The American Spectator

Greg| 12.21.08 @ 12:55PM

Brooks, Noonan, Parker, all of them can shove it. Hopefully, Team Sarah can turn out thousands of volunteers in 2010 to help get conservative elected to the house and senate, and tens of thousands in 2012 to help get Gov. Palin elected president.

Jeremiah| 12.21.08 @ 1:30PM

Really, I hope more on the right feel like Greg and tell Peggy Noonan and David Brooks to "shove it." Let the brain drain in the GOP continue.

As for "team Sarah" and the (hilariously clepped) "Tocquevillean" movement in support of the governor of Alaska, this can be nothing but good news for Democrats.

Nevertheless, I wonder if it's possible for the author and others to fathom a scenario in which we are able to disagree -- even vehemently -- with Sarah Palin without being accused of being "haters."

In the Manichaean universe of George W Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and any adolescent you're likely to speak to, black white simplifications lead you people to believe that if I disagree with Palin I must hate her. This is foolish and toxic to our public, political discourse.

Greg, above, is a perfect example of a know-nothing nitwit dismisses some of the most intelligent people on his side in favor of a symbol. Palin is a symbol, not a thinker or leader.

Now, more power to her for that. Symbols are important, and I have no doubt Palin is a fine person in her private life. But Ronald Reagan, a true giant of your party, saw fit to use Noonan's intelligence and eloquence throughout his presidency. And you people accept "shove it" as an argument against her?

You have many lessons to learn during this time you'll be spending in the wilderness. Take plenty of notes, is my advice.

Robert Stacy McCain| 12.21.08 @ 1:37PM

Jeremiah, my dear troll: Thanks to our fearless leader, R. Emmett Tyrrell, we have the L.L. Bean catalog to help us through our sojourn in the wilderness,

Captain America| 12.21.08 @ 2:27PM

I'm not a Washington corridor conservative, just a rock ribbed conservative in fly-over country. Many of us would stand outside today (sunny, -6, -36 windshield) to see Gov. Palin. She is one of us.

Ron Watson| 12.21.08 @ 2:28PM

It's stupid for David Brooks or any other wet noodle republican to call themselves conservative.
David Brooks is a big joke. When he is on the News Hour Friday nights on PBS he really is an embarrassment to the republican party. Every subject that comes up he has basically the same answer. Well I agree with Mark on that or I think Mark hit it on the head with that one or I take a little different approach than Mark on this where I am actually not as conservative as Mark. He is suppose to be the other point of view on the show from Mark Shields who is a very left partisan person but most of the time one can't tell the difference from either one. Need I say more? David Brooks should be kicked out of the party. For those who don't know, Brooks was born and raised most of his early life in a strong liberal family by his own admission and he really has not forgot his roots.

Bob| 12.21.08 @ 2:54PM

RSM -- You can cheer for anyone to desire, but it is not opinion that Palin hurt the McCain ticket, it is fact based on polling trends and event timelines. This is exactly why I rail against this kind of "anti-intellectualism". If you can't do the analysis yourself, I can surely give it to you to post. It is one of the clearest analyses I've seen. Blaming this on McCain's response to the economic downturn is a falsehood as the polling trends do not show a significant drop after that event. It was clearly Palin's failure after the Gibson and Couric interviews that drowned the ticket.

Don't get me wrong, I was enamored with Palin when she first appeared and wanted to know more. You can't really learn anything from speeches as there are lots of actors who give great lines but are as dumb as doorposts. The only way to find out is with press conferences (of which there were none), debates (in which she refused to answer questions and winked a lot), and aggressive interviews (where she failed). I was with the mass of non social conservatives who saw that behavior and responded negatively. That is rational behavior. I don't know how anyone can support her with as little as we've see of her in contentious situations. We saw Obama in 22 debates, interviews with O'Reilly and Chris Wallace, and lots of press events being asked tough questions.

Now I'm careful to say that while she was not knowledgeable concerning foreign policy, the supreme court, wind and solar power, and the economy, I do not think she is dumb by any stretch of the imagination. But you can't allow someone with so little knowledge to run the country. She would either be a puppet of ideologues or make a lot of mistakes. What bothers me is that she had so little intellectual curiosity in any of these matters.

She has a chance to learn over the next couple of years. She will also have a much harder governing position as the price of oil subsides and she won't be able to buy popularity. Her popularity has already fallen some 25 points or so.

While you may have found a kindred spirit, it takes more than a spirit to run the country as Bush has proved.

Bob| 12.21.08 @ 3:00PM

RSM, you said this:

"Sneer at "populism" all you want, David Brooks, but your argument is not with me, it's with those thousands who stood in the cold Pennyslvania wind to see Sarah Palin. "

The same could be said of Britney Spears and "Hannah Montana". I'm glad you make your point so clearly.... ;)

Fred| 12.21.08 @ 3:38PM

If Palin would have had a different running mate, a conservative running mate rather than a liberal, she would have won the election. Too many conservatives despise McCain, and we haven't forgotten that he attempted to amnesty 30 million invaders.

Bucky Goldstein| 12.21.08 @ 3:43PM

You got it right, she is one of you. A religious hypocrite with a pregnant teen and drug addicted in-laws.

Joihn McNary| 12.21.08 @ 3:58PM

So ... Sarah Palin's new in-laws are busted for trafficking Oxycontin. Ten jokes in 10 minutes, and it only took that long because I am a terrible typist:

Hey, here's a new riddle:

What do you call a bunch of inbred Alaska hillbilly/drug addict/pregnant teen/moosehunting/Oxycontin dealing/trooper firing/hockey-playing hicks?

Why, Alaska's First Family, doncha know?

---

Is Trig an uncle yet?

---

Is America ready for a First Family tree with intertwined branches?

---

Does "Republican family values" mean the Palins got a family discount on Oxycontin from their new inlaws?

---

Did Sarah have to return the new underwear to Nieman Marcus, too? Even if that's all she's got?

---

If I were married to Todd, had a knocked up daughter and a, ahem, new baby, and all those trooper brotherinlaw problems, I'd be over at the neighbors borrowing Oxycontin to get through those long winter nights, too.

---

Wait a minute! I thought Wasilla was the crystal meth capital of Alaska. What's this Oxycontin I hear about?

---

Complete the analysis:

Crystal meth is to Oxycontin as ...

Sarah Palin is to
(a) Republican family values.
(b) pit bulls with lipstick.
(c) underwear paid for by political donors that has to be returned, even if worn.
(d) hockey moms wearing used underwear.

---

What's the definition of a boilermaker in Wasilla?

Crystal meth with an Oxycintin chaser.

---

How did Sarah Palin get elected mayor of Wasilla?

(a) borrowed underwear.
(b) crystal meth lobbyists.
(c) ballots marked by lipstick.
(d) pit bulls given the vote.

That's ten jokes in ten minutes. You guys make it EASY.

Carol| 12.21.08 @ 4:05PM

Sarah Palin is a conservative Governor who lives out her conservative values. As a result, Alaska is one of the only states that is not bankrupt and actually carries a surplus. She has "real" experience, not the armchair type of experience of a David Brooks. People who live in the "real world", as opposed to the intelligence cubicle, know the "real deal" when they see it. That is why neither McCain, nor Romney could be of any real help to Saxby Chambliss with their crowds of 100. It took the Palin draw of thousands for him to win that Senate seat. Republicans who would marginalize Sarah Palin must be suicidal

Captain America| 12.21.08 @ 4:24PM

The best of all worlds happened to Gov. Palin. She had a trial run for national office and now knows what it takes. Additionally, she won't have to play second fiddle to McCain as she takes the presidency in 2012. She has established a big national following of admirers, much more of a national following than her potential competitors. Michael Reagan states that Gov. Palin is very much like his father. And the liberals leftists can't stand her -- she will be our first female president beginning in January 2013.

Bob| 12.21.08 @ 4:51PM

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Run 'er, you losers!

levotb| 12.21.08 @ 4:54PM

While I was enthusiastic about Gov. Palin after watching her GOP Convention this summer, I had an uneasy feeling about her being less than a true conservative and more like the RINO she was running with. Her husband seemed more conservative than she did, and that worried me because the last thing I was going to vote for was an Open Borders RINO! The McCain people sheilded her from answering any tough questions from the get go, and that was another concern. What were they afraid of? The biggest issue they were afraid of was her views on illegal immigration. Statistics out of Alaska (NumbersUSA) showed that there were at least 40,000 illegal aliens in Alaska and that there are at least TWO Sanctuary Cities there. There was no record of her doing ANYthing about that issue--certainly nothing to overturn the Special Order 40-type of policies the two largest Alaskan cities have in place. Some were saying, "Oh, give her a break! These policies were in there before she got there!" True. But then, why didn't she get tough on illegals once she came into office? Wasn't she for preserving quality, high-paying jobs in her state? Buy allowing illegals to stay, she was allowing wages of taxpaying Alaskans to drop due to the illegals pushing down wages due to their willingness to work for less. But the Truth about Gov. Palin's position on Amnesty and illegal aliens came out in a surreptitious Univision ad that she and McCain did (dubbed in Spanish) and shown only on the Spanish channels, touting Amnesty. When I and other conservatives got wind of this the week before the election and saw her interview on Univision where she said "I'm for a partial Amnesty" and "We cannot deport 12 million illegal aliens", that was the last straw.

If Gov. Palin wants conservative votes in 2012, she had better reconsider her positions on illegal immigration. She CANNOT win without conservatives, and there are enough of them who have left the GOP and will not vote for an Open Borders, pro-Amnesty RINO under any circumstances. The same goes for Jindal (who is weak on illegal immigration, particularly his illegal alien Indian brethren) or any other so-called "conservative".

Frank| 12.21.08 @ 4:58PM

Bob is only partly right about Palin's (dis)approval ratings. She went from a high of 89%, on the heels of a $1,200 giveaway (in addition to the $2,069 "standard" check) to every Alaskan, to 62% two months later. No poll has been done since, but I'm betting that she's in the 50% range in her own state. In the election there, the Palin/McCain ticket, as she liked to call it, drew only 59%, same as GWB in '04 and less than GWB in '00. "R" registrants in AK outnumber "D"s by 5:3. She won the '06 general election with only 48% of the vote.

She had a surplus this year because AK oil was fetching $143/bbl in July. It's down to less than $40 now and the state is expected to run a $2Bn deficit this coming year.

Dick Cheney is right. The party doesn't need to be dragged down by Palin again.

Frank| 12.21.08 @ 5:01PM

P.S. -

Jindahl will also run into similar fiscal trouble this year as can be expected of Palin. Neither has a clue as to how to run a state responsibily.

ruth| 12.21.08 @ 5:03PM

RSM: Ha ha, you threw out some red-meat to the Palin haters, and they bit, of course. Fools, Bob and Jeremiah, told you that Sarah ain't (like my intellectual word, Bob?) going away. She's hiding in plain sight! Go Sarah!

Mike | 12.21.08 @ 5:22PM

Robert Stacy McCain,
The best rebuttal you have for Jeremiah is to call him a troll?

Ruth, shouldn't you be cooking the moose?

Ran| 12.21.08 @ 5:58PM

"In the Manichaean universe of George W Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and any adolescent you're likely to speak to, black white simplifications lead you people to believe that if I disagree with Palin I must hate her. This is foolish and toxic to our public, political discourse." Come on Jerry - that's a limp straw man. Limbaugh has never made such an assertion or anything even close. Worse, given GWB's liberalism, he's hardly someone you ought to trot out as a simplistic dualist. Those are horribly uninformed examples you've offered.

"But you can't allow someone with so little knowledge to run the country." Boring. She only runs the Cabinet in the Executive Branch. More importantly, if "so little knowledge" were a viable standard, who the Hell would ever meet it?

Ruth: Bob's credibility here rests on his advanced knowledge that Buddhists are polytheists and that the Five Books of Moses were Aramaic, amongst a host of similar ditties previously undisclosed to Knowledge. I, he assures me, am a Gentile despite my Orthodox Jewish practice and faith. Who am I [or you] to argue with such a... person? What have you against trolls, anyway?

Jeremiah| 12.21.08 @ 5:59PM

Mr McCain --

I reject the epithet "troll" on the grounds that a) I don't sometimes pretend to be "conservative" only to switch up and write posts expressly designed to infuriate your dutiful followers; and b) I respond respectfully to criticism, even if sometimes I am a little vehement in my own critiques of others.

At some point you have to ask yourself if a good political forum includes people with different points of view, or if you simply want to describe any critic of Palin as a "Palin-hater" and any liberal who posts here as a "troll."

Maybe I'm not clear on the actual definition of a troll. If I'm mistaken, then call me a troll all you like.

Now --- reading some of the other posts here, I hope you can discriminate between what I've written and what actual "haters" write.

I have nothing but contempt for people who gleefully report about the misfortunes of this woman's daughter's boyfriend's family. It's absurd and obscene.

The best we can do is note that drugs afflict families of all races and social conditions. I myself hope the best for Palin's family and have nothing against her.

That said, I continue to believe that she has not given me one good reason to think of her as a viable presidential candidate. She is not a thinker. She thinks in adolescent categories (real America vs. the rest of us) and is confused about even the simplest tenets of her own political philosophy.

I did enjoy the Bean link and thank you for that. Now it's back to my brie and baguette dinner, and a nice little glass of chablis to wash it down.

FloresMagon| 12.21.08 @ 6:01PM

All those people lined up to see Palin...and not a single African-American. That pretty much sums it up.

Jeremiah| 12.21.08 @ 6:08PM

As for the rest of you "conservative":

The Couric question to Palin about the Supreme Court should give you great pause:

The conservative movement is based on a belief that the SC has overstepped its constitutional mandate -- not just with respect to R v W, but with respect to many other decisions.

Palin (if she could not summon to her mind the Dred Scott case, universally recognized as the worst decision the court ever made) might at least have referred to the decision a few years ago that permitted the town of New London CT to relieve several families ownership of their own homes. I'm a unrepentant tax and spend liberal who was offended by that decision, yet Palin couldn't find it when the moment came for her to say something about the Supreme Court.

Why? Because Couric was so mean and nasty?

No, but rather because Palin isn't all that well-educated about politics, even when narrowly considered as conservative politics.

What do you think Reagan would have done if asked that same question?

He would have hit it out of the park.

Jon | 12.21.08 @ 6:20PM

lovotb said: The same goes for Jindal (who is weak on illegal immigration, particularly his illegal alien Indian brethren) or any other so-called "conservative".

Actually Jindal has an "A-" rating from Numbers USA, both overall and on amnesty.

I agree there is reason to be concerned about Palin on immigration tho. she she seems to have been infected with the Hispandering virus during her association with McCain. In her post-election interviews she repeatedly mentioned losing the Hispanic vote as a reason why they lost the election, and made a positive comment about governors working on "immigration reform" at that governors meeting. Unlike McCin and Bush tho, I don't get the sense that she really cares about immigration one way or the other, I think it's more that she's just being loyal to McCain. If she runs in 2012, hopefully she'll have snapped out of it by then.

davek70| 12.21.08 @ 6:32PM

FloresMagon:

2 quick things:
a) Who was running on the DEM ticket that got 99% of the black vote?
b) What area of the country was this rally in again?? I don't think it was downtown Philly, PA

Half Sigma| 12.21.08 @ 6:33PM

Barely smart enough to graduate from a mediocre college, her pregnant teenage daughter's boyfriend is the son of a drug dealer.

The U.S. deserves better. Someone like Mitt Romney.

Theodore Peterson| 12.21.08 @ 6:39PM

This web site warms my heart. Keep on doing what you are doing, people. Alienate Hispanics, Blacks, young people, thinking people. Focus on social issues and illegal immigration. Ignore the fact that this country is in a historic economic free fall that is soon to be unquestionably laid at the feet of the outgoing Republican administation (Guess what? There is NOT plenty of blame to go around. It all lies with Bush) Focus on a wack job hillbilly moronic governor as a future candidate whose net negatives continue to climb as each trashy new revelation comes out about her. YOU ARE ESTABLISHING CONSERVATISM AS A PERMANENT MINORITY. I don't know if you've heard but if you stir up only your base you will never win another election.

Roy| 12.21.08 @ 7:16PM

It is difficult to overstate the volume of my laughter every time the left asserts itself to be the party of "thinking people".

As Winston Churchill said(I paraphrase) "If you aren't a socialist by 20 you have no heart, if you're still a socialist by 40 you have no head." The former half of this statement can be explained by the fact that it came before the left's goal, that comes in every respect before other goals, became the total dehumanization and arbitrary industrial scale mass murder of unborn infants. However, the second half is as true now as it was then. The comprehensive failure of leftist economics in the Soviet Union has barely made a dent in these people and they still imagine themselves to be the "reality based community".

The left is not composed of "thinking people", but of "people who think the way they are directed to by the NY Times". I'll do my own thinking, thanks.

Gene Car| 12.21.08 @ 7:33PM

A forensic analyis of exit and post election polls undermines the myth that Governor Palin was a key factor in the defeat of McCain. Of the 60%, for whom the VP pick was a decision factor, over 59% voted McCain Palin. A post election Rassmusson poll indicated that a significantly larger number of republican voters preferred the Palin as VP pick than preferred McCain as top of the ticket, suggesting that, all other things being equal, McCain was the author of his own misfortune. Also, the magnitude of the vote swing from 2004 was considerably less among women voters than men, suggesting that Governor Palin did, in fact, help to stem the tide in this demographic. While some heavily touted national polls suggested that voters regarded Governor Palin was unqualified, other polls (Strategic Vision) indicated high favourability ratings in battleground states such as Florida, Ohio and Penn, in most cases equivalent to or better than the other three candidates. Insofar as there were negative judgements, how much of this was a function of who and what she is and what she has achieved on the one hand, and a grossly distorted narrative created by media on the other . Add to that the fact that she worked under the constraints of someone else's agenda and talking points. I am sure that Sarah Palin grasps the importance of the virtue of gratitude and will continue to honour John McCain; but the campaign is over and she can now pursue an independent course. So far her moves have been measured and shrewd. Having carefully viewed all her debates and interviews and written opinion pieces during her career, I for one am not prepared to write her off on the basis of one CBS interview. There is much in the outlook, range of understanding and sheer presumption in the US national media that Alexis DeTocqueville would immediately recognise as 'accomplished mediocrity', a mindset incapable of grasping someone like Palin, a person rooted in life and experience rather than a dissicated intellectualism lost in abstrations and 'terrible simplifications'. Pain grasps instinctively that social conservatism cannot be separated from small government and fiscal conservatism, since it is precisely the decline of religion and the family that directly leads to the totalitarian expansion of the state to fill the vacuum. Yet this connection has been understood by every conservative thinker in Europe and America over the last 200 years (Burke, Constant, Donoso, DeMaisre, Kuehnelt-Leddhin, Kirk, Weaver, DeTocqueville, Buckley, etc). Whether she emerges as the GOP nominee in 2012 remains to be seen, and Newt and Cheney rightly state that she will have to pass the gruelling test of the primaries. Certainly, her post election ascendency among republican voters is extraordinary and unprecedented. I suspect that among the broad base there is now an unbreakable loyalty. I may be proved wrong, but I believe that she has the intelligence, the heart and the will to succeed.

Jeremiah| 12.21.08 @ 8:02PM

Tocqueville for Palin!

Now that's comedy.

Voice of the people, my elbow.

Sarah Palin is a very attractive woman who can speak to the resentments and anxieties of maybe 25% of white voters. Not promising presidential material, and, God wot, no Reagan.

But like I keep saying: I hope to God the Republicans run her in '12. There'd be no stopping us.

My dream ticket: Palin / Romney.

My nightmare: there are several. Newt has become less divisive and less vitriolic, and therefore more attractive sounding. He's still conservative, and he's 1000 times smarter than Palin. I've grown to like him because of his love of American history and his love of ideas (something we don't get too much from the Limbaugh / Palin crowd).

Newt doesn't seem likely, however, to win. The governor of Louisiana spells big trouble for the Democrats, but at least we can hope that the little Palin-led klan rallies down south reveal something in the Republican party that could never accept him.

jus' wondrin| 12.21.08 @ 8:07PM

where's Bristol's baby ? Not even a teeny tiny bit of amniotic fluid leaking yet?

Two days overdue and counting.

Merikan| 12.21.08 @ 8:13PM

I propose the Republican ticket for 2012 - Sarah Palin/Ted Nugent. Their catch phrase: "When in doubt I whip it out, I got me a rock 'n roll band, it's a free for all".

ked| 12.21.08 @ 9:11PM

FYI Carol, Roy and other morons: Alaska runs a surplus because federal dollars make up one third of its budget. So while Alaskans enjoy no state income tax, no state sales tax, and get thousands of dollars in rebate for living there each year, know that the rest of us pick up the bill. So Sarah is no conservative. She's the pork queen of a welfare state. Now the least you can do, Carol, and Roy, and others, is bother to know something before contributing your 'opinion'.

Bah.

Merikan| 12.21.08 @ 9:17PM

Thanks, ked, for making the argument. It comes as no surprise that Palin supporters are ignorant of the facts.

Robert Stacy McCain| 12.21.08 @ 9:18PM

Jeremiah, I did call you a "dear" troll, eh?

It's amazing that you people find so much time and energy for this. I mean, really, is there much of a problem with conservatives logging on at DKos and trolling? No. We have better things to do. I can't imagine how or why anyone would persistently troll as a volunteer project, and therefore I am beginning to suspect that you and your friends (who've been popping online with comments of astonishing frequency at every conservative site) are part of a DNC/Obama online propaganda project.

Or, you have no life.

Tyrone| 12.21.08 @ 9:19PM

The reality is that Palin is the Republican's answer to the popularity of Obama like it or not. McCain lost this election due to himself, the economy, and being tied to Bush. McCain was the one running at the top of the ticket. If Palin does indeed run, she won't have to be controlled by the McCain campaign, she can't be tied to Bush, she will be a 2nd term govenor and she will be the benefactor to an Obama economy more in the tank then it is now. Also all the so called news about Palin will be old news four years from now. One more thing, the historic fade of Obama will also be old news by 2012 as well.

Tyrone| 12.21.08 @ 9:19PM

The reality is that Palin is the Republican's answer to the popularity of Obama like it or not. McCain lost this election due to himself, the economy, and being tied to Bush. McCain was the one running at the top of the ticket. If Palin does indeed run, she won't have to be controlled by the McCain campaign, she can't be tied to Bush, she will be a 2nd term govenor and she will be the benefactor to an Obama economy more in the tank then it is now. Also all the so called news about Palin will be old news four years from now. One more thing, the historic fade of Obama will also be old news by 2012 as well.

Mary| 12.21.08 @ 9:34PM

Palin grasps instinctively that social conservatism cannot be separated from small government and fiscal conservatism, since it is precisely the decline of religion and the family that directly leads to the totalitarian expansion of the state to fill the vacuum. Yet this connection has been understood by every conservative thinker in Europe and America over the last 200 years (Burke, Constant, Donoso, DeMaisre, Kuehnelt-Leddhin, Kirk, Weaver, DeTocqueville, Buckley, etc).

You're absolutely right.

Palin can win.

I do think she has to up her game though. And I also think that it wasn't her lack of knowledge that did her in during the Couric interview, it was that she thought she could easily dance around Couric's questions, and she really couldn't. She's not "gifted" in that way. She needed to do the tango, and she did the funky-chicken.

Demographics will capitulate to conditions, which may or may not, assist her chances of winning.

She'll get very little of the black vote, but she could garner a decent chunk of the hispanic vote without too much trouble if she appeals to their needs and desires. And she'll lose very little of her base (and it is her base) for this. Nothing unusual there, all charismatic leaders make weeping willows of true believers.

She does have to guard against crowd attendees who bring little stuffed monkeys with them, and hand them off to nearby kids when they discover the camera has discovered them. See Ace of Spades HQ for the video. Probably month of October archives.

Indecency like that can turn off a lot of decent folks who just don't want to be associated with anything or anyone that draws such people.

Even though Pawlenty and Jindal are more conversant with issues in a way that appeals to a broader range of voters, they are dull.

Jindal seems like he might be able to overcome that, but Pawlenty, though likeable, is snooze worthy.

If you think the media came after Palin, just wait until Jindal makes his way into their cross-hairs.

When Reagan is mentioned it won't be the gipper being referred to, it'll be Linda Blair. They will work his reported connection to some sort of exorcism into an Opera.

The other thing that the media will latch onto is reports of some critical comments he made about Protestants and/or Protestantism. They'll try to drive that wedge between Christians, and they'll have a good chance of succeeding because sectarianism isn't dead.

I do think we need to forget about Brooks, et al. It's just old, worthless news.

Brooks is probably hated a bit more than the rest because he made his comments about Sarah so personal. She was a "cancer," and "she lacked the human capital." AFAICS, stating someone lacks human capital is an enormous insult. To my way of thinking, it implies much more than insufficient knowledge.

But, again, we have more important things to spend our time on than considering the deliberations of these folks. If not, people might start to get the impression that we're out of ideas.

I do think conservatives need to separate themselves from Obama's agenda. Not to be obstructionist. Back whatever they think is sound, and energetically distance themselves from legislation that could make today seem like the good old days, 4 years from now.

Obama has a couple of years in which he can still lay the blame of the economic downturn on Bush. But if he opts for a very expensive infrastructure stimulus that doesn't do much to ramp up the economy, he'll be beatable.

I'm pretty sure I'm sitting the next election out. I need a break from poll-chasers. :)

Part of me also wants to see and/or give Obama and the Democrats the chance to bring to fruition their ideology. To own it and declare his/their victories.

Theodore Peterson| 12.21.08 @ 9:53PM

Roy, In no way did I imply liberals were the party of "thinking people". If you objectively look at real polls (not an analysis of REPUBLICAN voters) but a look at the entire spectrum of voters you will find that most independents and even some self proclaimed conservatives rejected the Republican ticket because of Palin, xenophobia, hate mongering etc. I really can't believe that so many of you are clearly praying for the economy to tank under Obama so you can gain back power. Real patriots. Do you have gold bars and your own food supply to get you through the next four years. You guys are doomed. Having Sarah Palin in the White House is more important to some of you than the well being of your country.
Oh, and by the way did you notice. Many of the illegals are going back to Mexico in droves. Your immigration problem will soon be solved by the depression. So you will have to find a new group to hate. Let's start with those darn Asian Indians.

Jeremiah| 12.21.08 @ 11:36PM

Mr McCain --

It's not that I have no life. It's that I like reading what other people are writing and am genuinely interested in the opinions of those with political philosophies different from my own. Is this so difficult for you to understand?

Your suspicion that I'm being paid by the DNC to read the American Spectator website and contribute postings to threads is amusing and a little odd. I don't you really think something so silly, but I'm sure some of your readers do.

Let's play that scenario out:

People at the DNC (admittedly flush with cash) decide that November's victories at the polls just didn't go far enough.

So. They decide upon a campaign of guerrilla warfare at the website level, paying mercenary posters to log on with their liberal diatribes to infuriate conservative readers -- and perhaps even drive them mad!

But you forget -- ACORN is behind this to. ACORN, and the American Satanist Church -- which, when not supporting the distribution of condoms in elementary schools is after YOU, McCain, and the Spectator -- and all its readers.

THG| 12.22.08 @ 12:28AM

What does Sarah The Shopper have to do with core conservative values?

Fiscal conservative - are you kidding me? - money flows from the federal budget onto Alaskan pastures and she is just signing the checks to send them to her constituence.

Small goverment? Not that we know of. She increased spendings in Wasilla and hired scores of her Wasilla friends into al l government jobs. Real estate agent to run state's agriculture? Not small and not competent either.

Conservative values? If she had conservative values, she would have watched her children better and her daughter would not be having a baby from a loser at age of 17.

The only values that I see is that she opposes abortions under any conditions. I wonder if her daughter was knocked out by a rapist, not a cute hockey player, what would be her values in that case?

And in addition to all of it - she is just not that bright. We already had a president who was not that bright for 8 years. He is a good guy, with values and really cares about abortion and religious issues. Maybe if spent less time on the religion and more time on the economy, we would have not been in this huge pit. And we don't need a pit bull to get us out of the pit. We need someone with BRAIN.

ruth| 12.22.08 @ 3:37AM

The liberals who consistently bleat about Palin's brain power are the drooling fools who lined up to vote for MENSA member, 'three letter word--J O B S' Biden. Hypocrite doesn't begin to describe you . We know Palin is powerful because of the ferocity of your attacks against her. The Governor has power that you can't bottle--charisma--and plenty of it, and she's got more of it than your Obomber. Chew on that, liberals.

Mara| 12.22.08 @ 3:53AM

To Frank

Obviously, you know nothing about municipal government or you’d know that bond issues voted on and approved or disapproved by the citizenry usually finance debt obligations like our sports center. In this case, we voted on and approved a bond issue and a temporary increase of our 2% sales tax to 3% for this sports center which most of us are quite proud of and happy to have. Our sales tax is 2.5% now. However, thanks to Sarah, our property taxes, which she and the city council do have the power to hike, were cut, just as she promised.

As for the $1200 she sent to the people, I’m truly really sorry she let McCain call the shots on how that was described, because you would be right if you believe it wasn’t a tax cut. Of course, he was at the top of the ticket and that’s the way it goes when you’re number two. In any event, this was money from the oil companies and it was sent out because of the huge increases in our energy costs. Those living in the bush/rural areas with average incomes of around $20,000 a year were hit particularly hard, as their heating oil costs had risen to an average of $10.00 a gallon. There were reports of families moving into one small house to share the costs and many actually left their homes for larger cities like Anchorage so they wouldn’t freeze to death. Global warming or not, it still gets deathly cold up here, especially in the interior.

In any event, most of us would have been more than happy to have had that money apportioned according to need, but certain lefties threatened to sue for inequity, so rather than face a lengthy court proceeding, everybody received a check. But if it makes you feel better, there were several accounts set up at various banks around the state for those of us who chose to, to give our share to those who most needed it. I wonder if those who threatened to sue donated theirs?

As for the earmarks and monies Alaska received from the federal government, if the federal government and extremist environmentalists would quit meddling into our affairs, particularly in regards to locking up our resources, we wouldn’t need it. As hard as it may be for you to believe, only 1% of Alaska’s land is in private hands, 24% belongs to the state and the rest belongs either to the federal government or the Native corporations.

And finally, though it wasn’t on your list of things to hate Sarah for, Ted Stevens secured the “bridge to nowhere” money at the behest of Frank Murkowski, who just happens to own 30 acres on Gravina Island. For obvious reasons, he wanted it built and then there was the Mayor of Ketchikan who wanted the infusion of cash and jobs into his struggling community. He’s an Obama supporter, so of course, he trashed Sarah for it. At any rate, the money allocated to Alaska for the Gravina bridge was already Alaska's regardless of what Sarah did. Congress took away the mandate that it was to be used exclusively for the bridge, and our legislature mandated it be used for other things. These are verifiable facts if anyone cares to know the truth. And the idiot, Anne Kilkenney, is not a reliable source for facts.

By the way, there is no standard amount for the PFD check. The amount is calculated based on the PFD earnings. Sometimes it's big, sometimes it's not.

Daniel Z| 12.22.08 @ 7:43AM

I absolutely 100% hope Sarah Palin wins the nomination in 2012. She may have a strong base, but that is all she has. She will not turn out moderates.

Bob| 12.22.08 @ 8:06AM

Gene -- Do you really think using the term "forensic" would make your so-called analysis more correct? You certainly don't understand how to analyze the data. First of all, I'd like you to take the RCP polling trend data and mark the trend line for what most consider are the four most important events -- Palin announced, Gibson interview, Couric interview, McCain said he would skip the debate. You'll see a significant rise on Palin's announcement and then huge declines on the dates of the two interviews. The Biden/Palin debate has a slight downward move, but not as much. That is how valid analysis is done. You make a mistake using the polling data to justify Palin's popularity. She was popular ONLY with Republicans. But Republicans had the lowest voting percentage in years dropping to the 30% range. Democrats represented about 38%. So popularity among Republicans is actually a negative because they would be more likely to elect her in primaries and Democrats and independents didn't like her. In order to win national elections, Republicans must appeal to independents. You can't do this with Palin.

Jeremiah| 12.22.08 @ 9:37AM

The people who believe Palin could win the White House are ignoring demographics.

Over 60% of voters believed she was not competent to be president. (That wasn't a negative favorability rating, which was considerably lower.)

More importantly, Palin is instinctively divisive. She thinks in categories that divide Americans one from the other. This is how weak presidents (like Nixon and Bush) and there is no sign that Americans have a desire for more.

Finally, there is a difference between saying that Palin doesn't have the intellectual ability to be president and saying she's stupid.

I think most people don't understand that being president requires what we might as well call intellectual brilliance: unusual ability to absorb and synthesize information, recognize patters, apply theories, listen to disagreeing points of view and judge among them.

It's not that being smart guarantees success: Nixon, Carter, and Clinton were all men of exceptional ability, but so was Reagan: it's a necessary but not a sufficient condition, I'm afraid.

I would judge that I'm about as smart and knowledgeable as Palin. That's nothing to shake a stick at.

I'm smarter than, for example, 75% of YOU. However, I'm not smart enough to be president, nor am I knowledgeable or wise enough to be president -- and neither is she.

Thomas| 12.22.08 @ 10:34AM

It is truly amazing the number of people who feel threatened by Sarah Palin and what she represents. Here is a woman, who is a governor of a state that most people do not even regard as part of the Union, whose mere existence is enough to terrify grown men and cause them to devote several hours of their lives attacking her. Truly amazing. Do you know how to tell when you are truly successful? When your enemies hate and fear you.

Oh by the way, an aside to Bob and Jeremiah.

Bob, I would be careful of throwing around all of your "forensic statistical analysis". You have proven in the past that you are arithmetically challenged.

Jeremiah, it is not the mark of an intelligent man to proclaim his intellectual superiority over those with whom he is in competition, when he has know true idea of their capabilities.

Have a nice day and enjoy the balmy Global Warming temperatures.

jus' wondrin| 12.22.08 @ 12:09PM

no Bristol baby, yet. Not a peep from anyone remotely connected to the event.
One might think a friendly shout out to supporters & sympathizers would be in good taste. The vigil proceeds.

ked| 12.22.08 @ 12:47PM

Mara- Rationalize it any way you like, and by all means keep gorging on the pork. But do us a favor and cite some credible polls that support your argument that most Alaskans wanted the 1200 dollars/person apportioned by need.

As for idiocy, Kilkenney made a lot more sense than you do.

Bob| 12.22.08 @ 1:02PM

Thomas, if you can find a trend/event analysis with differing results, I'd be interested. However, you can't address this issue with point in time polling data as any statistician will tell you. As for my mathematical ability, I do have undergraduate degrees in math and chemistry and will challenge you, if you like. Please feel free to point out where I've been "arithmetically challenged".

Chad| 12.22.08 @ 1:21PM

I love Sarah Palin! I love her to death! But there are other people that I want to be Commander-in-Chief above Sarah. I don't feel that she is qualified enough, nor conservative enough. Conservatism didn't use to involve wanting Jesus to Return. Evangelical conservatism was the downfall of the Conservative Movement.

Jeremiah| 12.22.08 @ 1:38PM

Oh, Thomas. I reckon you all can take a mild ribbing. After all, I'm regularly referred to as an American-hating communist terrorist sympathizer around here.

My point was, if you'd read it, modesty itself: I was saying I don't look down on Palin at all. I'm saying I think I probably know and understand about as much about this country as she does. Whoopie for us. But neither one of us should be in charge of it.

Thomas| 12.22.08 @ 1:57PM

Jeremiah,

Speak for yourself, son.

Alan Brooks| 12.22.08 @ 2:41PM

no false modesty, jeremiah.

but why come here? did you mean to type in American Liberal? this is conservative blog. just like libs are supposed to be squishy, we conservatives are supposed to be 'mean'.

oh and bob will say im too rational and youll say my posts are "stupid". but anyone who uses the word stupid is rather.. um..stupid

Alan Brooks| 12.22.08 @ 3:06PM

and of COURSE Sarah Palin's daughter getting pregnant, again and again.
Mary Jo Kopechne never got pregnant, Teddie Boy saw to that.

Bob| 12.22.08 @ 5:07PM

Alan, the question remains about "What is a conservative?" I am for limited government, individual responsibility, meritocracy with no affirmative action, a strong national defense, against the bailouts, for school vouchers, for appropriate but limited regulation, and for a strong SECULAR moral framework. However, on social issues I'm much more libertarian being pro-choice and for civil unions and against significant censorship. In addition, I'm for education, the best schools including the Ivy League, and believe that our President should be knowledgeable on all important policy issues. I cannot stand for the current Republican tirade against intellectuals.

This is NOT a conservative blog, it is bordering on a religious blog. Libertarian leaning conservatives are just as conservative, if not more, than social conservatives who want to interfere with my life. So who really belongs here?????

Gene Car| 12.22.08 @ 5:17PM

Bob
I did not argue that the ABC and CBS interviews did not hurt the campaign. I only argue that they were not only factors. You make a claim to be 'fact' based. In reality, the facts and not just the timeline facts, are subject to different interpretations. We argue over the interpreation that we think best 'fit' those facts. Contrary to the impression being given, the Obama victory was not a landslide--certainly not of the magnitude achieved by Reagan, Nixon or LBJ. In the light of all the handicaps facing any Republican canditate in this election, it ought to have been a complete rout. I believe that it was Palin that prevented a rout, by motivating a larger but not a sufficiently larger outurn by the base than otherwise would have been the case. As for independents, if I had formed my perception of Governor Palin from reading the NYT or watching ABC, CBS or MSNBC, I could not vote for her either. The question is can that perception change? One clue (and it is only a clue) is to consult with those who have actually experienced Palin as a Governor--the electorate of Alaska. A recent Daily Kos showed her having a favourability rating of 60% overall. more interestingly, 'independents', who are the largest group among the Alaskan electorate, gave her a 52% favourability rating, and even 23% of registrated democrats were favourable. Many commentators see Governor Palin's Christian and strong pro-life views as the alleged off-putting factor for independents. Yet there is no compelling evidence that Governor Palin has ever allowed her personal religious convictions interfere with her decisions as Governor. The book banning story was a myth, as is the idea that she put pressure on educational authories to teach 'creationism'. Sex education programmes should be strongly inflenced by parents, who are, after all the primary educators of children--hardly an unreasonable position. We hear little about the fact that she vetoed an effort by the legislature to rescind the benefits extended to same-sex couples in the State employ. My guess is that the contrived negative narrative of Sarah Palin will crumble over time, even among many of her erstwhile critics, particularly when she is viewed in comparison to others. In the context of the current flap about Caroline Kennedy, why, even Andrew Sullivan managed to say something positive about Governor Palin.

Bob| 12.22.08 @ 5:42PM

Gene, let me agree with you on some of the facts you claim. Palin did excite the Republican base -- that's not even a close call. She lost most of her votes among independents and Hillary devotees. But because the Republican base is so much smaller than in the past, the Republican base is not sufficient to support a candidate -- not even close. Most political professionals claim a "landslide" starts at 6-8% of the national vote. Obama was surely on the cusp of a "landslide". You will not have the routs of Reagan or LBJ anymore because of the 24 hour media and the growth of biased sources including MSNBC and Fox News and, of course, right wing radio.

However, as far as I could see, there is NO data saying that in the end, Palin helped the McCain ticket. McCain was always going to get at least 40% of independents because of his perceived stances. In addition, she didn't bring out as many of the Republican base as Bush did in 2004.

So Palin did NOT help the ticket in terms of votes. However, she did help tremendously in terms of raising money which allowed more Republican organizing and advertising. Republicans are much more reliable voters than Democrats and they would have voted whether they were excited or not.

Regarding all of the issues you raise, I may have kidded about them, but the only one that really got my goat was her lack of knowledge and cutesy behavior. I don't want a "cutesy" President and I want my President to absolutely know the issues. The world is too complex to study the issues once someone becomes President. Reagan had given numerous speeches and position papers prior to running for President. That's one of the reasons I voted for him. He may not have been the smartest guy in the White House, but his positions were well delineated.

If people knew how Palin was in Alaska, some of the social conservatives may have had second thoughts.

ruth| 12.23.08 @ 1:51AM

Bob, on an earlier post you stated that Reagan was successful because he had a congenial personality. I responded that his winning smile didn't defeat the Soviet Union; that his success was a result of his adherence to bedrock Conservative principles. Sarah needs time to study and learn; but I believe she has Reagan's instincts and charisma--and I know she will be back. Tell me, if you believe intelligence is the most important presidential trait, who were our smartest Presidents and what were their accomplishments? I think Carter was supposed to be intelligent, and his presidency was an absolute disaster.

Gene Car| 12.23.08 @ 5:05AM

Bob
In my first post I referred to exit and post election polls that in my view (and the view of others) suggest, certainly with regard to the republican base' that McCain was the drag on the ticket and not Palin. I stand by my interpretation of these data. I suspect that the entire American liberal left and the feminist establishment have grasped this implication as well. Hence their continuing implacable emnity. They are obsessed about her over at the Huffington Post. Every mention brings a reaction akin to the reaction of Linda Blair (in The Exorcist) being sprinkled with holy water.

Bob, somtimes I find it difficult to distinguish between those things that you are 'just kidding' about and those where you are not. Under the aegis of 'things that are Ceasars' Palin as a civilian Governor upheld the constitition of Alaska, rather than follow what might have been her own personal inclinations in regard to same sex benefits. Under the aegis of 'things that are Gods' she showed her 'receptivity to the gifts of life and love in accepting her child Trig, and became a 'sign of contradition' within a poisoned culture of death. I can see no reason why both social conservative and libertarians cannot both feel safe with the prospect of a Palin presidency.

Bob| 12.23.08 @ 8:20AM

Ruth, Palin may well have the instincts and charisma of Reagan, but without the knowledge, she will be less than useful. When she was first introduced, I was skeptical but favorably impressed. When she was challenged in both the debate and contentious interviews, and performed badly, I saw her as just another good looking Fox News babe. Anyone can learn. She knows now what she must learn if she opens herself up to the press and the public. Does she have the intellectual capacity and curiosity to do so? I doubt it, but we will see.

Gene, an objective analysis of the polling data does show, among the public in general, that Palin, along with Bush, were the two biggest negatives. Regarding the Republican vote, there was very little evidence that more Republicans came out to vote because of Palin. It seemed that way in the rallies but the post election statistics did not prove that point. Republicans are reliable voters and those that were excited by Palin would have voted anyway -- and not for Obama. Therefore, the objective evidence was that McCain was NOT a drag on the ticket unless he depressed the Republican vote -- which did not happen. There were fewer Republicans than in the past, but this was a longer term trend caused long before a Republican nominee was chosen.

If you remember, initially Palin received a bounce when she was announced. This occurred among Hillary Democrats who voted for Hillary because of her chromosomes. They went for Palin, but came home to Obama after the Gibson and Couric interviews. In other words, they found out she was not like Hillary at all. This was the primary reason for the decline of McCain after the Palin bounce. Again, if you would do the analysis, you'd see this is not even arguable. Those that say that McCain was a drag on the ticket are using emotion, not analysis.

I cannot "feel safe" with any President who lacks the education, knowledge and intellectual curiosity necessary to do the job. Bush had the schooling, but lacked intellectual curiosity and you can see the mess he created. The more the Republican party pushed the social agenda of the extreme right and puts up candidates that are "anti-intellectual", the more libertarian leaning fiscal conservatives will cross the line. That is what is occurring in recent elections and will continue to occur in the future.

Gene Car| 12.23.08 @ 9:56AM

Bob
I guess you are 'kidding' again. It must be nice when all your cases and interpretations are 'unarguable'. We will jus have to agree to differ.

Janet| 12.23.08 @ 12:59PM

Who cares if she has 60,000 adamant supporters, if the rest of the world knows she's an idiot it doesn't matter.

Bob| 12.23.08 @ 1:56PM

Gene, just do the analysis and come to an objective conclusion. Don't take specific pieces of data versus an overall trend and think that it will convince anyone who is not lazy.

I was listening to that intellectual giant, Rush, today, and heard him talk about global warming. He used the analogy of a little kid seeing the current cold snap and questioning global warming. By that logic, I should be able to look out of my window and KNOW that the world is flat. THIS is what is wrong with the Republican party -- an emphasis of belief over reason.

Again, if you want to "argue" the case, do the overall trend/event analysis and see if you come up with a different conclusion. But of course, that takes work....

ruth| 12.23.08 @ 3:50PM

Bob, since you claim to be a Republican, my one consolation is that 'your' party will some day nominate Sarah Palin as their nominee.

Oliva| 12.27.08 @ 11:45PM

Holly Heck get me out of here! Must be Swamp Dwellers Picnic Day. There they go hissing and spitting their bile in the face of more evidence of the supreme popularity of the amazing Governor Palin. The Governor's a winner and you silly little squits can't do a thing about it! HaHaHaHaha

Rush Sykes| 12.31.08 @ 4:31PM

I am quite fearful that after our economy tumbles into the abys in the next 4 years, as it will, Pailin will become the GOP candidate and will beat Obama in 2012. but since her economic savyt is right there with Obama, I imagine that over the next 8 years we will see a steady reduction in all our standards of living and the destruction of our weath as a nation.

Oh and to all of you who think that Obama will somehow fix everthing with stimulus and bailouts, just ask Peter Schiff. You know Peter, that gloomy gus who predicted this crisis in in 2004.

Now I am just being negative. I am sure all that monoply money the fed is printing will fix everything.

Paul Streitz| 1.3.09 @ 4:19PM

Leaders do not become leaders by virtue of any specific degrees, qualities or abilities. Some are very good people, some are very flawed.

The test of leadership is how much support he/she gets, how many supporters and followers. By that token Gov. Sarah Palin is clearly the leader of the Republican Party and will be the candidate in 2012. She will deliver the one key voting segment that has traditionally gone to Democrats since the 1930's: women.

There are four large organizations now committed to supporting her. Team Sarah, draftpalinforpresident and 2012DraftSarahCommittee (the last is registered as draft committee with the FEC).

Our group the 2012DSC has begun to build a grass roots organizers in each state and will participate in CPAC in Washington at the end of February.

Gov. Sarah Palin will be the candidate for President in 2012 and win that election. In 2010, she will be an overwhelming force in enabling the Republicans to take back both the Senate and the House.

Cheers,
Paul Streitz
Chairman
www.2012draftsarahcommittee.com