The American Spectator

Jeremiah| 12.22.08 @ 12:09PM

Mr. McCain argues that if only Palin had been "allowed" to hold press conferences with a professional press corps, she'd have been able to manage an interview with Katie Couric.

Sounds pretty unlikely to me. While Palin managed to sound poised and confident being sounded by Sean Hannity -- who mostly asked questions about Bill Ayers, she never -- not once -- sounded at all comfortable asking the questions of actual reporters.

We've been lectured endlessly by people among your fringes that this is because the "elite media" is "biased."

But now the tune is changing. It's not the media "bias" that made Palin sound hopelessly inept while being interviewed by Katie Couric (who is not exactly Mike Wallace), it's that her handlers undermined her and didn't give her adequate opportunity to hone her speaking skills.

Are we still talking about the governor of Alaska?

Had she never faced a professional reporter before?

The answer, of course, is "Yes," but not on matters of national import -- none of which she had any reason to be familiar with given her position. Still, by nominating her, John McCain was saying that in three months time she'd be ready and qualified to be president of the United States, capable of handling the worst calamity that might befall our nation.

Stuff and nonsense, by grandmother would call it.

Jeremiah| 12.22.08 @ 12:14PM

erratum: "comfortable answering questions..." not "asking."

Conservatives don't seem ready to ask themselves whether people would have responded better to Palin if she'd actually run for president and received a few million votes before being selected for this job.

Democrats are finding the same thing with Caroline Kennedy. It's not that she (or Palin) isn't "qualified" (we don't have qualifications in this country for public office other than those spelled out in the Constitution), it's that no one voted for Palin before she was chosen. It was, in the old usage, arbitrary and vaguely un-democratic, at least in spirit.

Still -- the process won, as it always does in our country, and it was the McCain / Palin ticket that lost, not the McCain ticket.

A realist| 12.22.08 @ 12:30PM

Palin would have been eviscerated by reporters because they have no intention of reporting facts or the truth; rather, their goal is to destroy those with whom they disagree. Any moron can pose questions guaranteed to flummox the interviewee. I could ask Obama 20 questions and have him appear totally stupid, notwithstanding his charismatic personality and excellent skills in obfuscation and simply not answering the question posed.
Some years back the media destroyed Steve Forbes' campaign by, literally, ridiculing his flat tax proposal and airing the opinions of left leaning economic "experts" mocking the idea.
The contempt of the media towards Palin was evident in their repeated reporting of her lack of experience, while totally ignoring Obama's lack of experience.
Palin's lack of experience is a valid point, but, any way you slice it and dice it, she has far more than Obama. In fact, Obama never in his entire adult life held a real job.
The media totally ignored this because they fell in love with a charismatic, well spoken, leftist black democrat; a clear case of the media falling hook, line and sinker for Obama's cult of personality.
Of course the media never considered what qualities produce a great leader, because they do not care. They care only about smearing, ridiculing and slandering those they hate (non-liberals) and promoting those they like (leftist democrats).
The media is simply the propaganda arm of the democratic party; their "reporters" are no more professional than those of Pravda or Isvestia under the soviet communists.

Troy Riser| 12.22.08 @ 12:51PM

Seems to me many--such as Jeremiah, the previous poster--believe presidential candidates should be the stuff of Jeopardy champions, not chief executives. It isn't necessary for a US President to know who the ranking general of Whateveristan is. What is necessary is good judgment should that general engineer a coup and endanger American lives and interests. Judgement is one quality. Other qualities include coolness under pressure, the ability to inspire and motivate others, as well as the conceptual gift of grasping the big picture, strategic view of things without being bogged in details (among Jimmy Carter's greatest failings and Ronald Reagan's greatest strengths). There are more traits one could list, a kind of leadership metric. Some leaders are strong in certain areas, in other areas not so strong. So is Sarah Palin ready? I believe she is--certainly as ready as Barack Obama and vastly more so than Joe Biden. Further, in every instance where she's had a chance to be herself and reach out to the voters directly, she has succeeded. Unlike Obama, she doesn't fluster easily when a teleprompter is out of her line of sight. She's a quick study, fast on her feet, adaptable. Claiming she isn't ready is a meme generated by the opposition and propagated by a compliant and Obama-adoring media. In 2012, the US will have endured four whole years of Obama's euro-style soft-socialism, with all the stagnation and decrepitude that invariably goes with it. Sarah can run and Sarah can win.

Mary| 12.22.08 @ 1:01PM

How do you know Governor Palin could possibly become President Palin, because she enflames passions on all sides. A coalition can emerge from such flames.

I say take Olbermann's money, and any money the dems want to offer to get her to run.

Maybe she could come up with some signature lines like Sherman's but accepting the nomination instead.

David| 12.22.08 @ 1:27PM

Oh yeah, Sarah knows the media all right.

She knows NOT to appear on "Meet the Press" because she'll sound like a babbling idiot.

Sarah Palin... dumber than Bush, less transparent than Dick Cheney.

Jeremiah| 12.22.08 @ 1:31PM

More silliness.

The single oddest illusion propounded out here on these fringes is the notion that journalists "have no intention of reporting facts."

Let's slow down and cover just this one mistake:

1. Journalists are sometimes biased.
2. Journalists do not always report what is true.

This does not mean, however, that journalists are not interested in reporting facts.

Remember: journalists act in fierce competition with one another. Stories -- especially big stories -- are filtered through dozens of editorial boards. Does that mean the "media" always get it right?

No, far from it.

But the incredible complexity of our society and the sheer amount of available information make any success seem almost miraculous.

The notion that reporters routinely distort or deceive is completely false.

Now, let's return to the Couric interview:

How did Katie Couric distort the truth or deceive her audience?

She asked questions. Palin could choose to answer or not answer them.

She asked fair questions. What do you think of the Supreme Court? What newspapers do you read?

I fail to see that as "gotcha" journalism. Any responsible citizen should have been able to answer these questions intelligently.

You people need to grow up.

Bob| 12.22.08 @ 2:04PM

Realist/Troy -- Knowledge is important, and so is intelligence and experience. These things become less important in someone who's gone through an entire campaign, won in the primaries, survived the press/interviews, and has run a good campaign. The reason basic knowledge is important (not specialized details), is that without an historical context, you can't make good decisions.

I don't doubt that Sarah is bright and her experience is a plus, but no one can convince me she has the knowledge to run the country. She does have the knowledge to run a state, however. There is a difference.

If she does run, she needs to be in contentious interviews and press conferences. Obama was challenged practically every day and even interviewed with O'Reilly and Chris Wallace. We'll see if Palin is willing to be interviewed by Olbermann which would be the equivalent of Obama with O'Reilly. I doubt it, but we'll see.

That said, from what I have seen to date, Caroline Kennedy should not get the Senate seat. She is more unqualified to be a Senator than Palin was to be VP.

Troy Riser| 12.22.08 @ 2:12PM

Gee, Jeremiah, patronize much? btw: how hard would it be for a presidential candidate to answer the question, 'Why should you be President of the United States?'

A real poser, innit? Well, that 'Lion of the Senate', Edward Kennedy, was dumbfounded and gobsmacked when asked that question on a nationally televised network interview about 30-odd years ago. With all of that amazing DNA, all Teddy could do was affect his best deer-in-the-headlights look and run back to the Senate.

Regarding your defense of American journalists and the profession in toto: both Politico and the Washington Post, to their credit, offered documented and quantitative evidence of media bias and blatantly pro-Obama partisanship during the last election--including some of the more egregious examples emerging from their own organizations. Further, you create a straw man when you claim we presumably sour-grapes conservatives argue all reporters everywhere are out to promote Democrats and disparage Republicans. None of us on the right make that claim. We do, however, make reasoned arguments based on evidence that most major networks and newspapers have a pronounced liberal bias, and their much-touted standards of non-partisanship and objectivity are a lie. The attacks and innuendo on Sarah Palin are a testament to that lie, especially when contrasted with the leg quivering adulation and soft-glove treatment accorded Obama and, by extension, his running mate, gaffe machine Joe Biden.

L. Ross| 12.22.08 @ 2:14PM

Sarah Palin is hot. Sorry, but everyone here is ignoring one of her best asset.

Mary| 12.22.08 @ 2:31PM

Being hot means a lot.

Kathleen Parker before she went all sour-faced on everyone said she had a crush on Obama. I wonder if her husband asked her -as she asked him about the fine Governor- if he aroused her.

You see, this is what Dennis Miller is talking about when he refers to the neurotic sex-people on the east or west side, or wherever they're located.

But here's the thing. It's really too bad we went from "you've got a fine sister" to "you've got a really sister." Do you know what I mean?

Thirty years ago -you know when misogyny and objectification of women was rampant in society- you were referred to as fine if you were good looking. Fine became hot once the tyranny of the Patriarchy began to be lifted.

Pray thee, get me back to the Patriarchy: Fine is more intelligent, more refined and bipedal than hot.

Mary| 12.22.08 @ 2:33PM

Should read: "you've got a fine sister" to "you've got a really hot sister."

Troy Riser| 12.22.08 @ 2:38PM

Yes, L. Ross, Sarah Palin is hot. Definitely. Truly. Photogenetic, camera- and crowd-friendly faces are always a big plus in a candidate. And there's another big advantage for the GOP's chances in two and four years, if properly channeled: Palin offers a valid, viable alternative to NOW feminism, which has become nothing more than a man-hating, 'motherhood as slavery' credo with bad hair and hairy legs. Successfully promoting the Palin alternative will give us the women's vote with a vengeance.

Alan Brooks| 12.22.08 @ 2:54PM

Palin was attacked for her daughter getting pregnant?

but when Michael Jackson paid someone to get his wife pregnant so he could be a father and deflect.... oh never mind! morality is dead!

okay, jeremiah, i want to be a liberal again and have fun. where's a good boutique where i can buy a pair of bell bottomed trousers?

trent1280| 12.22.08 @ 2:55PM

As Mrs Palin said, "[M]y reliance on seeking God's direction in all that I do -- that is good enough for me. And others who have a different worldview and different strategy on messaging and such, I would like to have the opportunity to prove to them that my gut instincts were going to be quite adequate."

It is clearly the case that, by her own admission, if God had wanted a different outcome, He would have willed it so.

Equally clearly, if God had wished Mrs Palin to be "handled" differently, then He would have seen to it. So, tell Mrs Palin to relax and stop whining. Everything unfolded as God intended.

Jeremiah| 12.22.08 @ 3:20PM

One doesn't want to be unkind, but since Palin herself could be mean as a hornet -- especially in some of those awful rallies -- one is less inclined to be polite.

The fact is, Sarah Palin is inarticulate and shallow. It's not that she didn't attend an Ivy League school, and I'm not patronizing when I insist that a president should be more intellectually gifted than the average person on the street.

The idea that Palin is qualified to be president because Teddy Kennedy mishandled a question 30 years ago is on par with all the other defenses of Palin I've read so far.

Interested Conservative| 12.22.08 @ 3:20PM

Jeremiah - you state, "The notion that reporters routinely distort or deceive is completely false. "

There are plenty of grown ups reading this, and a few would refer you to Marshall McLuhan as a start to reconsider that assertion.

It's a far more valid assertion that reporters universally distort and occassionally deceive. The essence of journalism is often referred to as the first draft of history, essentially conceding that following analysis and reconsideration will correct it. As for occassional distortions, look at the bookend events of Dan Rather's career - misstating "facts" following JFKs assassination and misstating "facts" of Pres. Bush's ANG service. Both instances edging out of reckless negligence into wilfull disregard. And that's just two known instances of a single well-known reporter.

All of which explains the importance of the first amendment and the need for more reporting to cure bad reporting - eventually the press gets it right, it's just the suffering in the interim that hurts.

Troy Riser| 12.22.08 @ 3:33PM

Trent, you're missing the point of Palin's statement: Christians pray God's will be done, that our plans and actions are in accordance with His desires, not ours. God, from a Christian perspective, does not predetermine personal outcomes. Outcomes are largely dependent on freely made, individual choices. Personally, I don't think the Creator of the universe gives much weight to which political party holds sway in the US at any given point in time. Civilizations come and go, rise and fall. People, however--or rather, their souls--go on forever. And for them, I believe (and hope and pray) He cares very much.

I do have a hope where our own country is concerned. A thousand years from now--or ten thousand or more--I hope historians will look back on our nation and see it as a noble experiment in human freedom, and view us as a people who tried--and sometimes tragically failed--to live up to the ideals upon which we were established.

Lastly, I don't recall Sarah Palin whining about anything. She endured the most vicious public, personal attacks in modern memory with grace and good humor. Your like-minded pals in the press and punditry simply could not beat her down. btw, how's that Caroline Kennedy appointment to the Senate coming along? It's been nearly a week. Is she qualified yet?

Jeremiah| 12.22.08 @ 3:48PM

Interested Conservative,

You merely make my point: one journalist turns in one "draft of history," and it is in the interests of the next journalist to correct that draft.

Finding error, inconsistency, gaps, and deceptions is a reporters bread and butter.

Of course there is distortion. Any fact is distorted by the context in which it is reported.

Educated adults know to read many sources and judge them with critical reading skills. You may like to have it all explained to you by Rush Limbaugh (who gets all his information from the press he vilifies), but I'll take good hard reporting any day -- and I don't need Limbaugh or Hannity or anyone else to explain to me how I should interpret that information.

Jeremiah| 12.22.08 @ 3:50PM

Interested Conservative et al. --

I challenge any one of you to find factual errors in any story on the front page of the NY Times today.

If what you say is true, it should be riddled with lies and distortions. If that's the case, I'd like to know.

Troy Riser| 12.22.08 @ 3:54PM

Jeremiah, you wrote, 'I'm not patronizing when I insist that a president should be more intellectually gifted than the average person on the street. '

No, you aren't being patronizing when you insist a President should have above-average intelligence, but that isn't why I called you patronizing. It's the way you address those of us out here you refer to as the 'fringe', along with your demands that we 'grow up'--presumably so that we could aspire to your level of maturity and erudition. Some of us unwashed Palin supporters are already grown up, thanks. Many of us actually write books and paint paintings and pen the occasional critical review. Yeah, I know: give a monkey a brush and a typewriter and something coherent is bound to come out eventually.

Regarding Sarah Palin's qualifications for higher office, I argue the Governor of Alaska has already beaten the 'man on the street' test by being Governor of Alaska--which is a more valid test of executive capacity, intelligence and grasp of governmental affairs than being, say, wife of Bill Clinton or daughter of JFK. Palin also has a history of accomplishment and sound executive decision-making, as well as private sector business management experience. Her record still out-matches Obama's--and no, being a 'community organizer' just doesn't count, not in Chicago. And when you spend millions of dollars of grant money on education and achieve no measurable results or improvements? That's called 'failure'. An alien concept to academics, I know, but there it is.

Bob| 12.22.08 @ 4:18PM

Troy, I know you are in heat about Sarah, but let's try to be objective. She is an accomplished and bright woman -- there's no question about that. Her experience being governor is no more than Obama's being Senator. You can't judge executive experience until he/she goes through a couple of rough patches -- and I think you know that. She hasn't. Wasilla was a town of less than 10,000 and the meth capital of the U.S. so please don't use that.

There is no evidence that she understands NATIONAL governmental affairs. In fact, there is only evidence that she doesn't. To equate state governmental affairs to national affairs is not appropriate because of the many different functions. You are correct in bringing up Hillary and Caroline. I never bought Hillary's "experience" argument. But at least she showed her knowledge and intellect both in the Senate and in the 22 debates where she did very well. We have no series of debates or press conferences for Sarah and thus no proof. You can't compare Caroline to either of these woman -- she isn't close to matching up for a plethora of reasons. Lastly, she doesn't have any real private sector business experience having only helped her husband on a boat. That is a real stretch.

And Obama spent 8 years as a state senator with some good things done there. He was a community organizer as a youngster. Having been a corporate executive for much of my career, I can't say that Sarah has any real executive experience. Perhaps after 8 years and a couple of crises as governor we can judge her mettle.

Robert Stacy McCain| 12.22.08 @ 4:27PM

My goodness! We're so happy to have such a turnout for the inaugural Spectator Troll-Fest.

Jeremiah| 12.22.08 @ 4:48PM

Troy --
I'm addressing readers who believe that Palin's ineptitude during interviews was the result of press bias and not her own failure to articulate her ideas well. It's difficult not to sound patronizing when trying to argue against that sort of thing.
All else aside, I enjoyed looking at your paintings and appreciate you putting up the link.

Troy Riser| 12.22.08 @ 5:02PM

Not in heat over Sarah Palin, Bob. Nearing 50, I'd like to think I'm mature enough to make rational decisions about political choices and personal philosophies without the roar of hormones in my ears. Besides, Palin's married, lives in Alaska, and already has five kids. It would never work out. No, the reason why I and many other conservatives support her so strongly is because she's the real deal: principled, brave, and eminently electable--which is, I believe, the only trait she shares with Barack Obama. Obama counted as friends and advisors--Axelrod and Rezco--two of the biggest fixers in a town oozing with such men. Get this: in all of those years he was immersed within the bowels of the Chicago political machine, surrounded by shady deals and dealers, Barack Obama never said or wrote a word about the corruption he absolutely must have encountered. I mean, he would encounter that corruption simply by reading the mortgage agreement to his own home. Sarah Palin, in contrast, actually challenged the corrupt goings-on within her own party. She took risks. She took a stand. And your guy? He played along, no doubt thinking the stink of that cesspool would ever touch him. So don't talk to me about hope and change. I see lots of the latter coming our way, but precious little of the former.

Troy Riser| 12.22.08 @ 5:15PM

No prob, Jeremiah. And you're right: Sarah Palin came off badly in the Couric and Gibson interviews, and the final responsibility for that debacle lies with her--and I personally doubt she would disagree with my assessment. My explanation? She was wound too tightly, doing her best to meet the demands of Team McCain while simultaneously resisting the very American urge to speak her mind. I think the internal conflict caused the bad first impressions we saw on-screen. Even though the VP candidate is required to follow orders and be a team player, it is important the VP candidate communicate and convey to the team her own assessment of her strengths, her shortcomings, and--most importantly--her ideas. Truly bad communication going on all the way around.

Mike| 12.22.08 @ 5:33PM

Forget the party controlled press and its agenda. Palin won most people over when she destroyed Biden in the one debate they had. I'm not sure she is the answer, but she did reveal the weakness of the republican party strategy of nominating "democrat light" as its presidential candidate. This race would not have been as close as it was if not for Palin being on the ticket with McCain.

The democrats now find themselves in a no win situation. They will either have to adopt proven supply side economic policies and limit spending to speed the recovery of this recession or face the political consequences in 2010. The biggest fear the left has with Palin, and other conservatives like her, is her ability to be out front reminding the public how conservative principles actually create prosperity while the democrats in power cause the economy to tank, if they really do decide to pursue this new version of the old New Deal.

Once the aura of Obama wears off and he has to actually govern I don't think he will get much slack if this downturn doesn't recover, as expected, by the end of next summer or certainly next year at the latest. The democrats would much rather face candidates like Mccain at the polls, not a revitalized conservative agenda that Palin represents.

Jeremiah| 12.22.08 @ 5:37PM

Mr McCain,

Simply being a critic of Sarah Palin does not qualify a person as a troll. I don't mean to be persnickety, and correcting people's internet slang is not a habit of mine, but the term "troll" has a definition (according to Wikipedia):

An Internet troll...is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

Interested Conservative| 12.22.08 @ 5:38PM

Jeremiah - "I challenge any one of you to find factual errors in any story on the front page of the NY Times today. "

It's right there in the upper left hand corner, in a box and in quotes - "All the News That's Fit to Print".

Is that true? Here's a question for you - keep today's front page, and a year from now re-read it and see how much of it is true - either the facts, the interpretation and analysis, or even the opinions - admittedly there's not much in the way of a "false" opinion, but its the NYT, and they'll figure out a way to contradict their own opinions given enough time.

Ran| 12.22.08 @ 6:25PM

Ah, the Jerry 'n Bob Show. Mind if I skip the channel?

The mere fact that the Jerry and Bob types fear our gal is enough to keep Governor Palin on any libertarian-leaning Conservative's list for consideration. The vehemence, the B-S and the relentlessness of the anti-Palin campaign only serves to keep her in the spotlight. [That's just fine by me.]

I'm with Mike: Palin may not be the answer, but the difference she made is to her solid credit. She's on my tentative short list of possibilities.

I hope Governor Palin uses the next few years to develop a campaign team and the political circles required to assemble and enable a Cabinet. The Prophet hadn't - which is why there are so many Clinton re-treads on-board in key assignments. I'd hate to see a Palin Cabinet populated by the same inept quasi-cons now being escorted away.

There is more than just Conservatism to deliver next go-round: There is one Hell of a lot of legislative damage to repair from the Clinton-Bush-Obama years.

RSM... By way of a blatant brown-nosing suck-up, I've renewed by subscription to TAS - this time, digital. I still haven't sent a dime to the national Republicans. I'll hold until Steele or Blackwell is assigned to lead the charge at the RNC.

Alan Brooks| 12.22.08 @ 6:47PM

Ted kennedy's question of 30 years ago?
what about 39 1/2 years ago when he drove a woman into the water , drowning her?
if Palin had contributed to the drowning of a boyfriend (not that she'd cheat on her husband) her political career would be totally, not partially, destroyed.

Jeremiah| 12.22.08 @ 6:54PM

Interested Conservative,

Nice try, but relying on what you claim to be things we learn in a year does not qualify.

Remember what Jefferson wrote:

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them."

Jeremiah| 12.22.08 @ 6:54PM

Now....

How many of YOU are capable of reading them?

Alan Brooks| 12.22.08 @ 6:58PM

think of it-

ted kennedy can get away with having a mistress drown in a car he drove
OJ gets only maybe 9 years for killing 2 persons
Michael Jackson can molest not once but again years later (!) he pays off the parents of the first kid and goes out and does it again years later!
Roman Polanski...oh, forget it! let's stop all this silly oppressive victorian prudish outmoded curmudgeonly civilization!

has anybody seen my eyebrow pencil? my very credibility is at stake.

interested conservative| 12.22.08 @ 7:49PM

Yikes Jeremiah - so facts can change from year to year depending on the circumstances? Or, the NYT could be "correct" today, and "correct" a year from know with "facts" inoperative today?

And Gov. Palin is not qualified or insufficiently intellectual or has odd syntax or odd acquaintances?

And we want to rely on the media from the most provincial town in the country to tell us to not vote for their idea of the governor of the most provincial state in the country?

We deserve VP Biden!

Ken Roberts | 12.22.08 @ 10:33PM

McCain had one thing in mind and that was to get Hillary elected he did not want the job , when Hillary failed in the nominations he decided we were going to have a black president , fine I don't care what color he or she is but I would like to have someone that is not so secretive , he never answers hard questions case in point it is above his pay grade !

Stephen K.| 12.22.08 @ 11:14PM

"Palin offers a valid, viable alternative to NOW feminism, which has become nothing more than a man-hating, 'motherhood as slavery' credo with bad hair and hairy legs. "

Otherwise excellent points, Troy, but you've quite lost me here... "Man-hating"? "Motherhood as slavery"? Those accusations are old, tired, and no longer relevant to feminism--if they ever were--and certainly not to NOW. Perhaps a little research is in order.

Palin's actions as governor curtailed the rights of rape victims. Her stance on abstinence-only education and the criminalization of abortion is contrary to the interests of feminism. Sarah Palin may be a woman, and a "model woman" for many people, but she is not a feminist candidate and possessing a vagina certainly doesn't make her one.

trent1280| 12.23.08 @ 1:30AM

Hey Troy: Alas, you have entirely missed the point about Mrs Palin's curious corner of Christianity. I appreciate your hints of theological order, but you try too hard to include her in it.

Apart from the widely-understood fact of her mediocre education, reading habits, historical awareness and sensibility, and generally grotesque inability to assume the Oval Office, there is one more fact which speaks to her odd view of God's Will. She believes in witchcraft.

Even by the standards of various Christian crackpots, well-paid faith healers, 'Dr' James Dobson, and the occasional snake handler, Mrs Palin's views are distinctly weird.

One of many reasons she did so poorly is because her theology includes an apparent belief in witchcraft. See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg

Mrs Palin was a fundamentally silly candidate. She remains so today. Surely you can do better.

themaninthemiddle| 12.23.08 @ 4:01AM

This is all very strange. Clinton worship strange. Whatever Palin is, we don't know. And there would be no point in finding out because the Palinites, like Hillary True Believers, "want to believe."

themaninthemiddle | 12.23.08 @ 4:12AM

Look at this sequence, from these comments:

First, writing as "A realist |" someone posted this at "12.22.08 @ 11:30AM"
Quote "Palin would have been eviscerated by reporters because they have no intention of reporting facts or the truth; rather, their goal is to destroy those with whom they disagree."

then, less than two hours later, Troy Riser (12.22.08 @ 1:12PM) claims:
"Further, you create a straw man when you claim we presumably sour-grapes conservatives argue all reporters everywhere are out to promote Democrats and disparage Republicans. None of us on the right make that claim."

Obviously, it is not a "Straw Man" argument but a refutation of "arealist" actual argument.

Don't any conservatives besides Daniel Larison even care about language, truth, and critical thinking skills?

Is Conservatism only for the "chip on the shoulder" brigade? Is it really a good thing to post your hopes on Sarah Palin because "Sarah will show those liberals!" Wouldn't it behoove everyone to have a positive reason for voting one's candidate?

themaninthemiddle| 12.23.08 @ 4:15AM

I am a long time admirer of William F. Buckley because he insisted that intelligence and High Culture were positive values. Is that proud elitism gone with the electoral wind for post Obama conservatives?

Gene Car| 12.23.08 @ 5:40AM

Trent 1280
I don't think that the video you refer to 'proves' that Sarah Palin believes in withchcraft. She is no more responsible for the views of a visiting pastor than Obama is responsible for the views of the the Rev (God #### America) Wright. The reference to witchcraft in the video must also be taken in context. It was made by an African Pastor visiting from Kenya, where among convert Christian communities, their remains a real fear of the supposed power of traditional tribal withchdoctors. And just as well there is no UTube record of Joe Biden's Catholic baptism ceremoney. What would the Enlightened Ones have made of such phrases as 'Do you renounce the Devil and all his works?'

The UTube you refer to also records an event at Palin's former Church, and not the Church, where she currently worships.

There is no compelling eveidence that Governor Palin ever curtailed the rights of rape victims. A practice of charging for rape kits at one hospital cannot be traced to anything she knew or did.

As regards abortion, what is the worst that could happen under a Palin presidency? She would appoint judges to the Supreme Court that might overturn Roe/Wade. In that event the issue of abortion would revert to the people and legislatures of each state. Given the recent result in South Dakato, it is unlikely that any state would outlaw the practice; some might pass restrictions; other might become more liberal. The number of abortions might decline beacuse it has ceased to be seen as a'right' and has simply the status of a decriminalised practice. The main political beneficiary would be the Democratic Party, since it would remove abortion from national politics.

Kitty| 12.23.08 @ 7:41AM

The nicest thing I can say about McC the politician (excluding his military service) is that he's an opportunist. My opinion of him nosedives from there.

...

Bob| 12.23.08 @ 8:34AM

Middleman -- you said this:

"I am a long time admirer of William F. Buckley because he insisted that intelligence and High Culture were positive values. Is that proud elitism gone with the electoral wind for post Obama conservatives?"

The answer is a resounding "YES". The Republican party is getting smaller primarily because libertarian leaning fiscal conservatives don't want to be associated with the social conservative agendas of intolerance and anti-intellectualism. They are becoming independents in increasing numbers. With Buckley, conservatives were forces for reason in our society. Today, they've become little more than religious shills with a disdain for reason and education. Look at how acceptable Palin's comments were about "real America" living in rural Virginia to most of the Republican base.

She rests my case....

Gene Car| 12.23.08 @ 9:44AM

Middleman
William F. Buckley was a committed Catholic and saw no contradiction between intelligence and high culture and his strongly conservative religious convictions, which are situated in the grand Catholic tradition of Faith and Reason working hand in hand. For example, in his original work, God and Man at Yale, he saw the struggle between the ideal of Liberty on the one hand, and collectiveist ideologies on the other, as mirroring the struggle between atheism and historic Christianity.

Bob
You miscontrue Governor Palin's alleged comments on the 'real America'. She was referring , not to different groups of people, but to conflicting interpretations of the American inheritance. Colin Powell repeated this slander when he implied that Governor Palin saw the people of South Virginia as 'real' Americans in contrast to the people of the Northern part. In fact Governor Palin never said anthing of the kind. A McCain aide alluded to the fact that since 2004 there had been migration from neighbouring 'blue' states into NV, which made it somewhat bluer politically than heretofore. This was no more than a normal piece of political analysis and did not imply that the Northernors were any less 'American'.

As I have said before, you cannot separate social conservatism from small government and fiscal conservatism. The decline of religion and the stability of marraige and the family goes hand in hand with the totalitarian expansion of the state to fill the vacuum. William Buckley, following a long tradition of the greatest conservative thinkers in Europe and America would be the very first to to grasp this important truth. Are those who assert some antithesis between religion and intelligence saying that thinkers as pre-eminent as Eric Voegelin, Russel Kirk, Richard Weaver, Bertrand DeJuvenal, Alexis DeTocqueville to name but a few, were 'anti-intellectual'? Give me a break!

Bob| 12.23.08 @ 10:00AM

Actually, Gene, I did not misconstrue Palin's "real America" comments. She was appealing to her rural, uneducated, socially conservative base. Add to that her demeaning of "community organizers", and a picture of her real views emerge.

Social conservatism is the antithesis of small government. Any group that wants to use government to expand their specific religious beliefs, is NOT small government oriented. Fiscal conservationism, I believe, is not related to an individuals belief in religion.

There are intelligent and intellectual conservatives -- and I respect them. Palin is not one of them.

Troy Riser| 12.23.08 @ 11:11AM

Bob, your 'rural, uneducated, socially conservative' remark tells me you're making the same mistake as Jeremiah; that is, assuming Palin's base is composed entirely (or nearly so) of gap-toothed, NASCAR neanderthals. If you mean 'non-urban' then sure, many of Palin's supporters are small-town and country. If you mean 'uneducated' I guess you mean non-college graduates. Okay, I'll grant the point without looking at the numbers. I think, though, you're placing too much emphasis on credentials here. A high school-only education is not synonymous with stupid, nor does the possession of a college degree translate to wisdom or practicality. I attended an incredibly small rural high school, for example, where most of my classmates were fast-tracking for careers in agriculture (lol), and found that I was very competitive in college simply because my high school could only afford to emphasize fundamentals, so I was grounded in the 3 R's in a way many urban and high-end private school students were not. I was translating Plutarch and learning pre-calculus while many of them were wasting time taking dead-end, feel-good electives. And 'social conservativism'? I don't like the term. I think it's intended as a shorthand for traditionally understood Judeo-Christian mores, but that shorthand connotes an almost childlike, binary black-and-white, Manichean view of the world that is simply not representative of most American Christians. Take abortion, for example. While I oppose abortion, I cannot say I would or could demand of a rape victim that she carry that child to term. Take gay marriage or gay people in general. While I oppose gay marriage, I would naturally accede to the wishes of the majority and accept such a thing if it were to be legitimately voted upon either by our representatives or as an amendment vote. And gay people? Live as you like. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is between themselves and their God. For people (like me) to elect representatives who reflect our views on matters of marriage and abortion is simply the way our system works. Claiming such a stance is the antithesis of small government is an apples and oranges fallacy. One thing may or may not have something to do with the other. My faith informs my political choices. It's fairly evident the non-faith of others informs theirs.

Lastly, you claim Sarah Palin is neither intelligent nor intellectual. You must know the 'unintelligent' smear is simply not true. And intellectual? What, exactly, constitutes membership in the intelligensia? Ivy League degree? Please. The daughter of a school teacher, Sarah Palin went to the college she could afford, and paid her own way. As an aside, I'm sure many of her political opponents--including some oil company executives--were/are Ivy Leaguers, and she's out-thought and out-fought the lot of them.

The arguments of the Palin-bashers simply don't hold up, at all. She may not choose to run in 2012, and if she does, she may not make it in the primaries and she may not beat Dear Leader in the general, but if she loses, it won't be because she wasn't smart enough.

themaninthemiddle| 12.23.08 @ 1:01PM

I am neither bashing nor praising Sarah Palin. Like Obama and The Clinton's, she has a cult following and a defined problem with the truth.

Like followers of Obama after he speaks, Governor Palin's defender's often find wisdom in even her her off-hand and ineffective comments like her "real Americans".

What is a best case scenario for "Real Americans"?

An elitism of the non-phony:

"Do YOU have what it takes to be a Sarah Palin-approved 'real American'? If not go away!"

That is neither winning nor winning, if you catch my WFB drift.

It would also help if Governor Palin's children stayed in school and her in-law was not arrested in what Alaskans call the "Meth Capitol" (by percentage of meth labs per population) of the entire nation.

Bill Buckley lived long enough to learn libertarian tolerance, but he was such a great writer on music, sailing, the world of spooks at the CIA, poetry, even the best writing pen! And yes he loved god and yes he loved the Roman Catholic Faith and yes conservative Family Values

But please don't make Palin into an Obama Figure where we throw out all our beliefs to justify her flaws. And, by the way, do we REALLY want "The Alaskan Miracle" brought to the USA?

themaninthemiddle | 12.23.08 @ 1:06PM

apology! I always spell God with a capital G and I love my Roman Catholic faith. Apologies to God, readers here and WFB. I also have a typo, a repeat of "her'. For those mistakes I beg WFB's soul to forgive me!

Troy Riser| 12.23.08 @ 1:19PM

maninthemiddle, my best friend lives in Kodiak AK. He's a staunch Democrat, an Obama voter, and he thinks Sarah Palin is aces. And he's not alone: she still maintains the highest popularity ratings of state governors. Oh, yeah, and her in-laws were arrested for oxycontin abuse (and sales, too, evidently). So tell me, how does one go about picking one's in-laws? On behalf of a majority of Americans, I genuinely want to know.

So you want to talk family associations? Okay. I understand Barack Obama's Kenyan half-brother is completely destitute, living in a shack and dressing in rags, making whatever food money he can scrape together by doing odd jobs, yet--to my knowledge--his President-elect half-brother has done nothing for him, at all, ever. What kind of man is that? What kind of family is that?

And btw, I'm glad you love your Catholic faith and all, but what the heck was all that 'ghost of WFB' stuff about, anyway?

Bob| 12.23.08 @ 2:05PM

Troy, let's be clear. I don't think Palin is "unintelligent" -- in fact, I think she is bright. If you map her voting backers, however, they do tend to be less educated. Take a look at the map where McCain/Palin impoved their results over Bush. It was primarily in rural Appalachia. I am assuming the educational level there is lower than average, but I could be wrong.

That said, she is NOT intellectual in the slightest and obviously does not have any significant intellectual curiosity as evidenced by her lack of knowledge shown in the interviews. I am actually more interested in the curiosity component than intellectual. Reagan was not an intellectual but he was obviously intellectually curious.

Wasilla is the meth capital of the U.S. Couldn't Palin have improved that aspect when she was mayor? Oh, you didn't know? The Mayor of Wasilla did not have any police or fire reporting to her. Great experience, eh????

Troy Riser| 12.23.08 @ 5:08PM

Bob, I addressed your remark about the less-well educated voters, and again: you place too much emphasis on university credentials. With the maternal side of my family coming from coal country in Kentucky, I can attest that yes, many folks in those parts are not the people I would consult if seeking in-depth analysis of foreign affairs and current events. I would not, however, dismiss their ability to discern the good from the bad or mistrust their assessments of a given candidate's character. Look at Obama, for example. He cut his political teeth in Chicago, the corruption capital of the US, and has been closely associated with many questionable types such as Ayers, Rezko, Axelrod, Blegoivech and the like. Seems to me--and to any randomly picked Appalachian--that Obama's shady connections and murky milieu trump the drug problems of Palin's in-laws and Wasilla's meth labs any day of the week. Insofar as Palin's intellectual curiosity is concerned: I don't know. Haven't seen her reading list or heard her hold forth on Camus or Sartre or Heidegger or whomever the hell is in vogue this week. I understand Jimmy Carter was an intellectual. So was Woodrow Wilson. So was FDR, to a degree. So what? Lincoln never sat foot in an Ivy League classroom, and neither did Truman or any number of other middling, good and great presidents. Given the Left's infatuation with dictators such as Fidel Castro, I suspect you're looking for that Platonic Philosppher King. Good luck with that.

Bob| 12.23.08 @ 5:21PM

Troy, the world is a complex place. With economic instruments like derivatives and Muslim factions like the Sunnis and Shias, a basic knowledge is important to making decisions. It isn't the degree, it is the knowledge and ability to use that knowledge. Professors generally to not make good leaders but the knowledge of what policies have worked in the past lets an individual develop a philosophy. Reagan was not an intellectual but was well read and understood history. Sarah has shown no knowledge of the current intricacies of governance nor the national policies that have worked in the past.

I spent my entire career as a business executive. Believe me, you won't find a "Platonic" successful executive. But the best leaders had a ton of knowledge.

Ann c;| 12.23.08 @ 7:40PM

True, Palin made some embarrassing gaffes.

She complained that we didn’t have enough “Arabic translators” in Afghanistan -- not realizing the natives don’t speak Arabic in Afghanistan, but rather a variety of regional dialects, the most common of which is Pashtun.

Speaking to military veterans one time, Palin said, “Our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today.”

She bragged about passing a law regulating the nuclear industry that it turned out never became a law at all.

Some days Palin said Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez should suffer "regional isolation" -- but then on others she’d say she supported the president’s meeting with Chavez.

She told one audience about recent tornados in Kansas that had killed 10,000 people. In fact, a dozen people were killed in the tornados.

She referred to the “57 states” that make up the U.S.

Speaking of her eldest daughter’s pregnancy, she said Bristol was being “punished” with a baby.

As you probably know -- or guessed by now -- none of these gaffes were uttered by Palin. They are all Obama gaffes. Luckily, he made them to a star-struck press that managed not to ask him a difficult question for two years.

It seemed like the media would introduce an all-new double standard each day throughout the two glorious months of Palin’s candidacy.

I don’t remember, for example, zealous inquiries into the supposedly peculiar religious practices of any candidates in past elections. No one in the press touched on Sen. Joe Lieberman’s religious beliefs when he was Kerry’s running mate. (Nor, while we’re on the subject, was the media particularly interested in the beliefs of the religion that inspired the 9/11 attacks on America.)

But the press snapped right back into their anti-religious hysteria for a candidate who was a Pentecostal! The same media that couldn’t be bothered to investigate Obama’s ties to former Weathermen or Syrian Nationalist Tony Rezko was soon hot on the trail of a rumor that Palin’s church had a speaker 30 years ago who spoke in tongues!

Let me think now: Were there ever any unusual or otherwise noteworthy speeches or sermons given in churches where Obama worshipped? Hmmm … it's on the tip of my tongue.

Liberals also suddenly decided that a woman with children could not handle the stress of higher office. Until Palin reared her beautiful head, this is precisely the sort of thinking liberals would have denounced as the Neanderthal, backwards, good old boy network attitude that had created a “glass ceiling.”

Let’s consider the facts: Palin’s oldest son was about to be under the tender care of Gen. David Petraeus after being shipped off to Iraq. Her next oldest child was about to be married and probably would prefer that her parents butt out. That left three children under the age of 15, which was almost the same as Obama had.

So Palin had one more child -- and a lot more executive experience -- than the guy at the top of the Democrats’ ticket. (I suspect what liberals were really mad about was that if Palin became Vice President, she probably would have hired a nanny who was a U.S. citizen.)

Having indignantly rejected experience as a presidential qualification in the case of Obama, liberals had to raise questions about Palin’s experience gingerly. But, in short order, they threw caution to the wind and began energetically criticizing Palin for her lack of experience. I call that two … two … two standards in one!

Like most Democrats, both Obama and Biden boasted of their humble beginnings, while having fully adopted the attitudes, pomposity and style of the elites.

Meanwhile, Palin is the sort of genuine American that brings out the worst, most egregious pomposity of liberals. For weeks, Carl Bernstein was showing up on TV to announce: “We still don’t have the date of first issuance of her passport.” Members of the establishment would be astonished to learn that more Americans have guns than passports.
Liberals were angry at Palin because they thought she should look and act like Kay Bailey Hutchinson: Upper crust, prissy and stiff.

Palin had a husband in the Steelworkers Union, a sister and brother-in-law who owned a gas station, and five attractive children -- one headed for Iraq, one a Down’s syndrome baby and one the cutest little girl anyone had ever seen.

In a nutshell, Palin was everything Democrats are always pretending to be, but never are.

She didn’t have to conjure up implausible images of herself duck hunting as Hillary Clinton did. Nor was Palin the typical Democratic elected female official who went straight from college into politics, like Nita Lowey.

Despite their phony championing of “women’s issues” (i.e. abortion) there was not one Democrat woman who could win a head-to-head contest with Palin. Especially not if we got to see their faces. Democrats may have a fleet of women politicians, but they don’t have a deep bench of attractive ones. You don’t even think of most Democratic woman as women: Rosa Delauro, Nita Lowey, Patty Murray, Janet Napolitano -- and the list goes on. Oh, sure, there are the odd female Democrat sex kittens -- your Janet Renos, your Donna Shalalas -- but they're the exception to the rule.

After Palin gave her barnburner of a speech at the Republican National Convention, a friend of mine in a liberal industry told me his friends were aggressively confronting him demanding to know if Palin was raised by a secret cult of Christians that taught children nothing but Creationism and public speaking.

Oh, how I wish he had said “yes.” Imagine the aneurisms! I think what liberals were trying to say was: Gosh, she’s an exceptionally attractive mother of five!

The Obama campaign was so alarmed by Palin’s speech, it loudly dismissed the speech saying she didn’t write it. At least that’s what a press release written by an Obama campaign staffer said.

Indeed, the first words out of every Palin critic's mouth were: "Good speech, but she didn't write it." So I guess all liberals were reading the same talking points written for them by the Obama campaign. At least Palin pays her speechwriters. Neil Kinnock is still waiting for his check.

Speaking of Joe Biden, he said that Palin’s speech had a lot of style but little substance. Inasmuch as Biden was Obama's running mate, I think that meant he liked it!

A newspaper in Boston responded to Palin’s speech by interviewing hairdressers who criticized Sarah's hairstyle. (Where were these people after Joe Biden's speech?)

Trendy dinner party opinion soon demanded that all liberals take up the cry that Palin must let the press have a whack at her. Almost immediately after she was introduced to the nation, the cry went up: “When are we going to be allowed to ask Palin questions?”

Palin’s refusal to meet with the press for one week after being chosen as McCain’s running mate was evidently more maddening than Obama's refusal to appear on Fox News for almost the entirety of his campaign.

Everyone acted as if Obama’s feat of running for President for two years constituted a complete and thorough vetting.

It might have been, except that the entire media had apparently agreed: “OK, none of us will ask Obama about Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright.”

Hillary was hissed by the audience for mentioning Rezko at a Democratic debate and George Stephanopoulos nearly lost his career for asking Obama one William Ayers question at another.

Osama bin Laden was more upset about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than liberals were -- especially after "Jeremiah Wright videos" passed "al Qaeda videos" for most total viewings on Youtube. (He was kicking himself for not coming up with that “God Damn America” line first!)

Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? She was running with John McCain! There was no chance that ticket was going to place her anywhere near the presidency. In fact, I can’t think of a better place to put someone you wanted to keep away from the White House than on a ticket with McCain.

Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode. Other than his brave military service, introducing Sarah Palin to Americans is the greatest thing John McCain ever did for his country.

But unless Palin is going to be the perpetual running mate of “moderate” Republicans who need conservative bona fides, she will need to become wiser and better read. Even Reagan didn’t run for President in his 40s. (True Obama is in his 40s, but we are not Democrats.)
In time, she will be ready to be our President and someday can sweep into office and dismantle all the heinous government programs Obama and the Democrats are about to foist on the nation. Who knows? She might even be able to run as the candidate of "hope" and "change."

Bob| 12.24.08 @ 8:49AM

Ann, Ann, Ann....

We all see things through our own biased eyes. There's a difference between being tired and getting a number wrong and being completely devoid of national and foreign policy knowledge. ALL candidates make verbal gaffes. That's not the problem. Sarah didn't know at all -- that's the real problem. Most of us, including us "RINO's", didn't think the Ayers thing amounted to a hill of beans. In fact, we could have brought up all of the bad contacts of McCain as well, but the press never brought those up. Wright was another matter and that was brought up by the press for a couple of months and Fox News, Rush, and Hannity forever.

The fact of the matter was that no matter what YOU think, the numbers and analysis show that she hurt the McCain ticket. All of the gains she made when she was announced were wiped away with the Gibson and Couric interviews.

Sarah didn't help herself by acting like Jill Six-Pack either with her winking, dropping "g"'s, refusing to answer questions, etc. George Will went so far as to say she was only chosen for her chromosomes.

What you and other women here are proving is that George Will was right. Just as many blacks probably overlooked Obama's faults, you and other social conservative women overlook Sarah's non-qualifications to hold the highest elected office in this land.

You probably only watch Fox News, which has the record as having the least accurate information. A balanced view of Sarah could not possibly see her as qualified -- and the vast majority of voters came to that conclusion including a reasonable percentage of Republicans.

Sarah's reputation is set and it is not good. Once it is set, it is difficult to change. The Republican party will continue to shrink unless it becomes smarter, better informed, and more willing to accept the positions of moderates, independents, blacks and Hispanics. It has the lowest percentage of these groups in recent history and these are the growing segments. The older white group is dying off.

We all have our key issues. My big issue is education and related knowledge. Sarah is at the apex of the dumbing down of our nation. McCain and Bush graduated near the bottom of their class and Sarah went to 6 colleges to get a baccalaureate degree. My children all have at least a master's degree. I want my grandchildren to relish educational achievement and a President that will mirror those values. Doing well in school is important to me -- and to our nation.

That's why I supported Romney and like Jindal. They may be dull, but they send the right message to my grandchildren, the country, and the world.

Troy Riser| 12.24.08 @ 10:05AM

Bob, one more time and I'll leave this discussion for the heavy hitters showing up here: I am not saying--no one is saying--education is unimportant. A literate, well-informed electorate and knowledgeable, capable leaders are absolutely essential to the maintenance and perpetuation of a representative democracy such as ours. Where you and I differ, particularly where Sarah Palin is concerned, is on emphasis: I want my president to be intelligent, sure, but if forced a choice between the two, I ask for more wise than smart. Possession or nonpossession of a master's degree is no measure of a person's ability to lead or make decisions under stress. You argue greater complexity entails a deeper knowledge base in order to make difficult decisions. Okay. You claim the president should be an role model of educational attainment. Very well. I argue Sarah Palin meets both requirements. She put herself through college--as I did, as many of us do. I tend to doubt a successful executive such as yourself had any problems sending your kids to college. Good for you, and good for them. You may not be aware of this, but putting oneself through college is a difficult and expensive proposition. It takes grit and perseverance--far more so than when one's parents pay the way. And again, I'm not slamming you for your success. Would to God my parents had been equally so, but your statement disparaging Palin's accomplishment--she did get her degree, after all--is unfair. Your claim, too, that the problems nowadays are more sophisticated and complex than those in the past is just plain wrong. I just finished re-reading Xenophon's account of the Persian Expedition. You want a complex problem? Moving a small army hundreds of miles through hostile country, surrounded by thousands of enemies and potential enemies, over mountains and through deserts? That's a complex problem. So no, the advent of derivatives--which no doubt also had an ancient equivalent--does not make the modern world any more or less challenging than the old one. Times change, people don't.

Bob| 12.24.08 @ 10:41AM

Troy, there is absolutely no evidence that Sarah is either wise or knowledgeable when it comes to national or international affairs. We don't know if Sarah can make decisions under stress because oil prices in Alaska made her job easy.

With regard to college and graduate school, I came from a poor family and worked full time at night when carrying a full load during the day. I felt that experience was so important, that I made my children pay their own way through state schools. I did make sure they had solid educational fundamentals by living in a school district with high standards.

Regarding complexity, I must disagree. The level of specialization is so high today and the amount of information so vast that it is far more complex today than it was during the Persian Expedition.

Let's face it -- the support that Sarah has from people like you is emotional. We haven't heard enough from her in unprepared, contentious debate/interviews for it to be rational. Performance in a state where there was no budget problems for a little over a year is no measure of success. Being mayor of Wasilla and not even being responsible for police, fire, social services, etc., is also not a very good measure of performance. For the record, Obama, in my opinion, didn't have much experience either. But at least he performed well in 22 debates, several contentious interviews with people like O'Reilly and Chris Wallace, and ran perhaps the best campaign in the history of politics. Sarah has never played in the big leagues before and it shows.

If you feel comfortable putting this country in the hands of an individual based on pure emotion without knowing what she really thinks about Pakistan, Russia, Iran, the economic crisis, job programs, monetary policy, etc., then you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Troy Riser| 12.24.08 @ 11:14AM

Bob, this is the very first time you've even mentioned the paper-thin resume of Barack Obama. Why is that, exactly? Even more, you also one of those who argue his campaign for the presidency qualifies him for the presidency. 'Best campaign in the history of politics'? No, it wasn't, not when a sympathetic, blatantly biased media is giving him a 10 poll point advantage and his website deliberately removes rudimentary safeguards and takes millions of dollars of online funds from the likes of A. Hitler and countless other, equally spurious sources--some of them proven to be foreign. Obama and his people knowingly ran a crooked, underhanded campaign, one completely antithetical to the intentions of the Founders. And McCain, for whom I made calls and drove people to the polls, seemed committed throughout to losing honorably. In the end, Sarah Palin was all that stood between Obama and the White House, and your like-minded pals did their level best to destroy her--and not once have you conceded that she was the target of a sustained and virulent smear campaign. Not once, in spite of all evidence, and you claim I'm irrational, running on pure emotion? If I'm running on emotion, you're running on pure disdain. Your inability to discern the crooked from the straight throws your own judgment into question. So yeah, I'm supporting Palin, should she choose to run. I think she has the stuff to be good, and--over time--maybe even great. Meanwhile, you and David Brooks and Kathleen Parker and Christopher Buckley and all of those other country club Republicans can get together over tea and crumpets and marvel over the phenomenon that is Barack Obama. He went to Harvard, don't you know?

Bob| 12.24.08 @ 11:53AM

Troy, please get a grip on yourself and take a course in anger management!

Let's see, besides Obama being called a terrorist, Muslim, marxist, socialist, Wright, Ayers, militant Black, etc., there was certainly nothing that came over the media. With Rush, Hannity, Fox News, AmSpec, O'Reilly, WSJ, etc., coming after him, there was certainly no national media after him.

To believe that of the $750 million he raised in donations that the bulk of that was illegal? If you believe that, perhaps you didn't learn anything in school.

And please get this straight, any objective analysis of the data showed that Palin HELPED Obama win, she didn't hinder him.

Do I have disdain for Palin? Yes, but it is not based on emotion, it is based upon her lack of knowledge and the fact that she played to the worst base emotions of people like you. She was NOT smeared any more than Obama.

And let's get the record straight. I was a Romney guy. Here was a well educated, high performing executive in both governmental and business sectors who understood the economy and Wall Street. The fact that the loonies on the right couldn't see he was the best choice -- either for President or VP, tells me that Republicans have a huge problem. When McCain chose Palin, that was the end of it for me. There was no way I could envision such a bumpkin in the Presidency.

By the way, Harvard is an excellent school.

Troy Riser| 12.24.08 @ 12:05PM

Anger management? Please. Your statement that evil Fox News somehow smeared Barack Obama is a patent falsehood. Your spirited and completely non-fact-based defense of Obama also fuels my suspicions about your supposed party affiliation even further. I do agree with you about Romney, though--at least insofar as his qualifications are concerned. Bob, it's a testament to Romney's character that the anti-Palin venom coming from the Romney crowd comes from his supporters and not from him.

Bob| 12.24.08 @ 1:34PM

Troy, it is impossible to be objective when you are such an ideologue. Of course, ALL candidates get smeared by the other side. I didn't say Sarah was not, only that Obama was ALSO. The fact that you don't consider it a "smear", just means you believe the non-facts.

The thing I don't like about Romney is that he seems to lack backbone (which is the one of the things I happen to like about Sarah). He backed away from his previous views on a number of issues. That's also the reason he does not criticize Palin, he seems to lack the courage to do so. (By the way, he also went to Harvard.)

Troy Riser| 12.24.08 @ 4:17PM

An ideologue, Bob? Nope. I follow the logic and go where it takes me, which is why I am a conservative. I don't believe in a party line, and wouldn't blindly follow one even if we Republicans had the narrow rigidity of our opponents. The GOP allows for dissenting views and reasoned debate. Heaven help the pro-life Democratic candidate for any office.

Romney is a good case in point. He was a GOP governor of one of the bluest states in the Union. A man or woman in such a position must, by necessity, be a pragmatist, incrementally accumulating advantages rather than going for a flashy and dramatic mate in four. I don't fault Romney for this, nor do I question his courage for taking the approach he has. We play by the rules and employ the tactics we need to attain the objective.

I don't doubt Harvard is a very fine school. Good for Harvard. I do, however, doubt its diplomas are possessed of magical powers endowing its recipients with instant character or leadership abilities. Human beings are, at least in part, the sum of their experiences, good and bad. The amount of formal education one possesses is only an aspect of that experience. I don't downplay that experience, but I'm not in awe of it, either.

KEVIN| 12.25.08 @ 8:26AM

Let me ask you something Bob.

For all the supposed "venom" and "nastiness" found at Gov. Palin's rallies, for all the so-called uneducated hillbillies that comprise her fanbase, no one seems to have been offended by the liberal subhuman trash who showed up there wearing t-shirts stating "Sarah Palin is a cunt" and who carried signs quoting "spay the bitch", "abort retards", "Bristol needs an abortion", and artistic renditions of Palin getting her teeth punched out. Give us an example of an equivalent from the less enlightened. Last I heard the people bribed with cigarettes from ACORN and historically bused out of crime-infested inner city housing projects to vote by the Jackson and Sharpton crowd have never caste a vote for ANY Republican. this paradigm of Republican=redneck dope, Democrat=compassionate intellectual is a pure media construct. Go to howobamagotelected.com and you'll see that myth exploded. Or better yet, just go to visit the bluest of the blue areas; New Orleans, St. Louis, Newark, Philadelphia, Atlanta, LA. All Democrat monopolies for decades, and all existing in Third World conditions.

And those who take umbrage at Sarah Palin's comments about "real America" (i.e. John Stewart : F**k you, yeah real intellectual dissent) should shut up and look in a mirror. Motion pictures that caricature religious belief, college professors who refer to 9-11 victims as Nazis, claiming that 9-11 was an inside job, left-wing cesspools like Berkeley that outlawed their fire companies to fly American flags on their trucks, so-called artists who disparage those who obviously aren't enlightened enough to appreciate the artistic integrity of smearing excrement on religious icons, banning military recruiters from school campuses, the list goes on.

Oh, then we had the few select members of the Hollywood cultural elite openly wishing for Sarah palin to be gang-raped. Not too long afterward Obama attended a Hollywood fund-raiser where the media was locked out. Wonder why. I'd like to think that behind those doors Obama took all these people to task for their lies and vicious slandering the way McCain did to a couple of people in his audience. But apparently not even the so-called right-wing media ever thought to ask that question.

As for guys like Hannity, I think that the Ayers/Wright/Rezko/etc. issue is far more substantive than tanning beds and a bogus "Troopergate " fiasco. Obama's birth certificate, baptismal certificate, college transcripts, state senate voting record, all sealed. Nary a word from the press. But since we all know when Sarah Palin's water broke, I guess we have to concede the fairness of the media. Give me a break. The only tough question to Obama was asked by Joe the Plumber.

Bias against Obama? Mean-spirited attacks?When he has to suffer the indignity of having his daughters referred to as "whores" and their parentage questioned all over the net, when he gets his e-mail hacked into and posted publicly, when his church gets burned down, when his office receives a white-powdered letter, when SNL does a skit of Obama snorting coke and jokes about his radical past, then maybe the Palin-haters have a case about unfair treatment.

Gene Car| 12.27.08 @ 7:53AM

Small town/rural voters/'community organizers, etc. (Bob)

I has been alleged that Governor Palin harped on a lot that only small town and rural voters were the 'real America'. I maintain that, on the contrary, her references were tied to conflicting philosophical interpretations of the American inheritance, an inheritance that all Americans can share regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or class. Her initial reference to 'small towns' people was in direct response to the contemptious put down of such people by Obama with his contemptious and divisive reference to 'bitter . . clinging to their guns and bibles . . ' Governor Palin's reference to 'community organisers' and whether such activity constituted any kind of executive experience, was a direct reposte to a whole week of snearing at small town mayors, which regardless of the size of the town, are executive positions and represent true executive experience to those that hold them.