The American Spectator

Bob| 2.14.09 @ 3:29PM

Blaming "welfare" alone is not very bright, RSM. Other factors include the fantasy of abstinence as a contraceptive methodology -- something that has proven to be far less effective than other methods. In addition, we have examples like Sarah Palin who has a high school daughter who became pregnant. Is that acceptable even though her daughter does not now receive welfare? Perhaps her daughter will apply for welfare when she is actually on her own with her high school dropout husband.

Family size is highly inversely correlated to educational level. If you want smaller families, increase the value of education in people's lives. It doesn't help that you and other so-called conservatives eschew the importance of intelligence and education in our lives.

Perhaps you can show us some quantitative research that looks at all of the factors and addresses this issue intelligently. Perhaps if you'd also redress Palin for her part in her daughter's pregnancy as a mother, people would know you are serious about morality.

Where I strongly agree with social conservatives is the importance of the family unit and the parent's setting good examples. Rather than rewarding non-married people through welfare, we should reward people more on marriage?

Jeremiah| 2.14.09 @ 3:35PM

The only Welfare Program in the United States that affects the average tax payer is the program that ensures the wealthy never have to feel any economic pain.

The bank managers and financiers who are walking away from failing companies with million dollars bonuses backed by taxpayers are the true welfare queens.

Not that you reactionaries are interested. You'd rather find some poor black woman with a kid and no husband to blame your problems on.

Welfare!

You people are frauds. Just fraudulent, bunko, phony grifters, and the really sad thing is you support policies that cheat yourselves and your families on behalf of the bloodsucking parasites who run Wall Street.

You're doomed, suckers. Your world is finished.

Interloper| 2.14.09 @ 4:01PM

Doesn't the downwardly mobile neo-Confederate hack Robert Stacy McCain have a house full of children he has trouble supporting?

Interetsed Conservative| 2.14.09 @ 4:08PM

Wow - what a series of comments, from RSM's post on down.

As a doomed sucker who could care less about Bristol Palin or Sian take-a-guess-at-a-surname, I'm stumped as to adding anything.

Maybe it's simply market driven - we get what we pay for.

I will take RSM's point, though, that "racism" is increasingly useless as an excuse for this, and was a simplistic rationale even when its previous impact was more pronounced.

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 4:14PM

Look at the predictable liberal nastiness and the personal attacks on Mr. McCain; and it's Valentine's Day. Not much love there, but of course, liberals don't know anything about love. By the way, Jeremiah, the Briggses are white, dolt.

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 4:17PM

Jeremiah and Groper don't care about racism; it's all about power all of the time with liberals.

Jeremiah| 2.14.09 @ 4:41PM

I was referring to the "welfare queen" myth promoted during the 1980s -- she was black and having children out of wedlock to increase her welfare check.

Remember her?

Ole Atwood fodder for the bloody masses.

You people would rather die than admit that the bankers and financiers who are robbing you are anything other than upright decent Americans.

That's how precious the ideology is. You'd defy reason and show yourselves to have less good sense that the Lord gave a common farm duck.

You get what you deserve, comrades.

Robert Stacy McCain| 2.14.09 @ 5:41PM

Bob wrote:. . . the fantasy of abstinence as a contraceptive methodology . . .

I am not aware, sir, that there is any organized advocacy for abstinence-as-contraception in England, where the NHS dispenses condoms and birth-control pills quite abundantly.

And, really, what's up with you liberals lately? Not enough to argue about at DKos, so you decide to spend your weekends trolling at conservative site? Or are you part of some profession Liberal Troll Project funded by Soros?

Paul E. More| 2.14.09 @ 6:06PM

The modern world was born in England with the decline of the Roman Catholic Church and the replacement of that church’s welfare policy with practices that favored the productive and well behaved among the non-privileged classes.

Today we have reverted, mostly via what appear to be “secular” values, to policies similar to those of the Catholic church in the late middle ages. That is, we now actively support the growth of the proletariat, while adding the new wrinkle of persecuting the responsible and decent members of the working and middle classes.

This is obviously a recipe for disaster but make no mistake about it, the Leftists who support this disastrous direction will not change their minds based on the evidence even when as now the writing is on the wall. Therefore, the Leftists will have to be defeated politically and culturally. Until Left wing ideas are relegated to “red light districts” again, we won’t be able to change direction.

Note that while the apparent basis for current policy is “secular”, in fact most Leftists exhibit a mind set that is distinctly non-rational and infused with “magical” thinking. Thus, rational arguments and evidence that should defeat the Left usually don’t work, because most Leftists are immune from reason and objective factual evidence.

danny| 2.14.09 @ 6:08PM

probably the latter, robert. give 'em everything they want like they've been getting lately and they're still angry.

Interloper| 2.14.09 @ 6:27PM

Why worry, RCM? Only the smart commenters are holding your feet to the fire. You still have 'Ruth' and 'Danny.'

There has always been less conformity to the nuclear family model among the poor regardless of race. The poor are less likely to be educated, including knowing about contraception and having aspirations that lead them to delay becoming parents. They may not be able to afford contraception even when it is available. Disadvantaged parents often inadvertently pass on such disadvantages to their children.

The best solutions to youth sexual activity are to educate children about their bodies and provide options, including contraception and abortions. It is telling that the far Right opposes these solutions.

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 6:30PM

I don't give the bankers a pass in this mess, Jeremiah, most of them are liberals like you, anyway. You give corrupt politicians like B. Frank and Chris Dodd a pass, though, and government has more power than a few thieves on Wall Street. It's your liberal social engineering/ACORN that started this meltdown, does it really surprise you that some unscrupulous bankers would take advantage of your idiocy? Scoundrels like Rahm Emanuel and other liberals like you just didn't want to waste a perfectly good crisis, right?

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 6:32PM

Just what we need, Groper giving us advice on the moral and sexual health of our young people. That's a path paved to hell. Thanks, but no thanks, commie.

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 6:38PM

We're still killing about a million babies a year through abortion, groper, even with the wide availability of contraception and sex ed. African American babies are aborted in far greater percentages than other races, too. Of course you don't scream racism in this case because abortion is a liberal sacrament--and that wouldn't further your cause, right? So don't tell me you care about minorities--you don't. It's all about power with marxists like you.

Paul E. More| 2.14.09 @ 7:37PM

Leftists are invincibly ignorant so as I said, evidence and objective reality don’t have any affect on them.

To Leftists it must be a mystery that illegitimacy was ever as low as it used to be, before the cultural revolution that the Leftists imposed from the top down starting in the 1960s.

Just exactly how would a Leftist explain the RISE in illegitimate births since the 1960s? After all, the current explosive growth in the proletariat is a new thing, at least as compared to the Victorian era and up through the middle of the 20th century?

I’d guess a Leftist would say that the lower out of wedlock births were the result of the oppression of the natural behavior that was liberated when the evil White Anglo Saxon dominance was other thrown starting in the 1960s.

From the Leftist perspective, illegitimate births are a good thing, both from the perspective of Leftwing ideology and from the viewpoint of Leftwing self-interest.

Leftists want a growing proletariat because only the proletariat can remain dependent on government bureaucrats and “private sector” do-gooders to mange the programs that keep the underclass growing.

So we see that the Left is in favor of a growth industry after all, the growth of a dependent class whose main purpose is to make babies for the purpose of perpetuating a dependent class.

Alan Brooks| 2.14.09 @ 7:51PM

Jeremiah,
at least bankers and financiers don't break and enter, or assault people. and now social progress is over. give it up.

you are where my folks were circa 1973.
another 40 years and then, as they did, you'll learn just before you die.

Mike| 2.14.09 @ 8:12PM

we have examples like Sarah Palin who has a high school daughter who became pregnant. Is that acceptable even though her daughter does not now receive welfare?

Why yes it is Bob.. Her daughter knows who the father is, unlike said tramp in article.

And Bob, what about this made you invoke the Palin card beside lack of intellect:

Her elder son, Jay, is a father at 21, while her second eldest child, Sian, made headlines this week after it emerged she is expecting triplets aged 17, two years after giving birth at 15 to her son, Jaden.

White, welfare trash, maybe why you came out in such ardent defense?

Alan Brooks| 2.14.09 @ 8:16PM

Bob is the only serious oppositionist here; but whether he is conservative or on the fence is an open question.

for this welfare blog he gets it exactly right: abstinence doesnt work-- which means men can't control themselves.

Alan Brooks| 2.14.09 @ 8:28PM

"I know the American people would rather be young and poor than old and rich"---
Gary Boldwater

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 9:55PM

Dang, Alan, you underestimate men--you're not animals, you know. Besides, unless there's an awful lot of rape going around, women must be willing participants. You speak very kindly of women, Alan, you must love your mother very much. I don't think as highly of my gender as I did when I was young. Abortion permanently disabused me of the notion of the fairer sex. All of us are imperfect.

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 10:00PM

Bob is obsessed with Sarah Palin and it's getting kind of scary. I know she's darn good lookin' and all, but this is very odd. I'd like to get a shrink's opinion on his behavior.

Ran| 2.14.09 @ 10:09PM

RSM:
"And, really, what's up with you liberals lately? Not enough to argue about at DKos, so you decide to spend your weekends trolling at conservative site? Or are you part of some profession Liberal Troll Project funded by Soros?"

Quinn H. banned the demonstrated liar known to us as 'Bob' from commenting on his post... though, perhaps a better solution might be to limit post comments to paid subscribers.

I, for one, no longer read the comments of said 'Bob'. His posts aren't attracting new 'hits' any more than his BS adds to tRSM:
"And, really, what's up with you liberals lately? Not enough to argue about at DKos, so you decide to spend your weekends trolling at conservative site? Or are you part of some profession Liberal Troll Project funded by Soros?"

Quinn H. banned the demonstrated liar known to us as 'Bob' from commenting on his posts... though, perhaps a better solution might be to limit post comments to paid subscribers.

I, for one, no longer read the comments of said 'Bob'. His posts aren't attracting new 'hits' any more than his BS adds to the substantive debate 'round here. The thing about 'Bob' is that he's not the problem, but a symptom of a system that rewards parasitic behavior. If the trolls had to pay to play, they'd stay over at DKos and HufPo where someone else covers. Soros can have what he deserves. he substantive debate 'round here. The thing about 'Bob' is that he's not the problem, but a symptom of a system that rewards parasitic behavior. If the trolls had to pay, they'd stay over at DKos and HufPo where someone else pays. Soros can have what he deserves.

Ran| 2.14.09 @ 10:12PM

RSM... Is it feasible to add a "preview" step to comment posting? Thanks.
Ran

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 10:28PM

It's funny, Ran, liberals talk tough but invariably they are thin skinned. Self righteous little prigs.

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 10:33PM

I think in a sick way the AmSpec writers like it when the liberals torture us. Keeps us on our game. RET is a mischievous sort.

Alan Brooks| 2.14.09 @ 10:54PM

i like Daphne-- she's funny, shes not actually quite a progressive she's more like just naive without the liberalness.
the fizz without the soda.
but, Ruth, if men aren't animals then
why >50,000 WMDs?
why do we lock our doors at night?
why do we need v-chips?
why...?

sorry, Ruth, i have an extremely low opinion of human nature.

Ran| 2.14.09 @ 10:55PM

Hey Ruth,
If that's the case, I'll spoil RET's game by ignoring the likes of 'Bob' the Liar and the Groper. Seriously! Life is too short to drink cheap wine.

About 'Bob' and Palin... Yeah, in a kind of sick Victorian way, he'd love to date a gal like her but knows Sarah wouldn't even look at him - so he denigrates and attempts to destroy that which he can not have.

One wonders if that's not half of liberal M.O.:

They can't be successful, so they want success destroyed for others. They can't tell truth, so they destroy morals. They can't love, so they destroy babies - by the millions.

Funny this thread following a WELFARE post. Any bets that our pet trolls will pay for a subscription?

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 11:08PM

Alan, there's too much beauty all around us to be glum. It's true there is great sadness here, this is not the Garden of Eden--after all, but I also see the toothless smiles on babies' faces, hear the lyrical laughter of children and see boundless love for family and friends on so many faces in my community. It's a choice, you see, and I fight to find the love, laughter and joy in every single day. Life will always be bittersweet--it's the nature of the game. Come on, I always enjoy blogging with my friends on AmSpec--well almost everyone. Happy Valentine's Day.

Alan Brooks| 2.14.09 @ 11:10PM

to lighten things up a bit (and will post this again elsewhere here for laughs) i just read an interview with JEB BUSH
he's now out of office and is a full blown techo-moderate-we-are-the-world Reform conservative. "GOP can be party of reform... we need state of the art computers in every school...Sweden has a great school system, kids from Baghdad and Somalia-- this is tough area of Stockholm were talking about..."
yeah a TOUGH area of Stockholm.
funny, as soon as i realized what blarney the techno- kandy flake neon baby new age hi tek au go go, is...
then it catches on.

"were one step ahead o' you, boy!"

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 11:14PM

Ran, I ignore most of Bob's posts--most of them drone on and on and on anyway. Snore. I like Sarah Palin's family--they're real. They're human and make mistakes, but they always stand by one another. Also, they didn't kill Bristol's baby in order to save face. My kind of people. God, Family, Country.

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 11:16PM

What happened to Jeb? Please stay far far away from the Oval Office.

Alan Brooks| 2.14.09 @ 11:27PM

Jeb said,
"... you may not believe it but of all places, Sweden has a great school system...lots of computers [he needn't have told us]... of course the tax rate in Sweden is over 90 percent... but by the time kids graduate they know three languages... kids from all over...Somalia and Baghdad, this a TOUGH area of Stockholm we're talking about..."

it's the nitty gritty real deal, you see,
it's a trend...

ruth| 2.14.09 @ 11:30PM

Principles are not trendy, I guess he never had any.

Alan Brooks| 2.14.09 @ 11:40PM

you're right about accentuatin' the positive, laughter is the best medicine. so maybe i'll stick to comedy at AS.
let's face it, the more (to get back on-topic) welfare is reformed, the bigger it gets.

the less Oprah diets, the puffier she looks...

ruth| 2.15.09 @ 12:51AM

Oprah has triumphed in every area of her life but the personal one. Difficult childhoods leave deep scars, God bless her.

Jeremiah| 2.15.09 @ 1:06AM

It's hardly a surprise, McCain, to read reactionaries complaining about people who don't share their opinions.

But it sort of is implied by having an open posting process that the site is inviting people to comment, even if they don't have each idea they write fed to them by Sean Hannity.

A smart fella like you, I would have thought you'd appreciate a little opposition. But maybe Ruth and Alan Brooks are enough for you and your friends.

Peace, comrades. No hard feelings.

ruth| 2.15.09 @ 1:10AM

You wouldn't know peace if it bit you on the a**, comrade. Comments are welcome, vicious personal attacks aren't. You liberals don't know the difference--as George W. finally found out.

Basil Plumley| 2.15.09 @ 1:36AM

Hey ruth, cut it out--I was hoping Interlooper was going to post more on the neo-confederacy on the latest Book Review but I see you have been holding court and his attention. You need to read some of his comments. Classic stuff.

In just one thread Interloopy went from being a history teacher to a law school professor to a psychology whiz.
The one-trick fascist pony is wearing very thin with me. Everyone who disagrees with him is a neo-confederate who openly desires to return to owning slaves and is a white supremist.
The dude (dudette?) has issues.

Oh well, keep up the great posts ruth.

Crusader| 2.15.09 @ 8:41AM

Ruth, you go girl! Its good to hear you've finally stopped reading Bob's posts. I stopped when it became apparent you could some them up thusly:

"Socons bad blah blah Sarah Palin anti-intellectual blah blah statistic blah blah pie chart says blah blah RSM/Quin/Any Amspec author is wrong blah blah blah."

When you subsidize a behavior you get more of it. The article is a perfect example of the institutionalized welfare across 2 generations of the same family. What are the odds some of those 7 grandkids will be welfare generation number 3? Only a liberal would fail to see that.

Bob| 2.15.09 @ 8:50AM

RSM, you drew the comparison of what is occurring in Great Britain with the black welfare mom's in the U.S. I broadened the debate to solving the issue rather than just complaining about it as you and other ideologues do. Regarding "liberal", you simpleton's seem to lack the capacity to understand overall issues. I am more of a fiscal conservative than you. I didn't agree with the bailouts and thought bankruptcy was a better option. I believe in a flat tax just like Steve Forbes. I believe we need to reform social security and medicare to reduce the costs. I believe in the rule of law and don't accept amnesty rules. I believe the government should stay away from any tax incentives and let the market rule. I believe in the traditional conservative ideology that we should not do nation building. So tell me, genius, how does that make me a liberal? On social issues I am LIBERTARIAN. I don't believe the government should be involved in personal decisions whether it is abortion or gay marriage -- which is quite consistent with my other beliefs, by the way.

You and your other social conservative friends fall to name calling to ostracize people here. That's the problem with the majority of social conservatives -- they lack the ability to reason.

As to Ran's tripe, I have never "lied" on this board. I provided a link to my claim that parts of the bible were written in Aramaic and that's what I learned when I was a child. I challenge Ran or others to show any lies on this board. This goes along with "liberal" labels. Everything I propound about myself here is true. If, RSM, you want to find out who I am and check out my credentials, you have my email address so contact me and check me out.

By the way Ran and Ruthie, you have a funny way of ignoring me... (insert laugh here).

As to Quin, he is thin skinned and cannot take any criticism. He says he is not very religious but comments more than anyone else on social conservative issues. He asked me not to respond on his blogs, and I have not. That is what I expect from ideologues on either side of the political spectrum -- censorship. Is that what AmSpec desires as its hallmark?

I've fought against ideologues on the left and fight against them on the right. I would like to see reason win over belief.

As to the Palin issue, is that the motherhood example you really want as a social conservative? Yes, let's have more teenage mothers. After all, it is God's will.... right????

Basil Plumley| 2.15.09 @ 1:07PM

@Bob

I am currently wiping the tears from my face.
I am despondent that you did not mention yours truly as one who has taken you to task. In fact, if I recall correctly, I had you back peddling into full retreat. I seem to recall your faulty reading comprehension. The topic: Sarah Palin.

Let's see now ...... you call abstinence policies, a fantasy. Despite the faulty efforts (as well as statistics) of the Left, they do indeed work.

Once again, you demean Sarah Palin and her family. If you are sinless, then commence the stoning. Oddly, you never seem to take any other politician to task.
As I have pointed out to you previously; your hatred of Palin shows an inferiority complex and/or a personal weakness on your part.

As to this comment:
"Family size is highly inversely correlated to educational level. If you want smaller families, increase the value of education in people's lives. It doesn't help that you and other so-called conservatives eschew the importance of intelligence and education in our lives."

Bob ...... if you practice what you preach, there will either be no little Bobs (or Bobettes) to terrorize us or you will breed you and your ilk out of existence. Both scenarios will be fine with us.
Perhaps you need to look at the world's demographics before you continue that trend of thinking. ROI-ROI-ROI-ROI, I guess, eh?

As to the question of you "lying", I doubt anyone can actually prove you to be a liar. You see, all we have is your word and very little empirical evidence to support your word.
However, your arguments border on calumny and you present very little evidence to support your contentions. You seem to entrench yourself into the power of your personality, as if, that alone is the greatest empirical evidence. A hint: it isn't.

I chastised you before as to your lack of humility and humanity. I can see nothing has changed. You still wail about ...... you and why people do not live up to your standards. This is the ultimate in moral relativity as well as demagoguery (i.e. the world according to Bob). Perhaps, you have your rules for living written on a tablet.

If you desire to post hair-pulling stuff on this board, by all means continue. However, realize that your constant harping and preening about being the best and brightest doesn't enhance your stature or argument.

Oh, and btw, the correct usage is "you simpletons" (plural) not "you simpleton's" (possessive). Sorry Bob, I am just trying to make you a much better poster.

ruth| 2.15.09 @ 2:32PM

Frankly, Bob, Bristol Palin is none of your business. Unless you provide financial assistance to her and her son, her life is none of your concern. Your obsession with Sarah Palin is growing and now seems to be targeting her daughter, too. Two generations. Better be careful, those Alaskan women are adept with firearms.

Interloper| 2.15.09 @ 3:25PM

I think the American Spectator site has open commenting because it is held together by the web design equivalent of gum and paper clips. It is not that the owners want rational people disturbing the peace of Right Wing extremists, it is that it would cost them (a web site designer, a moderator, better servers) to lock the site down.

It pleases me to hear that the hard-hearted white supremacist wuss 'Basil Plumley' has been crying. If there is a Hell below, he has reason to weep in contemplation. However, it is unfortunate that he is crying over the fully factual observation that Sarah Palin's family has the same problems as the family profiled in the article RSM cited. (Actually, the Palins are worse in some ways. There's no report of two or three generational drug abuse in that story.) The Palins are not poor, but they are 'trashy.'

Bob tries valiantly to talk truth to stupidity. Most of the time he is right. This one of those times.

ruth| 2.15.09 @ 4:09PM

The Kennedy clan is trash--garbage, actually. Shall we discuss your absurd liberal worship of this most noble American family? LOL

ruth| 2.15.09 @ 4:13PM

Talk about stupidity, liberals bathe in it.

Thomas| 2.15.09 @ 4:18PM

I have no idea as to why TAS has expanded it's response capability, but I have no problem with it as long as contributors can get beyond the "Oh, yeah?" equivalence response.

Discourse is supposed to be about a sharing of facts and information. Simply saying, "I feel that..." or "I don't believe that..." without providing some verifiable justification pretty much ends the discussion.

At one time, the general site was limited to articles and response in the form of edited letters [edited as to spelling and grammar, not content] and the blog was open to unedited comment. That, unfortunately has changed. Now, if you are a reader who does not wish to be inundated with missives from people who seem more interested in discussing each other's linage, intellect [or lack of it], moral failings and proclivities or simply responding with, "Oh yeah, well so's your old man.", you must snore your way through it anyway. Many very interesting people, both self-identified conservatives and liberals, are no longer represented here for this very reason. I find myself spending less time reading this site and have noticed that the quality of the written articles is slipping, as well. We'll have to see what is available when TAS becomes indistinguishable from the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, both noted for their lack of substantive debate. I guess the decline of honest, civilized discourse is coming to an end.

Good night.

Basil Plumley| 2.15.09 @ 4:35PM

@Interloper

It is obvious that sarcasm is lost on children. I would explain it to you but I doubt you could wrap your teeny head around it.
As usual, you don't have a clue what you are posting about. I normally would demand an apology but only a decent and honorable person would apologize.
Thus, I shan't ask. You are a colossal jewel of ignorance for all the world to see. Enjoy the limelight.

I await with baited breath your response to my latest post on the Book Review.

Basil Plumley| 2.15.09 @ 4:52PM

@ Thomas

I agree with your premise. Unfortunately, there is a small group of folks who enjoy/thrive on hair pulling posts. I have noticed that said folks have gotten personal with the authors. I think the attempt is to marginalize and chill free speech. It is the tactic of the Fascist.

I do not think it is within the author's domain to deal with these miscreants. It should be up to the readers to "take out the trash", so to speak. I don't like ceding any position to the Left. I prefer to defend Conservative standards than abdicate them to the Left.

It may seem silly to some but I prefer the casual reader to TAS to see that there is still fight in Conservatives.

Interloper| 2.15.09 @ 4:55PM

'Basil Plumley,' your obtuseness matches your arrogance. I've no interest in reading more of your claims about slavery being beneficial because the slave owners needed it "to be competitive," that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War, that there was and are constitutional grounds for the South to secede from the Union, etc. It is all claptrap.

I do appreciate observing your defense of Sarah Palin after witnessing your attacks on Abraham Lincoln. That tells any thinking person all he needs to know.

Bob| 2.15.09 @ 5:06PM

Basil, I did not mention you because your posts lack intellectual competence and substance. I've presented a great deal of analytical data supporting my positions, and you have presented none. You show the bankruptcy of social conservative ideology. Why use factual information when you can just believe?

You have been proven wrong on all accounts. The fact you cannot visualize that reality must be a factor of comprehension.

Actually Ruth, if you and others comment/lament on the state of morals in our country, then whoever becomes President should represent a high level of morality. Supporting Palin in regards to out of wedlock births as an example to our young people is beyond the pale. It is ironic that you overlook her peccadilloes and not Obama's. Oh, wait, Obama didn't have children out of wedlock, has remained faithful and married, and has raised two wonderful children. Hmmmm....

ruth| 2.15.09 @ 6:23PM

Something wrong upstairs with Obobber.

ruth| 2.15.09 @ 6:45PM

Basil, unfortunately many conservatives live in a bubble and feel it is beneath them to enter the fray. Reminds me of the British/American Revolutionary War fighting methods: The Brits would enter battles marching in perfect form only to be picked off by the stealthy Americans. We know how that war turned out.

Bill Bailey| 2.15.09 @ 7:55PM

Dear Bob, the sophistry-loving concern troll:
You must be a retard. Cut out the bullshit wherein you lecture conservatives for supposedly not holding education in high esteem. The more you patronize us, the more we stop listening to you.

S.L. Toddard| 2.15.09 @ 8:31PM

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/12/shades-of-gray
Interloper seems to have a credibility problem lately, to say the least.

S.L. Toddard| 2.15.09 @ 8:35PM

BlowBob, Da Jeremiator Proprietor and the Interschlepper all on the same topic? Weird. What's the probability of this ever happening? They are obviously the same SidViciousBlumenthal foaming at the mouth pervert libturd. Sieg Heil liberal nazi troll!

Basil Plumley| 2.15.09 @ 8:39PM

@ Interloper

I defy you to find where I attacked Lincoln. I really wish you would stop lying and mischaracterizing folks who post in good faith. Your dishonesty knows no ends. But at least you read my last post. The dead giveaway was your use of obtuseness. That is not a word any thinking fascist could come up with out of thin air.
For someone who still believes in the "separate but equal" doctrine you certainly have some nerve calling out anyone. No one can argue points of history without the same one trick pony you constantly use. It gets old and it shows the world you have very little upstairs.

@Bob

Mea culpa, oooh that really hurt.

Let's break it down shall we:
"I've presented a great deal of analytical data supporting my positions, and you have presented none."
Utter nonsense. What analytical data are you talking about? I know you allegedly have these "tests" which you claim prove you're smarter than Sarah Palin. To date, you haven't released your records. I can only conclude that you are like the haughty John Kerry who still after 4 years has not released his war records. Yes, you are smart but we have to take your word for it. Yeah, uh huh.

Honestly, you haven't refuted one premise of my post concerning yourself. But, by all means, keep trying.

Bob, you really have no idea how ridiculous you look in your strident personal attacks on Sarah Palin. Some folks may even think you might be a misogynist.
Keep up the attacks Bob, so far the only one who agrees with you is Interloper. That is some right fine company ya been keeping Bob. Maybe that explains your "smaller family" status; er, maybe not.

I suggest you read about the declining birth rates in countries like Russia. That country must be full of PHD's, I tell ya.

S.L. Toddard| 2.15.09 @ 8:58PM

*Obama didn't have children out of wedlock, has remained faithful and married, and has raised two wonderful children. Hmmmm.... *

BlowBob, how can you be so sure about all the above? You don't know s.hit about Hussein, man.
Because you don't wanna know.
Dumb liberal.

ConservativeWanderer| 2.15.09 @ 9:00PM

My, my, Bob... in your excitement over being able to trash Sarah Palin and extol the virtues of Barack Obama, did you forget, perhaps, that Mr. Obama is himself the product of an out-of-wedlock birth?

Think before you type. Saves embarrassment.

Jeremiah| 2.15.09 @ 9:31PM

Toddard --

Generally speaking, if you have no reason to believe a man is cheating on his wife, it's pretty lame and stupid to assume he is.

You're pretty much a scumbag, though, aren't you? So I wouldn't worry about it.

Jeremiah| 2.15.09 @ 9:35PM

Toddard --

"Liberal nazi" is so comic and delicious an absurdity, I'm too grateful to point out it's conceptual inadequacy.

However, civilization makes demands of us, and one is to insist that a person like yourself EDUCATE yourself about the holocaust, for you are frightfully ignorant.

Comparing people to Nazis is foolish and weak, but it also runs the risk that if we ever need the word or the comparison, it will have lost it's meaning.

Grow up, man. Take some responsibility for yourself and what you say.

Interloper| 2.15.09 @ 9:40PM

The supposed point of Robert Stacy McCain's piece is that 'welfare' caused the intergenerational problems with youth child-bearing the family demonstrates. But, that isn't true. The reason that people don't practice good family planning habits are often rooted in ignorance and lack of aspirations. The solutions are to end the ignorance and provide grounds for young people to aspire to become at least self-supporting.

My reason for usually ignoring 'Basil Plumley' is the same as Bob's: there is no there there. 'Plumley' posts many long comments that contain no actual substance, or, are so completely wrong that only a nitwit could come up with them. Furthermore, he lacks the nominal intelligence to know that he embarrasses himself with his comments. He does not merit responses.

I think the childish displays on various threads since 'Nick' showed up, which seek to disparage others with slurs and inanities, speak for themselves.

PhyCon| 2.15.09 @ 9:43PM

Really, Jeremiah...pot/kettle moment there? Remembering one's "fascistic" claim in another thread I believe you have found the moment yourself.

Basil Plumley| 2.15.09 @ 10:10PM

@Interloper

Another falsehood, professor. If you ever make an honest post, it will be your first.

@ Jeremiah

Please explain this passage of yours:
"Liberal nazi" is so comic and delicious an absurdity, I'm too grateful to point out it's conceptual inadequacy.

I really would love to hear your thoughts about that phrase.

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 7:11AM

Basil -- I can show you a great deal of proof in the form of interviews with Gibson and Couric that Palin's knowledge is even more limited than yours. There is no evidence of the contrary in terms of education, policy papers, written documents, interviews, etc. And yes, I am ultra-sensitive to cerebral capability in the running of our country. The job is more complex that virtually any other in the world and at least moderate intelligence is required. Instead, you support someone who doesn't know any Supreme Court decisions, doesn't remember any of the papers she read (if any), refuses to answer questions in a debate, etc. And in case you bring it up, I consider Biden only slightly better as he is also not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

Again, my choice would have been Romney -- someone I gave money to and someone with whom I agreed on a number of issues.

So Basil, wake up and smell the gray matter.

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 8:04AM

I think our resident devils really did their best to demonstrate that they lack the intellectual tools to participate in a debate in a serene way. I like their new aliases though. BlowBob the blowhard, Da Jeremiator (home owner but not sharer) and the Intergroper (fake teacher but real inmate) you failed to understand that a liberal government can't prevent teen age pregnancy despite free condoms, pills and abortion, because it lacks a moral compass. Why does it lack this moral compass? Because it is fondamentally evil and hates mankind as much as it hates God. Liberals must really be in despair if all they have to do is trying to convice people Obambi is right because they voted for him! And leave Palin alone, you psychotic morons! What is this? A gang rape?

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 8:20AM

Toddard -- please show me your "intellectual" tools. I have not seen any demonstration of knowledge or logic coming from your posts. Please show me some data that proves that contraception is worse than abstinence. The problem with your "moral compass" is that it is based on belief rather than reason. Religious people used to think that slavery was moral. Remember the Crusades? Whose moral compass do you use? Yours? Mine? When was the last time you went into a black neighborhood to straighten gang kids out about a "moral compass"? I grew up in South Central. Bringing down the unemployment rate is probably the most important item in that environment.

Regarding Palin, as long as zealots believe she is a viable candidate for President, I'll bring her lack of knowledge and intellectual capability. I have absolutely no hate for the incompetent -- they know not what they do.

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 8:22AM

Considering your behavior and your attitude on this blog, anybody with two brain cells can understand the link between nazi and liberal, so buzz off dumb liberal parasites. Oops! Another pleonasm...

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 8:27AM

And spare me your bulls.hit about South Central, you were born and raised in Long Island NY and you were given a car at 15, as you wrote in Salon three months ago. You do not know s.hit about the working class, not to mention the thinking class...

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 8:31AM

And how could I use your moral compass, dumb ass? You don't have any! You're a wreck, a sodomite, a freewheeling coke snorter who voted Obama and expects the government to hold his dick whenever he goes to the rest room. You should be ashamed of yourself.

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 8:40AM

Did I hurt your feelings, pretty boy?

Nick (not that one)| 2.16.09 @ 8:44AM

The point of the article is well taken in my experience. I know all too many people, even after welfare reform, who still live strictly on the largesse of government. No matter how many times they fail, dropping out of schools they didn't pay for, relapsing after rehabs they didn't pay for, losing jobs because they couldn't be bothered to take their children to the day care they didn't pay for-the asssistance keeps on coming. It makes a working man cringe.

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 9:13AM

Toddard -- again, showing such hate and a continued orientation to empty rhetoric. I have said nothing about Nazi's, by the way and I did grow up in South Central. You obviously came from parents related prior to marriage. As a supposedly religious individual, you sure show a great deal of hate and intolerance.

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 9:38AM

BlowBob, I don't hate you, I just despise you and what you represent: a disease. I have the cure for you, now if you would just bend over...

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 9:42AM

Had you actually grown up in South Central, you would either be dead or you would have voted Republican. You're a fake, a troll and a jerk. That makes you a liberal.

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 9:47AM

Blowbob,the comments about my parents remind me of Hillary's about the very humble origin of Paula Jones. Typical elitism and snobism from liberal turds. You really belong to Long Island. I guess you would have voted Marylin Manson had he run for prez. Stupid fake.

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 9:48AM

Toddard -- I won't bend over -- you are not my type. By the way, South Central went overwhelmingly for Obama -- and I don't believe he's a Republican. And I guess being against the bank bailout, the auto bailout, promoting a reform of social security and medicare, cutting down the size of government, and promoting individual responsibility makes me a liberal. You do lack any mental competence.

I can see why you like Palin so much -- she matches your knowledge and intelligence levels. Please go to your pastor and ask him/her to treat your dirty, hateful mind.

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 9:57AM

BlowBob, the wrecks who clang to South Central voted Obama, the other looked for a job elsewhere or joined the Marines and became Republicans. And don't lie to us, you pretend to be a libertarian and you never, ever, quoted P.J. O'Rourke. Are you a "teacher" at Leavenworth just like the Groper?

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 10:02AM

You hate ladies and you're uncomfortable with the idea of Pelosi as a speaker. No wonder you hate Palin so much. Ladies should be put in their place according to what you wrote in Salon.
And I'm the one who needs counseling?

Deborah| 2.16.09 @ 10:04AM

The problem with welfare is that it is the modern version of, "If you give a man a fish he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime." That is a basic truth, and all you liberals can try to refute it, but it's as simple as that.

Personal attacks and name calling and suggesting that RSM is ignorant are all attempts to change the subject because you really have no answer. Liberal policies create dependency -- which is their purpose. Liberals want people dependent on government because that gives them power. Deny it all you want, but we see through you.

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 10:08AM

Deborah, I beg to differ. The libturd credo is: "If you give a man a fish, you have the duty to give him a fish every day."

Deborah| 2.16.09 @ 10:22AM

Amen, S.L.

Basil Plumley| 2.16.09 @ 10:24AM

@Bob

There you go again. You want to bring up the Palin interviews by Couric and Gibson that ran on TV. To you, that is the sole focus of your reality. I have asked before whether you were aware that what you saw was edited and that some of her best moments were on the cutting room floor.

That is true Bob and your lack of intellectual curiousity is quite disturbing. Perhaps you still believe that Gilligan-the Skipper-the Professor-Ginger-Maryann-Mr & Mrs Howell actually lived on a deserted island. Your sense of reality is pretty disturbing.

As for Romney, you can have him. You need to read up on the money his Health Care Plan is costing the citizens of MA. To my friends and relatives who still live in MA, Romney is considered to be a joke; a man who spent more time running for POTUS than running the State. The same guy who promised billions to bail out the Big 3 in order to win the MI primary.
Yeah, that is a change you can believe in.

I like Palin. I think if the nation could elect a community organizer who spent a grand total of 143 days in the US Senate and needs a teleprompter to give impromptu speeches, then why not Palin. She is smarter and better looking and if it would send you over the edge; all the better.

ConservativeWanderer| 2.16.09 @ 10:31AM

Bob, I am still waiting for you to comment on Sarah Palin's "problem" with unwed mothers giving birth vs. Barack Obama's experience with same.

Face it, your mudslinging just came back to hit you in the face, and now you're desperately ignoring it.

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 10:39AM

Toddard, I have no problems with intelligent, successful women like my three daughters -- all who have master's degrees. I don't think much of Pelosi, Reid, or Biden. I like Jindal. I was part of a Jeanne Kirkpatrick for President group long ago. YOU don't have a clue -- but then again, that's why you like Palin. Furthermore, I have never posted on the Salon site. You know, there is more than one "Bob" out there. Then again, perhaps you don't.

Basil, you still have not shown me what was on the "cutting room floor" to prove your point. Your rhetoric is empty and tiresome without proof or substance. Romney had more successful executive experience and economic experience than any other candidate. I liked the fact that he used reason in Massachusetts and has advanced degrees in both law and business from Harvard. In addition, he was highly successful in business and running the Olympics. You prefer an empty dress....

You still have not proven any mental competence on either your part or Palin's part. You degenerate this discussion into what is not there, rather than what is. I'm glad you post so much. You show the vacuousness of social conservatives.

ConservativeWanderer| 2.16.09 @ 10:49AM

And another reply from Bob without responding to the unwed mother commentary.

Yes, I am gonna keep pestering you about your mudslinging, Bob.

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 11:43AM

Wanderer -- Please continue to "pester" me about Palin's unwed mother commentary. I think she showed a lack of parenting ability with regard to her daughter. I raised three daughters and they all waited until after college and grad school before they were married. Then, and only then, they became mothers with a very doting grandfather.

I still maintain the timing of Palin's pregnancy and the rapidity of her unscheduled marriage show a weak moral compass. What else would you like me to comment on?

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 12:03PM

Outstanding! Did you ask them not to get pregnant and what was the justification? Did you give your daughters a moral compass (which you don't believe in as it is "based on belief and not on reason") or did they just disobey you? Your sanctimoniousness is plain incredible, just because your daughters turned out to be decent ladies after all, despite having a liberal lowlife as a dad, allows you to judge Sarah Palin's daughter? We need to stay clear of pompous asses who claim to be cleaner than clean.

ConservativeWanderer| 2.16.09 @ 12:04PM

And what does Barack Obama's mother having him out of wedlock show? And what about his grandparents (who raised him) not teaching her about "parenting ability"?

If ya wanna talk about parents influencing kids, ya know, it works both ways.

Basil Plumley| 2.16.09 @ 12:07PM

@Bob
For starters, here is a side by side comparison of the Gibson questions for Obama vs, the Gibson questions for Palin.
Obama questions:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to "win"?
How does your family feel about your "winning" breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor's [Clinton] speech?

Palin questions:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you're seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren't you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

Of course it should be noted that Gibson's definition of the Bush Doctrine was wrong; as pointed out by Charles Krauthammer, no fan of Palin. This should whet your intellectual curiousity. My next post to you will be what was left on the cutting room. Stay tuned.

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 12:13PM

Yeah they would have asked Obambi "When was Hiroshima bombed?" and they would have asked Palin "Names and adresses of the victims"

Basil Plumley| 2.16.09 @ 12:27PM

Here Bob, this is why you lose and why you don't understand Sarah Palin. I doubt you will take on Ralph Peters. If you do, your bigotry and misogyny knows no bounds.

OUR SISTER SARAH PALIN'S ANTI-ELITIST CHARM by Ralph Peters
I KNOW Sarah Palin, and so does my wife.

Neither of us ever actually met the governor of Alaska, but we grew up with her - in the small-town America despised by the leftwing elite.

One gal-pal classmate of my wife's has even traveled from New York's Finger Lakes to Alaska to hunt moose with her husband. (Got one, too.) And no, Ms. Streisand, she isn't a redneck missing half her teeth - she's a lawyer.

The sneering elites and their mediacrat fellow travelers just don't get it: How on earth could anyone vote for someone who didn't attend an Ivy League school? And having more than 1.7 children marks any woman as a rube. (If Palin had any taste, her teenage daughter would've had a quiet abortion in a discreet facility.)

And what kind of retro-Barbie would stay happily married to her high-school sweetheart? Ugh. She even kills animals and eats them. (The meat and fish served in the upscale bistros patronized by Obama supporters appears by magic - it didn't really come from living things. . .)

Palin has that hick accent, too. And that busy-mom beehive 'do. Double ugh! Bet she hasn't even read Ian McEwan's latest novel and can't explain Frank Gehry's vision for a new architecture. She and her blue-collar (triple ugh!) husband don't even own a McMansion, let alone an inherited family compound on the Cape.

And she wants to be vice president?

The opinion-maker elites see Sarah Palin clearly every time they look up from another sneering article in The New Yorker: She's a country-bumpkin chumpette from a hick state with low latte availability. She's not one of them and never will be. That's the real disqualifier in this race.

Now let me tell you what those postmodern bigots with their multiple vacation homes and their disappointing trust-fund kids don't see:

Sarah Palin's one of us. She actually represents the American people.

When The New York Times, CNN, the NBC basket of basket cases and all the barking blog dogs insult Palin, they're insulting us. When they smear her, they're smearing every American who actually works for a living, who doesn't expect a handout, who doesn't have a full-time accountant to parse the family taxes, who believes in the Pledge of Allegiance and who thinks a church is more than just a tedious stop on daughter Emily's 100K wedding day.

Go ahead, faux feminists and Hollywood deep thinkers: Snicker at Sarah America's degree from the University of Idaho, but remember that most Americans didn't attend Harvard or Princeton as a legacy after daddy donated enough to buy his kid's way in.

Go ahead, campaign strategists: Mock Americans who go to church and actually pray. But you might want to run the Census numbers first.

And go right ahead: Dismiss all of us who remember how, on the first day of deer season, our high school classrooms were half empty (not a problem at Andover or Exeter).

That rube accent of Palin's? It's a howler. But she sounds a lot more like the rest of us than a Harvard man or a Smithie ever will.

Why does Sarah Palin energize all of us who don't belong to the gilded leftwing circle? Because she's us. We sat beside her in class. We hung out after school (might've even shared a backseat combat zone on prom night). And now she lives next door, raising her kids.

For the first time since Ronald Reagan, our last great president, we, the people, see a chance that one of us might have a voice in governing our country.

Speaking of Reagan (Eureka College, Illinois), every chief executive we've had since the Gipper snapped his final salute as president has had the imprimatur of an Ivy League university. And we've gone from bad to worse:

* George Herbert Walker Bush: Yale.

* William Jefferson Clinton: Georgetown, Oxford, Yale Law.

* George W. Bush: Yale and Harvard Business School.

The first lacked the sense to finish the job in Desert Storm; the second lacked the guts to go after al Qaeda when it was just a startup - and the third, well, let's just say he disappointed our low expectations.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/our_sister_sarah_palins_anti_elitist_cha_129908.htm?page=0
Please note, although no boardcode and smiley buttons are shown, they are still useable

Basil Plumley| 2.16.09 @ 12:40PM

Oh Bob, here you go--concerning the cutting room floor- -read it and weep. Do you have anything other than your arrogance (and Interloper's stupidity) to counter? You should be ashamed of all the calumny you have directed at Sarah Palin.

My apologies to the folks that run this site for the length but slaying Bob the dragon and bringing respect and real facts to the Sarah Palin debate is very important.

The Palin Test: A liberal litmus for the media
Posted: Sunday, Sep 28, 2008 - 12:31:57 am MDT

If you were uncertain why people don’t like and don’t trust the mainstream media, all you have to do is look at the treatment of Sarah Palin and you will get the picture. Reactions to her have become a virtual litmus test for media bias.

Forget about left-wing comedians on MTV or Letterman. They are paid to belittle people who support traditional American values, and they do it very well. Ignore the New York Times, which has an agenda a mile long and a little to the left of Joseph Stalin. That particular devouring leopard will not change its spots, and everyone knows it.

But a few people still cling to a stubborn belief in the fairness of network news the way that Barack Obama thinks small-town Americans cling to guns and religion. But if what happens on ABC, NBC and CBS is reckoned as fairness, then it was also fair to throw the Christians in with the lions. Indeed, the visceral hatred that many liberals feel for Sarah Palin has become engraved on the faces of Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann and other supposedly neutral journalists. (All right, Olbermann really isn’t neutral — that was just a joke.)

Gibson’s interview, the first that Palin gave after her nomination, was typical of those that followed, and instructive in just how deceitful, biased and dangerous the national media outlets have become.

In particular, if you look at the full transcript of the interview and compare it to the parts that Gibson used on ABC’s “World News,” you will see two different Sarah Palins. The one sitting across from Charlie Gibson was nuanced, insistent and thoughtful, but the one that Gibson cut-and-pasted in the editing room was a cross between Ma Kettle and Dr. Strangelove.

It is plain that Gibson went into the interview believing that a woman who was governor of Alaska is not qualified to be president of the United States, and he aimed to prove that. Thus, he began by asking Palin if she had “ever met a foreign head of state.”

Now, of course, he knew full well that she had not, or if she had it was because of some incidental contact. Governors typically have their hands full managing the affairs of their own “state” without setting up their own “state department” to compete with the one in Washington, D.C.

But that doesn’t mean Palin hasn’t dealt with foreign countries, and she wisely tried to steer Gibson back to reality by talking about what governors really do. She told him that Alaska’s “international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries,” but Gibson didn’t want to hear it — and he didn’t want you to hear it either. He cut that out of the interview.

Mind you, Palin still managed to get her point across — the answer that Gibson used emphasized that the governor considered her Alaskan experience to be an alternative to “politics as usual.” She acknowledged that there are plenty of politicians with a “big, fat resume that shows decades and decades in [the] Washington establishment” who will thus — as she adroitly noted — have had “opportunities to meet heads of state.” But Gibson then cut out her coup de grace when she said that Americans “are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.”

When moving on to foreign policy substance, Gibson broached the topic of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, but he clearly was not prepared for the scope of Palin’s knowledge on this topic as he decided to cut out about 70 percent of her lengthy response. Is it possible she sounded too knowledgeable for Gibson to be able to make her look bad? Hmmm, interesting theory.

In any case, this is also the segment of the interview where Gibson’s oh-so-cute editing was used to try to make it look like Palin said she understood Russia because it is close to Alaska.

Here’s the interview Gibson aired:

Palin: [W]e’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

This segment of the interview has provided comedians and commentators with endless gaglines about how Palin foolishly believes living next to another country provides foreign policy experience. But let’s look at what she really said. Here’s the unedited interview:

PALIN: [W]e’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relations with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

Oh no, Gibson must have thought! She is actually answering my question in a coherent, comprehensive way! This won’t fit in with my plan to score career points by demonstrating to the public how dangerously incompetent she is. What shall I do?

Whether the answer eventually occurred to Gibson or to one of his producers is not known, but the answer was clear — just cut out all of the parts of the answer that show Palin to have a valid and valuable point of view.

And most importantly, where Palin was using her experience as Alaska’s governor to show that she and her constituents have an immediate, proximate interest in good relations with Russia, Gibson intentionally distorted her answer so that she looked like a naive New Age goofball who would peer across the Bering Strait and get a glimpse into the Russian soul.

Which brings us to Katie Couric’s more recent interview with Palin on the “CBS Evening News.” Couric couldn’t let the tasty morsel about Alaska being near Russia drop to the ground without getting a lick in.

Couric asked Palin the following: “You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?”

Of course, you and I both know that Palin should have told Couric directly that she had never said that, but Palin tried to find a polite way to re-direct the question instead. She started out by again talking about the “very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada,” but then she clearly became exasperated and said, “It’s funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don’t know, you know … reporters.

Couric: Mocked?

Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.

Mocked is clearly the word that most Americans would have when watching either Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric interviewing Sarah Palin, but Palin again pushed ahead and tried to answer the question. Eventually she said this:

“As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.”

Now this is a peculiar statement, and one that Palin might have been keeping intentionally vague because she did not know whether she should speak frankly about U.S. military information she had received as governor.

Turns out that Palin, in her role as commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard, has received briefings about Russian military plane incursions right to the edge of Alaskan airspace. That explains why she spoke cryptically of Putin “rearing his head.”

The CBS reporter, Scott Conroy, who detailed this in the wake of the Couric interview, however, seemed to be unable to recognize the connection to what Palin had told Couric. Instead of realizing that Palin’s comment about “Putin rear[ing] his head and com[ing] into the airspace of the United States of America” was a reference to those recent military incursions, he assumed she was talking about Putin’s actual diplomatic visits to the United States. He thus chided Palin for inaccuracy by noting that Putin would have visited Washington by traveling across the Atlantic.

But you don’t have to be smarter than a fifth grader to realize that Palin was really talking about Putin’s military threat against the United States, and when she asked “Where do they go?” she wasn’t talking about Putin’s valet and chef, but about his fighter jets and bombers.

Some people are terrified of Sarah Palin. They don’t need to be. They should be terrified of Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric and the other ex officio ministers of information who attempt to exert control over what Americans learn and what they don’t learn about our government and our leaders.

• Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.comThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2008/09/28/columns/columns01.txt
http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/2887-CBS-News-Erases-Moderate-Quotes-from-Palin-Transcript.html

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 12:58PM

Basil, it would be nice if you had some perspective. Gibson's interview with Obama occurred after almost 20 debates where all kinds of questions about policy were asked and debated. He had presented several policy positions and they were on his web site. This was an interview just after he won the primary from Hillary. Perspective, Basil -- something you obviously lack.

Toddard, regarding Obama's parents, you should give him credit for correcting their mistakes and doing it the right way. Palin failed at that.

With regard to Peters, there are lots of average people out there without high intelligence or academic excellence. Clinton had an excellent record as president, especially on the economy. Reagan did very well with the exception of the huge debt he piled up on our shoulders. That said, I would rate Reagan higher on the scale. It should be known on the latest rankings by both conservative and liberal historians, they agreed that Reagan was the 10th best President and Clinton the 15th. That seems about right to me -- but then, I'm fairly objective.

With regard to "W", he did poorly in school and was a legacy admit, just like McCain. It seems that Republicans lately like underperforming, mediocre, candidates. Again, give me a Romney or Jindal, please.

So what makes Ralph Peters an expert in presidents? He states the obvious, Palin is pretty and average. That's exactly what we want, right? Another mediocre president at best?

Also, since I attended an Ivy League school, I can tell you that half of us were on fellowships. Some of us, including me, had to go to school during the day and work at night while raising a family. I did have the GI bill to help. And by the way, I enlisted in the Army to fight for our country during wartime. Did you?

I do not regret the hard work and lack of sleep at that juncture in my life. The degree helped me find successful employment at large, Fortune 100 companies. Perhaps more importantly, it was a good example to my children who also thought education and hard work was important.

You can diminish educated, successful people all you want. In the end, it only diminishes you.

Basil Plumley| 2.16.09 @ 1:33PM

Bob

Remember that W had better grades than Kerry at Yale. Somehow you failed to mention that. No surprise.

I love this remark of yours:
And by the way, I enlisted in the Army to fight for our country during wartime. Did you?

Remember what I told you about my friends and family who actually fought in Vietnam? I even mentioned that a couple of them taught at the War College and a couple earned their Purple Hearts the hard way; unlike your hero John Kerry.
A refresher--they consider/ed braggerts like you frauds. You lack humility and humanity.

Perhaps, if our soldiers got themselves an education, they would not be in Iraq, eh?

Outside of your elitist arrogance, you really don't have much. You are a very sad character who lacks, ahem, character.

Remember this Bob, people walk into my office and do not ask me about my education; they ask me if I can do the job. They hire me for my expertise, not my educational background.

There is a lot of world out there Bob, embrace it.

clashseeker| 2.16.09 @ 2:04PM

Abstinence teaching of the kind my children received at a parochial school was simply not as naive and stupid as presented by many here. It at least was about an idea. The education centered on the head, the brain we carry above the waist. For women it seemed to make it easier to say " no ", and stand up against peer pressure, and all the rest. I did not consider it a waste of my tuition dollars. And, yes they all knew about condoms, and the pill as well. Do any of you who rage against abstinence, or as I see it being " it is not mandatory to have full blown sex" training a parent ?

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 2:17PM

Basil, there is a lot of knowledge out there, embrace it if you have the capability to do so. As for arrogance, I have nothing on you. Serve in the military and fight a war. Then get back to me on "character". As for humanity, perhaps you could show some. I'm still waiting for those intelligent, knowledgeable answers from Palin off of the cutting room floor from the Gibson and Couric interviews. Please produce them.

Basil Plumley| 2.16.09 @ 2:39PM

Bob, did you not read my post at 12:40pm? If that doesn't give you the empirical evidence then you are intellectually dishonest. I won't mention that I have presented more evidence in the few hours than you have ever presented against Sarah Palin.

btw, nice deflection in your last post. I guess your you-know-what doesn't smell either.
In all sincerity Bob, I really do pity you. I don't have the venom in my heart that you have for Sarah Palin and others with less education. Hopefully, you will find out that life doesn't revolve around you.
If or when your perfect little world crumbles, who will you blame?
You see Bob, that is humility and humanity.

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 2:52PM

Basil, I read the excerpt and actually read the original transcript. I see little difference and a lot of naivete in her answer. It was not entirely clear that Georgia was blameless in their act and she should have known that with all of her briefers. Even with the extra verbiage, it did not substantively change her answers. I don't have to present evidence "against" her as she has done a good job of that herself.

I don't hate Sarah at all -- I just believe she is unqualified to be President. I'm old enough to have passed the time when the world could possibly crumble around me. Evidently, you have not. I guess I'm not as egotistical as you to believe that I am the center of any world. The fact that you even think that way tells us a great deal about you....

Basil Plumley| 2.16.09 @ 3:22PM

Thanks Bob--it's nice to know that you were one of the OJ jurors. It really takes a special person to not take notice of evidence presented and disregard the venom they post.

Too bad Bob ...... nice try ...... perhaps another time, eh? Don't take it too personally, I have had practice dealing with bigger blowhards than you.

quod erat demonstrandum!!!

Marc Jeric| 2.16.09 @ 3:24PM

When I was a student in living under a communist regime, I knew people like our Jeremiah here. Ideal material for a communist cell chief, our Jeremiah.

Bob| 2.16.09 @ 3:32PM

Yes, Basil, it takes a special person to accept incompetence in their leadership. I assume you has some special education to accompany that special person designation. Good luck, you need it.

ConservativeWanderer| 2.16.09 @ 4:40PM

Bob... "you has some special education"?

Normally I don't pounce on grammatical or spelling errors, because they're easy to do, and this place doesn't let us mere peons edit posts. However, in your case, because you've been pounding the "I am smarter and therefore superior to you Neanderthals" line for so long, I think I will indulge.

A smart person knows which tense and form of a verb to use, even difficult verbs like "has" or "have."

To Basil and S. L. Toddard: Thanks for helping to show the idiocy of The Bob. Drop by my blog (link in my name above) sometime.

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 4:46PM

No BlowBob, YOU'll need it. Because you already know your prez is incompetent and you lost the next election, and you're left clueless as in "Dammit the Messiah is even more an airhead than I thought! How is this happening to us? Those right wingers were right from the start!"

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 4:50PM

What was your unit, BlowBob? Send us a picture through a link to imageshack showing your marksmanship and sharpshooter medals along with, say, a quarter and a nickel. If you really joined the Army and ended in Leavenworth, there's not much to brag about.

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 4:52PM

... or are you just like the InertGroper: an ex con.
Frankly I wouln't let anybody know I was a juror at OJ's trial.

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 5:01PM

It's so much of the same B.S. all over again: "I'm so superior to you, I studied at (place an Ivy League school here) and graduated cum laude, my intellect is so much so and so and yours is pitiful. My children are great and successful, yours will end up on welfare. I do you a favor when I waste time with so many uninteresting people, etc..."
What a bunch of morons. They won and they blame it on us!

Basil Plumley| 2.16.09 @ 5:18PM

@ ConservativeWanderer
You are welcome. I took a look-see at your blog. I shall be returning. There is some interesting stuff there. Contrary to what Bob and others post/think, I am actually a foreign policy wonk. I am very interested in that piece concerning Saudi Arabia.

Don't worry about Bob; he'll be back. Where else can he post his misogyny, his lack of humility, his bigotry, and his contempt for those folks who need special education. Who needs Archie Bunker when we have Bob?

@ S.L. Toddard

Umm, the Leavenworth gig was Interloper; the Walter Mitty of this board. History prof-Law prof-psychology whiz-inmate
Yikes!

Crusader| 2.16.09 @ 5:51PM

I swear reading some of the lib tripe really does confirm that Liberalism IS a mental disease. You have Interloper, the history/law/psych prof. Bob, who was born and raised in "south central," (this BTW gives him special insight into the black mind it appears), ENLISTED in the Army, fought in an unmentioned war, went to an Ivy league school while working at night AND raising a family. Man, dude, you are a renaissance man!

S.L. Toddard| 2.16.09 @ 6:10PM

It has become quite obvious that Inertgroper, BlowBob and Da Jeremiator are the same liberal troll with a multiple ((lack of) personality disorder.

Jim| 2.16.09 @ 6:55PM

Bob and all the other liberal paid posters, You only need to research from 1965 on to find the root causes of the welfare debcale.

Ran| 2.16.09 @ 8:00PM

Toddard...
The "Bob" story is a hoot. He first drew my attention back in December when I started reading TAS-Blog.

This ditty was priceless: "MRB -- I am familiar with the Pope's Regensburg speech. I studied religion when I was young and translated the original five books of Moses from the original Aramaic when I was 10."

The pretentious little fibber failed to note that of the main elements of the Torah, the Five Books Of Moses - the Pentateuch - was the one set composed entirely in classical Hebrew. Not so much as one sentence is in Aramaic. Had "Bob" been even vaguely familiar with the Torah he'd have known that. [Aramaic is commonly found in Rabbinic comments of the Oral Torah, though, as it can be shown, not in the five books.] He then tosses-off a Wiki link in defense, which the joke had never even himself read. Total pathos, really.

If Bob the Brave did serve in our forces, one has to ask... Was it alongside Micah Wright or Jesse MacBeth?

ruth| 2.16.09 @ 9:00PM

I remember that exchange, Ran. I never could understand Bob's mumbled (I could tell he was mumbling) explanation. Another of Bob's early posts stated that Reagan was a successful POTUS because he had a congenial personality . I was incredulous, to say the least. I told Bob that Reagan's keen intelligence and strong Conservative convictions defeated the USSR; that a pleasant demeanor wouldn't have been enough. He never really answered me, either. There's something wrong upstairs with Obobber.

ruth| 2.16.09 @ 9:02PM

Crusader, that's what I've been talkin' about: Liberalism is a mental illness.

Alan Brooks| 2.16.09 @ 10:02PM

how i wish abstinence COULD work if were given a chance. but you know how young meatheads are, they want to do the dirty deed.
and then it is off to another conquest.
if that isn't the case then why are so many kids on the dole? and if it is true that the economy is going way south then what happens when the welfare checks bounce?

Alan Brooks| 2.16.09 @ 10:14PM

the next decade certainly wont be boring.

"this is TOUGH area of Stockholm we're talking about"

S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 11:39AM

FYI - The person posting with my name in this thread is NOT me. It's the same troll who does this with other people's usernames. I haven't posted at this site since late January.