like I had a choice? Who did you vote for, Paul? Forget it, conservatives won't vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Nice way to throw your vote away.
>>

You did have a choice, but I assume you've never heard of Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr either.

Voting on principle is never throwing your vote away. When you sell your principle's you have wasted your vote.

If you're willing to bring financial ruin on the entire nation for the sake of abortion you have your priorties in the wrong place.

If you knew anything about DR. Ron Paul you would know he's a OBGYN who's never performed a abortion in his life. He's delivered hundreds of babies and is a staunch pro lifer.

Barbara| 11.9.08 @ 3:09PM

As for the dog that didn't bark: McCain's endearingly sanctimonious habit of dressing down his allies when they "cross the line" of dishonor by mentioning BO's middle name or his choice of pastor isn't much in evidence when his own campaign staff engages in the worst bit of character assassination I've ever seen AGAINST HIS OWN RUNNING MATE.

His silence is stunning. He may as well be spreading the rumors himself. You'd think that he'd speak up just to keep some dignity. He certainly owes Sarah Palin. It's kind of sickening to hear her speak so glowingly of him and he's too small to return the favor.

Karl| 11.9.08 @ 5:38PM

I am disgusted in McCain for not defending Sarah Palin. He has put the final nail in his coffin as far as I am concerned.

ruth| 11.9.08 @ 11:01PM

DJ, look, I've got no beef with you. No way was I ever a McCain fan--he stuck a knife in our backs whenever he could. I am a pragmatist who understands that we are a two party system and I was just trying to prevent our country from going commie. You and I are allies: Obama Rules, Tom Paine, and and those other liberal asshats are not. My beliefs are simple; limited government, pro life policies , sovreignty, encouragement of individual strength not dependence and also protection from foreign enemies would be nice. Are we that far apart? I

ruth| 11.9.08 @ 11:39PM

DJ, If you value money over innocent life you have no heart. That's why I don't trust Liberterians; all rights--no responsibilty. Remember: LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness--in that order.

Nancy| 11.10.08 @ 12:26PM

I heard through a relative who is a journalist -- the McCain leakers were Schmidt and Wallace -- trying to save their sorry asses! What small people -- Palin is now the start and Wallace and Schmidt can go back and crawl under their rocks!!

DJ| 11.10.08 @ 6:50PM

Ruth :

Ok # 1 you're right we're not THAT far apart, but there is some seperation.

That's where you're mistaken, we're all about the individual taking responsibility for their actions.

For instance, we believe in decriminalizing most drugs. If bad things happen to you as a result of taking those drugs it is your problem. Those of us who refrained from taking those drugs are under no obligation to assist you in any way unless we choose to do so.

This is provided of course the seller of those drugs did not in anyway misrepresent what they were. In which case you would go through the civil court system for restitution and criminal Fraud charges could be pressed.

We the People are under no obligation to help multi billion dollar corporations sustain themselves when they make bad descions with their money. You make bad business descions, YOU PAY FOR IT. The money of private citizens will not be stolen by the state for your benefit should you fail.

We are about the rights of the individual and we understand that with those rights comes massive responsibility.

DJ| 11.10.08 @ 7:08PM

DJ, If you value money over innocent life you have no heart>>

I also am a realist, Regan and two Bush's have not been able to overturn R v W and I seriously doubt McCain would have been interested in fighting that fight.

I am against abortion myself, but I am not in favor of a State mandate against it. When life begins is not something that has been proven scientifically when and if it is proven you may have a case. But until then I believe the best way to prevent abortions is for all of us against it is to talk the women in our lives out of it, convince them it is the wrong thing to do. The State doesn't have the power, we do. A law will not fix the problem, back alley abortions were common before R v W. When they choose to bypass abortion of their own free will then we will have won.

ruth| 11.11.08 @ 3:03AM

I guess your individual responsibility philosophy is limited: it only pertains to some actions. You only have to be responsible for certain unwanted outcomes. Cherry Picking.

DJ| 11.11.08 @ 5:54AM

I guess your individual responsibility philosophy is limited: it only pertains to some actions. You only have to be responsible for certain unwanted outcomes. Cherry Picking. >>

Did you even read what I wrote? In a free society the individual is completly responsible for their actions, UNLESS some sort of fraud has been perpetrated upon them.

I said that before and I'm saying it again because and I'm hoping maybe this time you'll read it.