The American Spectator

S.L. Toddard| 1.14.10 @ 11:40AM

The question is, is it possible to be a supporter of Palin *and* a supporter of conservatism?

I don't see how one can be both.

Alan Brooks| 1.14.10 @ 3:41PM

This is a Man's world.
Palin is merely a token.

Alan Brooks| 1.14.10 @ 3:41PM

This is a Man's world.
Palin is merely a token.

SoCon| 1.14.10 @ 5:02PM

It's bad enough that you post idiocy, but it's downright criminal that you post it twice.

Alan, I'd say you're our token idiot, but Bob, Toddard and Liberal Reader have already filled that bill--and quite well, I might add.

John| 1.14.10 @ 11:53AM

Toddard, of course it is possible. Just look at Palin's record in Alaska. She was all about business growth, less government and anti-corruption.

This is the problem. Palin's critics tend to think she has existed only from a year and a half ago, onwards.

Indeed, the critics of her resignation are probably the same ones who don't know why she resigned. I dare say, given everything that was happening in Alaska after the election, she made the correct decision for Alaska. Just read chapter 5 of her book - it's quite clear that the politics of personal destruction made it impossible to stay.

William R| 1.14.10 @ 12:04PM

She raised taxes on oil companies when the state was running a budget surplus! Also it seems uber NeoCon Randy Scheunemann is her chief foreign policy advisor which means Bill Kristol. Another evangelical willing to go on a global crusade for Democracy. Very bad sign.

John| 1.14.10 @ 3:15PM

I believe there's a declaration in the Alaskan constitution that the land is owned by the people of Alaska. So I think she was simply following their constitution.

Unsure about the foreign policy aspect.

John| 1.14.10 @ 3:19PM

Indeed, it's Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution.

She also defeated ExxonMobil when they were simply sitting on land and not doing anything. Palin ended their monopoly and brought in competition and oil exploration.

Liberal Reader| 1.14.10 @ 12:23PM

William R makes an interesting point: from a strict conservative point of view, Palin is not as pure as the driven snow. She's conservative, of course, but as governor she was not a hardline ideologue. (To me, this is a point in her favor.)

Alaska floats on a sea of corporate and federal dollars: it is the closest thing to a socialist peoples' republic in the union. OF this there is no question. When oil prices were high, Palin benefited from those dollars politically.

This is not necesarily an "attack" on Palin, but people who profess conservativism would do well to -- at long last -- vet their heroine.

I think Palin is a decent person as well. This for some reason is supposed to prevent me from pointing out that last year the Republican party offered her as a vice presidential candidate even though she clearly was intellectually unprepared for the position. She had spotty, thin understanding of recent American and world history; she had little understanding of how the government works; and, most importantly, she never -- and still hasn't -- proved to be a particularly voracious learner, eagerly attempting to prepare herself for public office.

The move to Fox News -- which suits her perfectly -- suggests to me that the Universe's eternal longing for balance and propriety is at work. Palin will make a fine "news analyst" on Fox News, which requires no more preparation than having an opinion on current events. Opinions she certainly has, and opinions she's certainly entitled to. Who can but wish her the best, and breath a sigh of relief that now the Republicans are going to have to do the hard work of finding qualified candidates with knowledge of the issues to run for office.

Pete2| 1.14.10 @ 12:52PM

Right, finding qualified candiates to office you say about the GOP... like the democrats having Obama, the MOST unqualified person to ever hold that office? Other than that, you did make some good statements.

Liberal Reader| 1.14.10 @ 2:15PM

I'm pretty sure after serving as a senator and teaching Constitutional Law at one of the best law schools in the country for 10 years Obama would be able to tell you in which branch of the government the Interior Department is housed and why N. Korea is divided from S. Korea.

There just is no comparison of Obama and Palin. If you want to try to make the case for it, good fortune to you. You have your work cut out for you.

SoCon| 1.14.10 @ 5:09PM

I agree that there's no comparison between Palin and Obama: She'd have to spend lifetimes pursuing graft and corruption to even approximate his record of political fraud.

Obama's Chicago style thug politics are on full display. C-Span, anyone?

pete2| 1.14.10 @ 8:23PM

BS, liberal reader. Obama may have "taught" something called constitutional law but he sure as hell didn't learn anything about it and his tenure as a senator was spent running for president or voting present.

Danny| 1.14.10 @ 8:45PM

Obama was a 'lecturer' nothing more.

Obama's been a backbencher who has voted present since day one.

Jeff Perren| 1.14.10 @ 5:26PM

"Republican party offered her as a vice presidential candidate even though she clearly was intellectually unprepared for the position. She had spotty, thin understanding of recent American and world history; she had little understanding of how the government works; and, most importantly, she never -- and still hasn't -- proved to be a particularly voracious learner, eagerly attempting to prepare herself for public office. "

Unlike, say, Joe Biden who is well known for his keen intellect, deep knowledge, and fine, discerning judgment. And he's had 30 years to season.

jrs| 1.14.10 @ 11:37PM

Sarah might be a nice person and all, but let's be honest, she's just not smart enough to be president. Does being a genius qualify one for president, certainly not (Obama almost certainly has a high degree of intelligence and most her can come up with plenty of reasons he's not qualified for the job). But there is a reasonable threshold in order to do the job (maybe top 95,98%, etc....) and unless she's fooling everyone, the girl just doesn't have it.

Danny| 1.15.10 @ 12:16AM

Obviously, a genius IQ is not necessary to be president--Obama got elected. Sadly for us, the boy just doesn't have it.

SoCon| 1.14.10 @ 12:34PM

Quin, it's cheap to use Sarah Palin. The only reason you write about her is to get increased traffic on your blog.

You're irrelevant; just like the three liberal clowns above (Toddard, Lib Screeder and William).

Yawn.

William R| 1.14.10 @ 12:38PM

SoCon sounds like the typical Palin hack. Don't agree with Sarah and you're a liberal.

SoCon| 1.14.10 @ 1:33PM

I'm a Palin hack because Quin uses her name to increase his blog traffic? Okay.

Your anti-Palin hysteria is amusing.

Sounds like you have a terminal case of Palin Derangement Syndrome, Willy.

Liberal Reader| 1.14.10 @ 2:03PM

SoCon --

Instead of speculating about Hillyer's private motives for writing about Palin, which you cannot know and about which you have no evidence, why don't you focus on the substance of what he says. It seems to me he makes an argument that you can -- if you're willing to do some work -- disagree with reasonably.

SoCon| 1.14.10 @ 2:09PM

The astroturf troll defends Hillyer! Strange bedfellows.

I don't see how my comment is any of your business, Lib Screeder. Don't you have enough trolling to do without sticking your nose in matters that aren't your concern?

You really do need to get a life; but I guess doing Axelrod's dirty work helps pay the bills, right?

Liberal Reader| 1.14.10 @ 2:13PM

Mr Hillyer doesn't need my defense any more than you do, and I'm sure he won't be calling on my help any time soon. I was simply criticizing your lame method of argumentation.

Speculating on people's motives is weak. Instead, argue about what they actually say and do. It's called reasoned discourse. It's what grown ups do when they talk politics.

SoCon| 1.14.10 @ 2:26PM

Who died and made you debate team captain?

What's really lame is a grown man being paid by political hack David Axelrod to troll political opponents' websites offering advice on the dos and don'ts of proper debating techniques.

Why should I let a liar set the premise of what and what's not acceptable to say on AmSpec Blog?

Your stupidity is only exceeded by your arrogance.

Liberal Reader| 1.14.10 @ 4:10PM

It sounds like you take literally a common internet joke -- i.e. that people are "paid" by David Axelrod to post on threads.

I'm assuming you don't really believe that, because if you do, it means you're more of a credulous fool than I thought.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be debate team captain. I'm just pointing out ways you might be more interesting.

Making claims (like this most recent whopper) that by their nature cannot be proven does not represent interesting or substantive argumentation. I think what I'm saying here is merely true and not all that earth shattering.

SoCon| 1.14.10 @ 5:12PM

You're the joke, Lib Screeder--and you didn't deny my allegation.

alwaysfiredup| 1.14.10 @ 12:57PM

I have no problem with criticism of Palin. I have a problem with people who demean her supporters. I do not recall fans of any other candidate being put down like this.

Liberal Reader| 1.14.10 @ 2:21PM

always fired up --

You make a very important point about politics and political discourse in general, one that we ignore at our peril.

I don't think people on my side understood how demeaning and insulting the accusations that Bush had "lied" about the Iraq War were to his supporters. They didn't realize that the message it sent -- apart from its intentions -- was to Bush's supporters, and it said, "Next time the country's in danger, we're not going to listen to a word you say." This is an awful thing to hear, and I don't blame conservatives for being insulted.

Similarly, the inflammatory rhetoric on the right directed against Obama is heard by his supporters as attacks against them and their families. To be fair, Palin was particularly eager to engage in this kind of divisive rhetoric: her supporters were "real Americans," while supporters of Obama were Others, from Outside somewhere.

As you point out, there is a demeaning, condescending air about many criticisms of Palin's supporters -- mostly decent, middle class folks who just want a fair shake in the world. I always say to my liberal friends that liberalism is meaningless unless it can convince the Palin / Tea Party people. Looking out for them was always what liberalism -- going back to FDR -- was about.

SoCon| 1.14.10 @ 2:36PM

"Inflammatory rhetoric on the right!" Hahaha!!

Lib troll's leftist boilerplate nonsense rears its ugly head once again.

Pete2| 1.14.10 @ 12:57PM

I like Sarah Palin and I like what she has to say. I'm like many who support her. Just what is the problem with some of you so called "conservatives"? Don't you understand that many of us are just as fed up with the likes of you as we are of the leftists? Palin is not the greatest, no one can best Reagan, but she is a far lot better than the left and many of you damn "conservatives" who diss her even worse than the left does.

astorian| 1.14.10 @ 1:12PM

Sarah Palin HAS been treated unfairly by the Left in general and the media in particular. That makes it very tempting for conservatives to circle the wagons and defend her.

The problem is, when she screws up, her FRIENDS should be the first to tell her so! She was genuinely, embarrassingly awful in her interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric. Anyone who tells Palin, "You did great, they just edited things to make you look bad" is doing her a serious disservice.

The people who LIKE her should be in her face, screaming, "This is the BIG time, and you have to do a LOT better than this!"

Liberal Reader| 1.14.10 @ 2:07PM

astorian --

The notion that Palin "has been treated unfairly by the Left...and the media" is one of the most unexamined assumptions current in our political discourse.

Perhaps there were isolated instances in which people made unfair remarks -- I'm thinking of Lettermen's crass jokes -- but I don't see how that adds up to what you claim.

The fact is most Palin supporters seem to see no DIFFERENCE between -- say -- David Brooks's harsh criticisms of Palin and Lettermen's tasteless humor, or between SNL skits and the Katie Couric interview.

Frankly, if her supporters are not capable of drawing these distinctions, they're just not offering an informed or thoughtful opinion in the first place.

I guess I'd be more persuaded of your point if you defined your terms and gave examples of what you meant.

Liberal Reader| 1.14.10 @ 2:10PM

More importantly, Palin supporters don't seem to understand that Palin was running for HIGH OFFICE, not mayor of Wasilla.

This woman wanted control of the nuclear bombs, and you're damn right we had the obligation to question and criticize her. And following our nation's most cherished traditions, we also had the right to make fun of her, satirize her, mock her, and generally verbally attack her. It's called DEMOCRACY. We love to pillory our politicians, just on general principles. Grow up and learn to live with it.

SoCon| 1.14.10 @ 2:14PM

Lib Screeder, thanks so much for your reasoned thought and measured statement on the Left's deranged hatred of Sarah Palin.

...Rolls eyes...

Moron.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.14.10 @ 1:26PM

Quin, I read Erick's article. Pretty nice.

I do have to quibble...just a little bit...with you using the term "handlers" regarding Sarah.

I hope she has a circle of bright "advisors", but somehow, I just don't think Sarah is going to be "handled".
I'm deadly serious here.

First of all, Scott would knock their block off....literally.

Second, the woman has expressed her stances very clearly on just about every issue under the sun, and has stood by them with remarkable cohesion...perhaps integration is even a better word.
You know, the last time I checked, the term "Integrity" stems from the concept of "integration".

Does "principled consistency" wander in there somewhere?

You know, Quin, I honestly believe one of the deepest fears among many Americans...almost totally inarticulated...is the distrust of the essential integrity of any politician...in the system.

Thoughts?

S.L. Toddard| 1.14.10 @ 2:26PM

"I hope she has a circle of bright "advisors", but somehow, I just don't think Sarah is going to be "handled".

So when Palin was parroting McCain's positions word for word she wasn't being "handled"? She is a sincere McAmnesty-style "conservative" in your opinion?

alwaysfiredup| 1.14.10 @ 2:51PM

Palin was being handled during the campaign. She is no longer being handled. There is a difference between running on someone else's team and just representing yourself.

Pete2| 1.14.10 @ 1:29PM

No one has to be in her face screaming. She doesn't need that. Constructive critisism is a friendly reminder, a suggestion for improving. Her friends do mention to her about ways she can improve. The "conservatives" who diss here just don't care for her and are worse than the left because they are supposed to be on her side. Considering that loser McCain and his non campaign against OBama ,you "conservatives" have nothing to say about Palin.

Smitty| 1.14.10 @ 1:42PM

There's nothing 'constructive' about the criticism from liberal haters pretending to be 'conservatives'.

COnservative Bob| 1.14.10 @ 2:11PM

It remains mystifying to me how the left goes wild at the mere sight of Palin’s name.
If anyone posts anything about her there is an immediate and generally virulent response of denigration from the left. I can not quite comprehend, how if to them she is such a dolt and buffoon, why they fear her so much.
The criticism that has come from the former insiders at Camp McCain seems to be the lingering jealousy of those who brought some one into the circle who shined brighter than their headline act. It is just the whining and bitching of camp followers and hangers on. Their ticket faded in the stretch and they will have no opportunity to rise with her if Palin should ultimately choose to run and be successful for some future office.
I am also not sure she needs all that much defending either, although many of the attacks she has endured have been scurrilous and frankly despicable. I have come to expect little more from the left. (See the recent verbal attack on the 85 year old former president in Houston the other day.) They seem only to be able to scream in their opponent’s face or disparage and dismiss. Palin has shown a remarkable resilience and strength in dealing with the attacks and defending herself.
To the author most of the criticism I have seen of Mrs. Palin from the GOP and “conservatives” is not the constructive kind but tends to fall more into the shrill jealous its not your turn to get all this support and attention kind; or the jealously protected turf of the inside the beltway elite type; or the you’re not from DC you must be a rube type.
Those are the attacks that bring the most vigorous defense because generally those attacks are directed at Mrs. Palin and her supporters; everyone in flyover country is a rube or ignorant hick. We are deemed too stupid to understand. Just shut up and pay for it and let the experts take care of things… sad news for that group but those happy times are coming to an end… fly over country is about to teach DC who is the tail and who is the dog.

SoCon| 1.14.10 @ 2:30PM

It's amusing to see liberals get their panties in a painful pinch when you mention Palin.

It will be fun to see their heads explode when she's elected POTUS.

Liberal Reader| 1.14.10 @ 5:18PM

SoCon --

It's telling that the BEST thing you can imagine happening is a candidate being elected who would make the opposing party's heads "explode." Clearly you're not capable of imagining a candidate who could persuasively make the case for your political philosophy. The reason? You don't HAVE a political philosophy. You are a jumbled, inchoate and fragmentary stream of resentful apothegms and cliches you hear on right wing radio.

SoCon| 1.14.10 @ 5:30PM

Poor literal Liberal Screeder; he has trouble with hyperbole.

First he disapproves of my argument style, now he dislikes my choice of words.

Perhaps he just doesn't understand the concept of hyperbole: Look it up, Screeder.

J. Kelley| 1.14.10 @ 2:37PM

COservative Bob is right on. The left is so torlent, unless one does not share their views. Then we are stupid and all the other bad names they come up with. The fact is Sarah Palin scares them big time. So they have to destroy her.

Red Phillips| 1.14.10 @ 2:46PM

Palin was interesting BEFORE she sold out to the McCain campaign. Her past support of Pat Buchanan, the nice things she said about Ron Paul, her willingness to address her state's Libertarian and Alaskan Independence Party, her husband's affiliation with the AIP, all gave authentic conservatives some hope that she might indeed be different. But she ran from all those past associations like a jackrabbit once the McCain campaign came a callin', and now she is indistinguishable on the issues from any other cookie cutter mainstream movement conservative. She is even being advised by an uber neocon.

It is sad that such promise has now come to this. There are so few potential authentic conservatives on the national scene.

(Anyone who calls me a liberal for criticizing Palin when I am criticizing her for moving to the center will reveal themselves as mindless bots.)

Janice| 1.14.10 @ 2:58PM

Thanks for the warning at the end, Red; but anyone who is so totally in the tank for Ron Paul as you has no legitimacy criticizing Palin.

You're a one trick pony who bores.

Red Phillips| 1.14.10 @ 3:30PM

"but anyone who is so totally in the tank for Ron Paul as you"

In my post I mentioned Buchanan, the LP, the AIP, and Palin's husband along with Paul. I enthusiastically supported Ron Paul, but I am not "in the tank" whatever that means. Paul is a paleolibertarian. I am a paleoconservative. I agree with him on most every issue, but we get there from different first principle starting points.

Janice| 1.14.10 @ 5:23PM

Your disingenuousness is mind boggling, Red: You know you're a Paulbot. It doesn't surprise me a bit that you'd attack Palin--you think she's a neo-con.

Admit it.

Red Phillips| 1.14.10 @ 6:17PM

I think Palin had good instincts, but was not philosophically grounded. So she was easily swayed when she was thrust on the national stage. The way she ran from her past association with Buchanan was shameful and disloyal. As if association with Buchanan is some sort of black mark anyway. Personally, I doubt the conservative bona fides of anyone who DIDN’T support Buchanan in '96.

So if I'm being disingenuous, am I just making up the paleolib vs. paleocon distinction? Do you even know what both those things mean?

I really wanted to like Palin. I was aware of her from an Alaska friend well before she came on the national spotlight. But now she just parrots vapid FOX News right propaganda.

Janice| 1.14.10 @ 6:39PM

All I know is that you DETEST neo-cons and you consider Palin a Neo-con.

Why don't you run, Red--maybe then your candidate of choice would measure up to your idea of perfection.

William R| 1.14.10 @ 7:46PM

Well she gives every indication that she has moved into the NeoCon orbit.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/....._talk.html

Janice| 1.14.10 @ 7:57PM

That's irrelevant, Bozo. My point to Red is that he's disingenuous pretending Palin was ever a serious consideration for him.

Obviously, it was over your head.

William R| 1.14.10 @ 8:07PM

Well Bimbo, when she first appeared on the scene she did seem to be a Buchanan, Ron Paul Republican so I can see how Red would like her. But since becoming famous it is clear she has become a NeoCon. Fox news wouldn't have given her a GIG if she had been calling for the removal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Janice| 1.14.10 @ 8:12PM

Another comment replete with stupidy!

Sarah was always pro-military; anyone who didn't see that from the get-go is a moron. Moron.

Janice| 1.14.10 @ 8:13PM

---stupidity---

William R| 1.14.10 @ 8:18PM

You're a clueless child. Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are pro military, but they don't believe in a militaristic foreign policy like Sarah and her fellow Neocons.

Janice| 1.14.10 @ 8:32PM

My point is that Sarah showed herself to be such from the beginning.

I feel like I'm swimming through quicksand here.

alwaysfiredup| 1.14.10 @ 4:12PM

Liberal!!!!!

(Come on, you set yourself up for it.)

Siegfried X| 1.14.10 @ 3:08PM

Where is the criticism of McCain? Where was the criticism when he was running for the nomination? There was none. In fact the Republican media helped steal the nomination for McCain by running nothing but POW stories, nothing about his liberal record, for years before the election.

Then McCain, after running an awful campaign, lost big time to the Democrats and took a lot of the party with him. Yet there was almost no criticism of him after the election and there still isn't. Cover up.

Sheila| 1.14.10 @ 3:20PM

I'm with you, Red. I'm not a Paul supporter, but Palin not only refuses to criticize anything about McCain, she also falsely inflates his accomplishments (with Glen Beck she claimed McCain was "leading' Obama foes in the senate). Her interview with Beck was perhaps 85% Beck (whom I like) and 15% Sarah - and while she came off as warm and genuine and Christian, she still stuck to her soundbite and boilerplate speaking style - almost nothing of substance. I wildly supported her in the beginning, and I still like her, but I don't idolize anyone. At the end, when both she and Glen rose to sanctimonious heights of emotional vapidity regarding immigration, I turned off the show in disgust. Anyone who uses the "we are a nation of immigrants" credo is going to push for some type of amnesty. Sarah may consider this her Christian duty; I then consider it my patriotic duty to oppose her. Neither the trolls nor the bedazzled intimidate me - go on and fling your best barbs - frankly, I don't give a damn and will not respond.

Danny| 1.14.10 @ 7:59PM

Sheila, I guess you're not the only one who didn't care. lol

M.E.H.| 1.14.10 @ 3:21PM

If we view presidents, vice-presidents, senators and congresspeople as public employees and the voters as their employers then there is an analogy between hiring an employee and voting for a candidate. In hiring someone you would look to whether they had done the job before. None of the principals had. You would then look to who had come closest. Here Palin had the advantage over all of the candidates. The position is an executive position not a legislative one. More important while all fifty of the states (nb to L.R. not 57) have a constitution not all constitutions divide power in the same way. Some like Calif fragment executive power between eight separately elected individuals each with her own constituency, Alaska models its governor on the President and concentrates all executive power in a single individual who appoints her cabinet subject to legislative confirmation. Thus it would appear that SP had much more transferable experience than BO. Unless you commit the pundit fallacy and assume that speaking well and writing well assure governing well.
Megan

Paul Zummo| 1.14.10 @ 3:49PM

Both SoCon on one hand, and Toddard, William R, et all on the other, demonstrate the unhinged nature of both Palin supporters and detractors. SoCon cannot abide anyone offering the slightest bit of criticism, while Toddard gets the ball rolling on the brainless jibes. It truly is fascinating that few people can just take a breath and view the woman dispassionately.

SoCon| 1.14.10 @ 5:16PM

You're wrong, Zummo; I don't object to honest criticism of Sarah Palin, I object to those who hate Sarah Palin pretending to be objective about her.

It's your problem if you couldn't discern that.

Red Phillips| 1.14.10 @ 6:21PM

Paul note that Toddard's and I think William R's criticisms are from the right. Liberal Reader's are from the left. This is an important distinction to make.

Smitty| 1.14.10 @ 6:44PM

So, Toddard and you are just two 'rightist' (as opposed to 'leftist') turds in the republican punch bowl?

Red Phillips| 1.14.10 @ 9:58PM

"So, Toddard and you are just two 'rightist'"

Yes, also known as real or authentic conservatives.

Smitty| 1.15.10 @ 12:19AM

Yeah, you say so. Have fun being alone, crank.

Red Phillips| 1.15.10 @ 9:04AM

I'm not alone, and you know it. Non-intervetionism is on the rise on the right, and you just can't stand it. That is why interventionists react so hysterically to it. They know it is winning converts and their globalist interventionist house of cards is coming down. If I was just a lone crank you would ignore me.

Wilma| 1.15.10 @ 6:00PM

No, you are not a lone crank. There's Toddard and there's....?

Paul Zummo| 1.14.10 @ 7:00PM

Actually, it's quite irrelevant, as both her right and left critics are prone to foaming at the mouth.

Smitty| 1.14.10 @ 7:14PM

Self-righteous much? Middle of the roaders usually end up as roadkill.

Paul Zummo| 1.14.10 @ 9:57PM

Illiterate much? I'm not a middle of the roader. I'm a conservative Palin supporter who doesn't a) think she's the dumbest human being on Earth, nor b) immaculate. I guess that makes me a "middle-of-the-roader" in some bizarro world.

Paul Zummo| 1.14.10 @ 10:12PM

What I also find utterly unbelievable is that you don't seem to comprehend that I'm attacking her critics.

SoCon| 1.15.10 @ 12:23AM

You also seem to attack Palin's supporters. Makes you sound utterly unhinged, doesn't it?

astorian| 1.14.10 @ 4:25PM

This all bears out something I observed long ago: when people like or dislike a politician, they usually have excellent reasons. When they love or hate a politician, their reasons are usually irrational.

People tend to love or hate Sarah Palin less for anything she's actually said or done than for what they THINK she represents.

Holmby| 1.14.10 @ 5:20PM

Liberals are really attacking Conservatives--they're just using Palin to do it.

spwbt| 1.14.10 @ 5:05PM

so now I am a lunatic because I support Sarah Palin.
Wow I expected this from the left and the media

alwaysfiredup| 1.14.10 @ 5:14PM

Not a lunatic, just ignorant. Get with the program!

Paul Zummo| 1.14.10 @ 7:01PM

Wow, that's even remotely close to what Hilyer said, though your response is ample demonstration of his point.

Smitty| 1.14.10 @ 7:16PM

Congratulations, moron; you have added absolutely NOTHING to this thread. Must be a way of life for you.

Paul Zummo| 1.14.10 @ 9:59PM

Gee darn, I'm being attacked by an anonymous sycophant. Whatever will I do?

Smitty| 1.15.10 @ 12:25AM

Do you even know what a sycophant is? Look it up.