The American Spectator

ECM| 2.13.10 @ 9:52PM

Hooo boy, now AmSpec is quoting hardcore Libertarians as authorities on qualifications for being elected prez...I think I need a break from this place.

Mark Jessup| 2.14.10 @ 2:54PM

Well ECM, don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya. Nobody's gonna miss ya! Adios!

Jeff Meads| 2.14.10 @ 4:51PM

From Wikipedia: Bandow resigned from Cato on December 15, 2005, after admitting he accepted payments from Abramoff — in return for publishing articles favorable to Abramoff’s clients over a period of approximately ten years. He has referred to these activities as “a lapse of judgment,” saying that he accepted payments for “between 12 and 24 articles” over a period of years. He stepped down after BusinessWeek Online contacted the Cato Institute to probe news of possible payments. He typically received on the order of $2,000 per article.
---------------------------------
Cato??? So Bandow is another globalist commie RINO POS. That explains his point of view.

Billy Dossett| 2.13.10 @ 10:00PM

Also, unlike Reagan, Palin talks about being a small government anti-establishment conservative, but she supports folks like John McCain and Rick Perry, two people who are just the opposite. Either she's being disingenuous, or she just doesn't get it.

John| 2.14.10 @ 7:32AM

Perry and Palin have been friends for years. Friends tend to support friends, Billy. And, if she wanted to adandon her friend, the choice would be between Hutchison or a 9/11 truther...

As for McCain, she owes him.

I'm glad she supports Rand Paul. Very good decision.

Mike Rogers| 2.14.10 @ 8:01AM

I think one of Sarah Palin's notable characteristics is loyalty, and McCain has earned that. There is no doubt that McCain is a big government Republican, and that doesn't exactly fit with Sarah's philosophy, nor that of most readers here, but regardless of the mishandling and snide comments by some of McCain's staffers, he has personally and publicly remained highly supportive of her - now she's paying him back.
Also, while the country was rightfully lukewarm to a McCain presidency, he's an effective senator, especially in resisting the Obama vision of government.
Watch who else she supports - mostly the small government, libertarian-leaning conservatives - to see whether she gets it.
Also, don't be disappointed with Scott Brown if he supports McCain - McCain earned that, too, by supporting Brown before the party apparatus woke up.

John Schuh| 2.14.10 @ 3:55PM

I agree. She and Perry pretty much share the same governing philosophy. She respects John McCain. I don't especially like either of these men. I saw Rand Paul debate yesterday. He is closer in outlook, it seems, to Palin than to his Dad. Can see why she endorsed him. Furthermore, don't let the drop dead looks mislead you. She is 46 years old and moving up the learning curve. You can bet she is eyeing the competition and has probably concluded that she can cut them down to size. She and we will know better a year from now.

hinckleybuzzard| 2.14.10 @ 3:09PM

"she supports folks like John McCain and Rick Perry,"

Unlike Ronald Reagan who picked liberal lapdog GHW Bush as his VP. . .

Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 2.15.10 @ 8:36PM

John has a point, Bill.

The New York Sun sees Palin in a more positive light: "For all the eagerness of her critics to set her down as a lightweight, the early signs were of a view that is plenty sophisticated and full of savvy."

Poor Bob, below... almost feel sorry for him.

John Prather| 2.13.10 @ 11:02PM

Ronald Reagan was unique and a once in a generation kind of statesmen. It is true that Sarah Palin is no Reagan but she shares that distinction with every other politician alive today. That she can not compare with Reagan says nothing about her qualifications vis a vi her competition.

James| 2.14.10 @ 4:37AM

Exactly.

Margie| 2.14.10 @ 9:20AM

Right on!

Sarah Mulqueen| 2.14.10 @ 2:16PM

I'm with you, John. Must we wait for a statesman(woman) who likens the Gipper, to endorce? We don't need his ghost, but someone who comes the closest to sharing his ideals and integrity. Reagan was no Lincoln. He had what we needed then. As it stands now, and I am surely not alone, Sarah is just different enough, plucky enough, and as juxtaposed to the powers that be (or wanna be) to be a light at the end of the tunnel. I LOVE it when certain people "waste their valuable time" worrying about President Sarah Palen.

Sarah Mulqueen| 2.14.10 @ 2:19PM

Oops. Bad spelling.
My apologies to Sarah Palin.

Olliander| 2.13.10 @ 11:10PM

Palin is far from the next Ronald Reagan.

The biggest thing for me was that I felt Palin could improve her image, her grasp of domestic/foreign policies and her electability, if she would at least have one term as governor under her belt---ideally I wanted to see two.

One of the biggest problems I have with Obama is that the man is just not ready for the job (which is bearing itself out) having served less than one full Senate term, and most of that time was spent campaigning for POTUS.

If Palin had stayed in the office instead of becoming a darling of the talk-show and tabloid media, I'm sure I would have more optimism. Instead she's just as inexperienced as Obama.

The Republican party has a real problem in 2012 that nobody seems to want to address. While 2010 looks great, the day after that election they have to start thinking about who's challenging Obama. Nobody seems up to the challenge. Palin's numbers are horrible--she is unelectable at this point. And her runninf for the White House would mean an almost certain Obama victory.

I hope I'm very wrong.

Spicy Joker| 2.14.10 @ 1:14AM

Palin is painfully inarticulate and dimwitted. As a newly minted Fox News pundit, she has the insights of a 10-year-old. In fact, she's not even knowledgable enough to be categorized as a "fringe" candidate. Rather, she can be better categorized as a celebrity. Conservatives who support her are either too embarassed to admit that Palin is a nimrod, or they aren't real conservatives and don't have a clue about what conservatism is. It's time for conservatives to get off the Palin bandwagon and support a candidate who can articulate conservative principles.

wwwexler| 2.14.10 @ 3:18AM

Since you're so friggin' smart, Spicy--care to offer us a few genuine Conservative candidates you have in mind? There must be dozens of names right on the tip of your tongue, Mr. Smarty Pants.

Surely, you have all the answers, right? At least you act like you do.

Spicy Joker| 2.14.10 @ 1:20PM

There are none. Here's a review of the 2008 GOP candidates:

Twit Romney is a two-face.

Mike Huckster is soft on crime, preachy, and gaining all his weight back.

Dummy Thompson is a fat pig and boring as all hell.

Duncan Hunter could be a good candidate but doesn't have a big enough base.

John McPain is too old.

Here's a review of the potential 2012 candidates:

Trick Perry is a big spender and a ding-a-ling who babbles about secession.

Jim DeMint is a real conservative but has little appeal outside of conservative circles.

Jeb Bush supports amnesty.

Sarah Mulqueen| 2.14.10 @ 2:53PM

This is just the kind of rhetoric that makes me hurl. If I took you seriously I'd be running for the prozac. How about a good positive idea, suggestion, or is negative your gig?

Mark Jessup| 2.14.10 @ 2:59PM

Your observations are iron clad. I would add that John McInsane has no business even being IN the Republican Party after sputtering that nonsense about how America "has no reason to fear an Obama Administration", the senile goat from Arizona has never missed an opportunity to stab conservatives in the back while giving a reach-around to his "dear friends" across the aisle. Now as for Duncan Hunter, it was Hunter who coined the phrase 'the Kennedy wing of the Republican Party' and he was right about that. Duncan Hunter came to Washington in 1980 WITH Reagan, and is highly qualified to serve as POTUS, unfortunately the GOP-PTB plus the lamestream media saw to it that his campaign withered on the vine. Duncan Hunter is the best President America never had.

SoCon| 2.14.10 @ 10:47PM

Spot on about Duncan Hunter--he would have made a great POTUS.

Margie| 2.15.10 @ 11:54AM

Name me one Democrat that is better. The men you mention are at least men. I don't call Socialists, Marxist. Maoists and Communists Men.

Debbie| 2.14.10 @ 8:24AM

Yes, Spicey- she is a celebrity, thanks in no small part to you liberals and your All Star Wrestling slurs and lies. It's going to be fun watching you marxists when she runs for office. Sarah thanks you for the free adverstising.

John Schuh| 2.14.10 @ 4:03PM

Nimrod was a mighty hunter, so she is that. ;)"Inarticulate and dim-witted?" Sorry, bud. I have met, seen and listened to a lot of pols, she is anything but that.

Tracy| 5.26.10 @ 12:13PM

I could not agree more!

ggoblue| 2.14.10 @ 1:56AM

she supported john mccain???? when she had the chance to vote for barak???? dumbich.

she has what the rest of the republicans lack, a set of balls. let me know when anyone else grows a pair.

wwwexler| 2.14.10 @ 3:11AM

I agree, ggoblue--all I ever see is a bunch of snarky, "intellectually superior" blowhards bleating and braying about the many faults of Sarah Palin.

Not once have they ever offered a decent alternative.

Please! I wish they'd just STFU until they can.

Taylee10| 2.14.10 @ 3:53PM

And you're going to see a lot more snarky, "intellectually superior" blowhards bleating and braying about the many faults of Sarah Palin before it's over (ie before Sarah becomes President). These people are anything BUT conservatives. They are, in fact, the enemy..... leftist liberals pretending to be Republicans or conservatives. Propagandizing and trying, as usual, to put negative spins on any viable candidate the conservatives have. Ignore the idiots.

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 5:38PM

With all due respect, it's really not about a sense of intellectual superiority. I mean, a VP candidate needing to crash learn basic US/world history with flash cards while running on the ticket? If you think that's not true, then do you believe that there is a wild conspiracy among all those who have told similar stories? It's just that many have very good reason to believe she is a fraud. As of yet, she has not proven otherwise. If she does, great! But definitely she has a long way to go to say the least. I mean, come on, this is not spin, but her own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rXmuhWrlj4

And that is a softball by any standard measure.

Smitty| 2.16.10 @ 9:34PM

Screw you, troll. Your ridiculous rants just make us like Sarah more.

Keep it up--you'll get Sarah to the White House for sure!

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 10:37PM

Sure, I'll let Sarah do the talking now. Your favorite! :)

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." -- Palin on why she's qualified in the area of foreign policy.

"Well, let's see. There's ― of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but..." -- Palin when asked to name any other Supreme Court case apart from RvW that she might disagree with.

"They're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." -- Palin wrong when describing the formal duties of the role she's campaigning for.

"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?" -- Palin when asked if she think she might be contacted by McCain for the VP slot.

Who calls a shot like that? Who makes a decision like that? It's a disturbing trend." -- Palin's theory that "In God We Trust" had been moved to the edge of coins by the Obama administration (the change was made by the Bush administration in 2007 and was later reversed by Congress, before Obama took office)

"I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out." -- Palin referring to a department that doesn't even exist.

"That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it’s got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade — we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation." -- Palin saying something about the bailout being all about health care, or something.

"Nucular" -- Sarah trying to say nuclear.

"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." -- Palin in 2007 when asked about her views on the Iraq war.

wwwexler| 2.17.10 @ 8:24PM

Blah, blah, blah--talk to the hand cause I don't give a damn, troll.

Tracy| 5.26.10 @ 12:16PM

Its posts like these that show you for your ridiculousness...voting for an idiot for spite is just plain stupid!

Mozllia| 2.14.10 @ 4:28PM

Sarah Palin supports John Mccain when she has a chance to support J.D. Hayworth. She doesn't owe him anything. I'll still support Palin, but I am more and more liking Michele Bachmann. Bachmann wouldn't do this. Bachmann was equally skeptical of the Tea Party convention and refused to speak. She has a right to do that. Bachmann has the experience being in Congress. Rather have Bachmann than Palin.

SoCon| 2.14.10 @ 10:44PM

Sarah must have felt she owed McCain her loyalty, and I can understand that. Sarah Palin has integrity, and I like and respect her for it.

Tracy| 5.26.10 @ 12:17PM

Are you insane? Sarah has zero integrity...zip, nada!

jcparker| 2.14.10 @ 3:25AM

clearly, with her easy going self confidence Mrs. Palin rattles her many critics in a way very like Mr. Reagan. Time will tell with regard to her leadership skills. She surely risks overexposure these days.

Inge| 2.14.10 @ 5:32AM

to those critics here, who are you to critise Palin? She is at least honest, she has integrity, and yes she may not speack in a silver tongue guided by a telepromptor. I rather have someone I can trust, has principles, and not only talk to talk, but also walk the walk.

LiveFreeOrDie| 2.14.10 @ 6:42PM

EXACTLY !!!

I've had ENOUGH of the intellectual elites. Intellectual in Washington for the last 30 years translates into being better at screwing the country and getting re-elected. I'll trade any crooked scumbag intellectual in Washington for an honest moron with good intentions. If ever again there is an abundance of honor among our elected officials then I'll start worrying about how intelligent they are.

Grzmlyk| 2.15.10 @ 8:39AM

I could not agree more. Virtually all of the problems of the 20th century and beyond can be laid at the feet of intellectuals "solving" problems (i.e., forcing other people to live the way THEY think they should live).

That said, it is inevitable that any serious GOP contender will be compared to Reagan. I don't think Doug Bandow, or any pundit, should be pilloried for doing so.

And Reagan is hard to equal - his mind was pretty much the exact opposite of how he was characterized. He was a genuine thinker, albeit NOT an intellectual. He didn't wear his intellect on his sleeve, which of course would take the starch out of Joe Klein's and David Brooks's respective collars (their point of view is, why be smart if you can't taunt people with it?).

I want a GOP nominee who can best advance conservative values and REVERSE the century-long tide of government growth by refocusing this country's values on individual liberty and constitutional governance - while keeping us safe by defending our interests and walking tall abroad. A commander in chief who won't substitute a high-schooler's world view for tough foreign policy stances (i.e., if everybody LIKES us, we will have succeeded!).

If Sarah can do all that, I will support her enthusiastically. If she can't, I sincerely hope we come up with someone who will.

Margie| 2.15.10 @ 12:43PM

Well Grz,
I did say Mr. Bandow had ants in his pants. Is that excoriating him? It was my first reaction. Here's my second, in case you might be interested.. I thought~ of course she isn't Ronald Reagan. But she is LIKE him. She's a true conservative thinker! She knows what is right, and is willing to do it, no matter what the Left thinks. In fact I thought (seeing as how Mr. Bandow said it himself that it took RR years to become what he was), that Sarah already IS, now. Being a conservative doesn't have to do with how many books you've read about other conservatives. It's already having the right instincts about what makes this country great, and doing what it takes, bravely, to try and keep it that way. Sarah has that already. RR eventually had it and he was the greatest President in our lifetime. Being conservative means you understand that government should be limited, that the people are its leader, and not the other way around. Sarah knows and understands this. Not saying that's what she's going to do, but she could be a great President. What I have seen is that the Left, including so-called Libertarians, DESPISE her.

tracy| 5.26.10 @ 12:18PM

*Rolls eyes* you call that honest? Man, you scare me...

Menelaos| 2.14.10 @ 6:30AM

Doug Bandow aint William F. Buckley

this is really had hitting political analysis

martin j smith| 2.14.10 @ 7:40AM

Lets start with this: If BHO is qualified to be president, so is SP. Period.
Now then, lets look at a few questions:: Why in heckfire dinosaur land does anyone have to be " Ronald Reagan ?" Who sets the bar on this ? Did Obama have to be Harry truman or FDR ? If he did, he failed miserably. We need leaders who are in tocuh withe voter in these times.

Next, why if SP is so unqualifed does the Left on Left and Right ( I am talking about RINOS ) seem to be a kinipshin fit about her all the time ? Day in day out ? What is the obsession. I am no fly on the wall but here is my two cents on this issue: First, She like Dick Cheney get these people really riled up because they have enough following so that when they attack, it is heard. As for Palin, I do not know if she will run for president or not but she can run for a big pain the Left rear end. But here again if she is so unqualified why the big bru ha ha ? My answer to my on question is this: she is a threat to the LEFT right and left so I simply keep on going.

Mike| 2.14.10 @ 8:06AM

Did Palin announce she is running for president?

nona| 2.14.10 @ 8:08AM

They are so jealous of Sarah!!! They can't stand it. She'll wipe the floor with the rino's and the socialists. They know it too. Why do you think Dougy boy and his ilk are so worried????

Tracy| 5.26.10 @ 12:20PM

Jealous of what? her stupidity?

martin j smith| 2.14.10 @ 8:25AM

Mike the point is not Palin running or saying so, its opinions on SP say as a hypothetical candidate. As I said, given what we see of BHO, SP is qualified--run or not run.

Big D| 2.14.10 @ 8:38AM

Its embarassing who the Republicans put up for each presidential campaign - Dole, W, McCain - I was baffled at how McCain went from near-broke 4th place to win the nomination. We need new blood, and people that have more depth and executive/business saavy than Palin. I like Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachman, and a few others. A third party (Tea Party on the right) will just split and marginalize conservatives - we need to replace the rotten apples in the Republican barrel with real Americans with solid track records in business, not career politicians taking the next step on the ladder of their ambition.

Scott | 2.14.10 @ 9:17AM

In a way, I think Palin has the same sort of problem George W. Bush had: they know what they believe, but I'm not sure they know why they believe it. In other words, they're gut instinct politicians. That's not necessarily a bad thing; I've not seen any studies comparing different approaches to decision making, but I can think of a lot of "intellectual" politicians who have managed to screw things up but good (though in a lot of cases they're not really thinking issues through, but rather just rationalizing their own gut instincts). However, there are two problems with this sort of visceral approach when it comes to actual governing:

One, if you don't know why you believe something, it's kind of hard to convince others to go along. Basically, you have to get them to trust that you know what you're doing, and if you lose that trust, you're sunk (that's what happened to Bush). If you've constructed an argument in your own mind, you can then communicate that with others.

Two, turning gut instinct into a practical, successful policy is more difficult. Part of it is the communications problem, but part of it is because if you haven't thought through the "why" aspects, you're less likely to get at the roots of the issue, so any treatment of an issue is most likely going to only address the surface phenomena.

We cannot forget that Reagan had the advantage of being a convert; having gone through this conversion gave him a narrative he could then communicate to others. Palin's conservatism is partly the result of habit, and it's a lot harder to convince people who don't have those habits to go along with you.

Richard Baker| 2.14.10 @ 9:33AM

Palin hasn't chosen any particular path for the future, now has she? I remember what a Platoon Sergeant told me in the Army about Assuming. EVERYONE assumes that she wants to be President but what evidence is there for this assumption? She is politically active and is making speeches but having read and listened to her, I get the impression that, for now, she wants to be an influence in a conservative manner. Are Bandow and all the other pundits, whether left and right, clairvoyant? The only people who probably truly know her mind on this subject are herself and the First Dude and they ain't talking.

Coordinator| 2.14.10 @ 9:43AM

Another hit job on a decent woman who isn't even running for anything. That's like insisting I'd make a terrible artist before I even pick up a brush. I can go to DK to see this crap. Palin bashing is one of the most 'in' things to do. Where I work they laugh at this woman all day. American Spectator too? Don't need ya.. you betcha.

Mike| 2.14.10 @ 10:01AM

I am following the conversation in the media about Sarah Palin with great interest.

Whatever skills Ms. Palin possesses or not, one must acknowledge that she is the beneficiary of John McCain who plucked her from obscurity and put her on the national stage, of Roger Ailes who has given her a 24/7 stage complete with supporting cast and of the inchoate, angry mass known as the Tea Party that is desperately looking for an alternative to politics as usual. Ms. Palin is clearly adept at exploiting these advantages to her personal benefit.

hinckleybuzzard| 2.14.10 @ 3:14PM

"the inchoate, angry mass known as the Tea Party that is desperately looking for an alternative to politics as usual"

If you are NOT looking for "an alternative to politics as usual," then what the hell ARE you doing? That inchoate angry mass is sometimes known as The American People.

Richard Baker| 2.14.10 @ 10:16AM

Mike:
So if someone disagrees with the prevailing view then they are an "inchoate, angry mass?" I thought that Hillary said that "dissent is the highest form of Patriotism." Which is it Mikey old boy?

Mike| 2.14.10 @ 2:16PM

So other than what the GOP professes to believe, but clearly doesn't (small government vs. Department of Homeland Security; low taxes vs porkmeister Shelby; individual responsibility vs. drug prescription program) what does the Tea Bag Party stand for and for whom will they vote. We have Tax and Spend Democrats and No Tax and Spend Republicans and the Tea Party clearly favors the later. Where is the alternative? The Tea Party isn't presenting one.

Folks complain about how many Americans don't pay taxes. But, tell me, which party has always railed against taxes? Isn't the fact that so many Americans don't pay taxes a sign the the conservatives and the GOP are winning?

Taylee10| 2.14.10 @ 4:15PM

"Isn't the fact that so many Americans don't pay taxes a sign the the conservatives and the GOP are winning? "

What a load of leftist BS. Fact is....the reason about a third pays no taxes is....the socialist (communist) dream of redistribution of wealth has been going on for decades in the USA. Add to that the leftist elitists (DemocRats) that advocate for higher taxes for everyone else, even while they cheat and don't pay their own fair share.

Tea party patriots just want this corruption and legalized theft of the government to stop. We're sick and tired and fed up with the fruits of our labors being stolen from us by the federal government, and given to the lazy, indolent and "entitlement-minded" nitwits on the left.

Mike| 2.15.10 @ 8:28AM

You are obviously referring to Reagan's "welfare queen who drives around in a Cadillac."

Are you as angry about farm subsidies? Pentagon waste? The myriad forms of corporate welfare?

Grzmlyk| 2.15.10 @ 10:16AM

Yes, yes and yes.

Grzmlyk| 2.15.10 @ 10:15AM

Incorrect.

No conservative believes there should be no taxes. Of course we must provide for the common defense and various other things. The question is how many other things should we pay for? Millions of dollars in pensions for mid-level, fat-cat retired paper pushers who spent 20 years buried in the bloated bowels of some faceless bureaucracy getting her jollies by making some poor schmuck small businessman jump through ever more byzantine fiscal hoops?

It was a mistake for Bush to take more Americans off the tax roles. EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN must have skin in the game. And it should be a flat tax. So if you make a humble $12,000 a year, you pay your $120. And if you make $12,000,000,000, you pay your $1.2 millon.

IMHO, if you don't pay taxes, you don't get to vote.

Grzmlyk| 2.15.10 @ 10:18AM

Of course that first tax figure should be $1,200. Oops. I learned my tax math from Tim Geithner.

SoCon| 2.15.10 @ 4:43PM

That's okay, Grz, just so you haven't learned your morals from Geithner, too. :)

martin j smith| 2.14.10 @ 10:25AM

Think of SP as a motivating object of hate for the Left. For the Left as in the case of GWB, they needed an object of hate to motivate the base and to influence voters to vote--Against--the incumbent. In the case of GWB, sadly he was too cooperative for my taste. But for SP, she not so cooperative and she actually not such a central governing figure that the Left has the same leverage of influence. If anything I think it boomerangs. What is sad is that the Rino types are so in need of MSM approval ( David Brooks is an excellent example ) that they sucker up to MSM and Left views on many issues and SP is no exception. So be leary of RINO oppinions, try to step back and see the forrest from the trees. SP may or may not be a serious contender, but if you look at MacC ( who I believe blew the election ) one has to shake ones head. Some who can stand up to the MSM is one among many characteristics that I believe is required to be president--at that also goes for standing up to Democrat Left behaviors. Do not be a GWB. !!!!

Mike | 2.14.10 @ 2:36PM

So Sarah Palin is to the Left what President Obama is to the Right.

The Left gets this painfully obvious observation. Do you, Martin?

Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 2.14.10 @ 10:33AM

"Reagan served eight years as governor of a very large state; he didn't quit after half a term." Let's play 'blame the victim', shall we?

Reagan also wasn't being [cough] PERSONALLY BANKRUPTED BY CONTINUOUS FALSE CORRUPTION CHARGES. Palin's forced departure marks one of the lowest points in the left's application of Alinsky tactics. That Boaz should ennoble the left's actions by placing the blame on the victim rather says more of Boaz, yes?

I agree that she isn't ready, but I disagree in the sense that there isn't anyone ready. What's coming down the pike would challenge Solomon.

John| 2.14.10 @ 10:44AM

One thing people forget is that Ronald Reagan had 35 years to become Ronald Reagan before he was elected president, dating back to his first major involvment in politics via the Screen Actors Guild after the communist-infiltrated unions attempted to co-opt the SAG at the time of the riot at Reagan's studio (Warner Bros.) in 1945. The rough equivalent for Palin's political history going back to Wasila would have been if Reagan had been elected California governor in 1946, was the VP nominee on Dewey's ticket in '48 and then was considered the leading candidate for president as a Republican in '52 (never mind that he was still a Democrat at this time).

Obama's certainly lowered the bar just about to the basement when it comes to a lack of experience being a disqualifying factor to be president, but to win over the moderate swing voters -- who tend to believe what the big media tells them, unless they're angry and can personally see that the media's lying to them -- Palin's going to have to get a little more 'wonkish' at least in terms of specific political ideas in the next 12-18 months.

Reagan had to do the same thing once he entered the political arena, but had 14 years to get his speech down to the right mix of substance and key word talking points to excite his followers. Sarah's speeches right now tend to be not enough of the former and too much of the latter, which is why her speeches sound like something Sean Hannity could riff off in a top-of-the-hour opening monologue. Works with the people already in Palin's camp but doesn't win over the moderates, which is the threshhold Reagan had to break in the final 10 days of the 1980 campaign to overcome the 'dumb/evil' media portrayal and beat Carter.

deo| 2.14.10 @ 11:08AM

Ron Reagan Jr. said that his father would not EVEN LIKE Palin. When asked why, he snapped "Because she doesn't have a thought in her head!".

Dean from Ohio| 2.14.10 @ 10:34PM

Michael Reagan, who is Ronald Reagan Jr's older half brother and Ronald Reagan's firstborn son, wrote this about Sarah Palin on Sept 4, 2008:

"I've been trying to convince my fellow conservatives that they have been wasting their time in a fruitless quest for a new Ronald Reagan to emerge and lead our party and our nation. I insisted that we'd never see his like again because he was one of a kind.

"I was wrong!

"Wednesday night I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my Dad reborn; only this time he's a she.

"And what a she!

(read more at http://spectator.org/blog/2010.....ald-reagan)

To get a sense of the political weight of Ronald Reagan, Jr., let's recall his prancing around in his underwear on Saturday Night Live when his dad was President. And there was this comment about Rush Limbaugh on May 20, 2009:

"Limbaugh hasn't had a natural *r*ction since the Nixon Administration; think he's compensating for something? Now, I wouldn't pick on him for any of this stuff, not his blubbiness, not his man-boobs, not his inability to have a natural erection -- none of that stuff -- to me, off limits until! until! -- Mr. Limbaugh, you turn that sort of gun on somebody else -- once you start doing that, you're fair game, fat boy. Absolutely, you jiggly pile of mess. You're just fair game, and you're going to get it, too. [Laughs] You'd better watch what you say, Limbaugh, because it can come back the other way."

Ugh. Lots of thoughts in that head, but mostly too much information. Best to avert one's eyes.

Soli Gloria Deo, as Bach always used to write.

Margie| 2.15.10 @ 1:07PM

Actually Dean, Micheal was adopted by RR and Jane Wyman, (RR's first wife). RR wasn't his physical Father. Though, in truth he was a man after his own heart. :^)

SoCon| 2.15.10 @ 4:46PM

Mike Reagan was more of a son to the great RR than that sissified little weenie in tights, Ronnie Jr, could ever be.

Talk about a huge disappointment.

Yosemeti Sam| 2.14.10 @ 11:19AM

" Sarah Palin Ain't Ronald Reagan...."

LOL.

Of course not.

She's in her own mold!

She is a comprehensive conservative - GOD, family, country championing woman.

Hear her roar!

LBSM PEN1 - take your deserved back seat!

On any wayward backward bus!

Margie (The original)| 2.14.10 @ 11:28AM

Mr. Bandow has ants in his pants.

Richard Baker| 2.14.10 @ 11:41AM

Ron, Jr. is a sad fruit of the tree, isn't he?

Margie| 2.15.10 @ 1:01PM

Ron jr. is a fruitcake alright. Michael Reagan, the adopted son, is the real son of Ronald Reagan~ a man after his own heart. I love him. Now there's a real man!

martin j smith| 2.14.10 @ 11:45AM

Those who are set up by article that some how Palin is to be compared with Ronald Reagan are being suckered in. In truth that is not really the point. The point is there are people and I have seen some on this very piece who really are following my line of thinking of " get Palin" --they may really personally be uneasy about her or they may be trolls. And, I cannot say who is who. But this much I will say: If BHO can president, considering how destructive he is being to this country then I say SP is equally qualified to be president. To some this may seem like a very sad commentary. But to me it is a sad reality. And here is the deal: How many politicians are actually willing to do what is right --be transparent within reason of national security with voters, listen to what they say--agree or not but at least respect their views. And, when possible legislate and govern by the will of the people not in the manner of a Dictator and ideologue that we have now? Answer very few if any. So I say this, before you join the "get Palin mob", look into the mirror and ask yourself if your or anyone else is so perfect. Could you stand the attacks she has endured with equanimity ? Could you show composure in the face of true idiots who have nothing better to do thatn write hit pieces ? I doubt you could find many who could.

B. Johnson| 2.14.10 @ 2:51PM

To be blunt, the only reason that people are concerned about who's in the Oval Office in the first place is because nobody understands the constitutionally limited powers of the federal government anymore.

bc3b| 2.14.10 @ 3:05PM

Doug -

You've had your 15 minutes of fame. Now go back to your libertarian think tank, where you get paid for doing nothing all day and leave the heavy lifting to Sarah.

bc3b| 2.14.10 @ 3:11PM

Olliender -

Had Sarah Palin remainded as governor, she would have continued to be the target of frivilous lawsuits (e.g. for waering an Arctic Cat jacket to the finish of the Iron Dog Race) and would have lost her home fighting these suits, directed by the DNC. She may or may not ever be President, but she speaks for a lot of Americans.

Don't put too much faith into a poll commissioned by two of the most dishonest organizations in the U.S. - the Washington Post and ABC News.

bc3b| 2.14.10 @ 3:28PM

For those of you not familiar with Doug Bandow (the author):

From Wikipedia: Bandow resigned from Cato on December 15, 2005, after admitting he accepted payments from Abramoff — in return for publishing articles favorable to Abramoff's clients over a period of approximately ten years. He has referred to these activities as "a lapse of judgment," saying that he accepted payments for "between 12 and 24 articles" over a period of years. He stepped down after BusinessWeek Online contacted the Cato Institute to probe news of possible payments. He typically received on the order of $2,000 per article.

Sarah Palin I trust. Doug Bandow, not so much.

Slim Shavings| 2.14.10 @ 3:35PM

Seems Ronald Reagan's Son thinks different

http://www.businessandmedia.or.....93336.aspx
She’s become a prominent figure. I think my father would have questioned why she would have walked away from being the governor of Alaska, but he would absolutely applaud her. She’s using her celebrity, if you will, to raise awareness of the conservative movement, to in fact raise money for the party and to help conservatives and others get elected to office in Washington, D.C. and at the local level. This is exactly what my father did between 1976 and 1980. He helped people get elected, he helped raise money for the party and he did all of those things.

You might remember the last election, it was hard-pressed to find any of those on our side who had gone out and helped anybody in our party get elected to anything. So the people on the ground, the grassroots, had nobody to be beholden to because nobody had helped them move forward. So she is bringing and shining a light on grassroots America and I would suggest that any of the others that are out there who may in fact have an interest in 2012, you know, hit the ground running also and do what they can do to build the party.

Osamas Pajamas| 2.14.10 @ 3:36PM

If Palin sets the right limited-government / free-market and peace-thru-strength goals and has the resolve to stick with them --- and appoints lieutenants known for their allegiance to these ideas, then this libertarian will have no difficulty voting for Palin, nor should any conservative, libertarian, or independent balk if she is not the "perfect" candidate. There is and was no "perfect" candidate --- and believe me when I say that I am and will always be a Reaganaut.

caitmo| 2.14.10 @ 3:48PM

From listening to Sarah Palin, I conclude that she has the best interests for our country. I have to agree with some of the posters here, she still has a lot to learn.
My biggest problem with her, though, is why, as she proclaims big time Christian conservatism, she isn't home with her children, especially her youngest son. I know families with Downe Syndrome children, they need a bit of extra care.

Claire Solt| 2.14.10 @ 3:57PM

I am getting very tired of inside the beltway types who think they are opinion makers. They engage in such group think that they insist that she answer their questions her way. I do not think this next election will be decided by them at all. Sarah has her own valid perspective based on her experiences with Washington and life. Many find it resonnates with their own.

martin j smith| 2.14.10 @ 4:04PM

Mike: SP is not in office while OBama is President. The behavior of the Demcrat Left is the same as if SP were the president. Obama is the President -right --or is he voting "absent" once again? Mike dream on. Obama as president --and as all president d0-become the national target
correctly or not. Now the real analogy would be Bush for Left and Obama for Right. That would be accurate. Now you know how it feels to be on the receiving end of criticism. As for SP, and here is a point Mike you really miss: SP is just as qualified to be president as BHO, if BHO is the standard for being a presidnet !!!!!!!!!!!

Mike| 2.15.10 @ 8:31AM

SP is not in office. True. She quit mid-term to serve her own greedy self interest.

C4P| 2.15.10 @ 4:58PM

Another liberal lie--Sarah quit to protect Alaska from the huge expense of Obama's endless scurrilous law suits.

No wonder she can't stand Obonehead.

Margie (The original)| 2.14.10 @ 5:03PM

Sarah supports our Troops. Pray for them. We want a woman like Sarah Palin in our corner. God bless her, and God bless our Troops.
http://www.michaelyon-online.c.....nistan.htm

Richard Baker| 2.14.10 @ 5:12PM

caitmo:
She does have a large family, doesn't she? Do you think that the family sits around like a bump on a log? Think of all the people, family or otherwise, who can render any assistance she needs. She's not some welfare mother whose entire life is that of acting as a brood mare and cashing the government check. Get real.

Richard Baker| 2.14.10 @ 5:28PM

caitmo:
It's Down Syndrome and is named for John Langdon Down, the British physician who described the syndrome in 1866. If you think her baby will ever get substandard care then you don't know these folks in her circle in Alaska.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.14.10 @ 7:07PM

Doug Bandow,
Your asinine article here just dropped you out of any further consideration on my part as someone to be read.
I cannot even imagine the nasty little motive/s behind your column.
How many times has Sarah said "I just want to be a servant"?
You know, Doug, most of us in a role of serious responsibility...where peoples lives and careers and futures are in our hands........the best of us know we are never prepared.

You sit on the sidelines and scribble.

Some of us actually have to invent solutions as we go along, as I do on my "day job".

I like Sarah's decision matrix...or in the words we used in my youth..."I like where she's comin' from".

Where she is going I have no idea, but I do know one thing.
Where ever she winds up...your life won't amount to a pimple on her butt....based upon what she has accomplished already.

Mike| 2.15.10 @ 8:34AM

Well, Doug, looks like you failed the litmus test.

Could it be you are a member of the elite, i.e. someone who thinks?

wwwexler| 2.15.10 @ 4:49PM

How can the elite think when you have your heads planted firmly up your hind end?

That would explain why you come up with such stupid ideas.

Eric Dondero| 2.14.10 @ 8:23PM

Thank God Palin is not Reagan. Remember, from a libertarian perspective Reagan sucked on a couple key issues: Drug War and The Military Draft.

Palin's a solid libertarian all around. Plus she's got a much closer relationship with Movement Libertarians. Recall she's been tight with the Alaska Libertarian Party for all these years.

Reagain, luved him to death, but he was a bit condescending towards the libertarian movement.

Sarah Palin has embraced the libertarian movement from the beginning of her career.

Nick| 2.14.10 @ 8:59PM

Mr. Dondero,

Mrs. Palin is very much Pro-Life.

How does this square with the Libertarian notion that a person can do whatever they want with their body? Even kill their unborn children?

Margie| 2.15.10 @ 12:52PM

These Libertopians (to steal a word from Alan Brooks), are trying to claim Sarah as "one of their own." Sarah is a registered Republican and claims that the planks of the party are in agreement with her way of thinking. But don't let the facts get in the way!

Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 2.15.10 @ 8:41PM

It doesn't, Nick, because you've set a false premise. Many hard-core libertarians see the unborn as individuals with human liberty at stake. There is no one libertarian view on "choice", pal.

Bob| 2.15.10 @ 8:59PM

Just as there is no one Republican view on anti-abortion. Take a look at the Libertarian platform. It supports choice.

Nick| 2.15.10 @ 11:39PM

Ran,

I never claimed ALL Libertarians were pro-abortion. I know there are some Pro-Life Libertarians. Not many, but some.

As 3/5 Bob correctly (amazingly) points out, the Libertarian Party platform is perfectly okay with killing unborn babies. They have been since the late '70s, as far as I know.

In other words, they are pro-choice. So how is my premise false, pal?

Also, is it not a Libertarian notion that a person can do whatever they want with their body? Sexually, chemically, body parts, etc.?

Missy| 2.16.10 @ 2:59AM

Libertarians: All of the rights and none of the responsibilities. Sounds like our loser friend, Bob.

Jake| 2.14.10 @ 8:40PM

My party is rightly called the Stupid Party at times, but no one could seriously think an unemployed housewife who twitters and quit her last job because of the pressure
would be a viable candidate for president.
Palin would make Obama look like Churchill by comparison . Palin has books to sell and $100,000 speaking fees to collect and she is marketing herself by hinting that she will run for president.
This keeps the interest high and her bank account full . It's a brilliant strategy . Her FOX gig has been a disaster .
The FOX News channel has morphed into the Palin Network,
with the hosts apparently getting bonuses for every time they work her name into the show .
Palin burps-details on Sean Hannity.
She could not name a Founding Father without prompting from Beck. Hannity asks her frothy questions and then feeds her the answers . She's supposed to be a political analyst and refused to handicap the 2012 race for Wallace. She said that she had no idea . Even O'Reilly covers for her .
The transcripts of her appearances should make English teachers weep. She does not speak in anything resembling a sentence and she turns nouns into verbs.
Palin disguises her lack of familiarity with national and world issues with down home git er dones and the ubiquitous " common sense solutions " and the always ladylike "crap."
Which as a conservative I find insulting .
Republican women like Michelle Bachmann, Liz Cheney , Dana Perino and Marsha Blackburn can intelligently discuss a variety of subjects without acting like they're Minnie Pearl at the Grand Ole Opry.
Expressing anything less than Kool Aid devotion to Palin on most conservative blogs invites fiery outrage, ad hominem attacks and the bullying tactics generally used by the left .
The similarities between how the left deified Obama and treated his critics is now happening on the far right , only now the Messiah is a white woman .
The cult of personality that we decried in the Democrat Party is alive and well in the Republican Party.
Being a conservative should mean that we demand the best and the brightest like Ronald Reagan or Dick Cheney ,
candidates with a long history of demonstrated capabilities and experience .
This is obviously not something that matters to the Democrats and it now looks like it no longer matters to conservatives. You betcha.

Nick| 2.14.10 @ 9:18PM

Jake,

Jealous much?

C4P| 2.15.10 @ 2:51AM

Jake the shemale, probably is jealous of Sarah. lol

Mike| 2.15.10 @ 8:38AM

No, Nick. Jake is not jealous. He's just telling it like it is.

My only quibble with what he wrote is including the famously wrong Dick Cheney among the best and the brightest.

Missy| 2.15.10 @ 4:55PM

Like Sarah Palin, Cheney drives policy from the sidelines.

Sarah's 'death panels' and Cheney's cogent remarks about Obama's national security weaknesses have proven to be very effective.

Palin and Cheney are TRUE American Patriots.

Go Sarah, keep up the pressure! Go Dick, keep Obama on his toes!

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.15.10 @ 9:50AM

Jake,
tacky tacky tacky, hamster balls.
Heh.
You actually managed to out-do Dougy with your little litany of snide remarks about a fine young woman due to your own lack of comfort with your manliness.

Margie| 2.15.10 @ 12:48PM

Your party is called stupid because you're in it. Hey look, there's plenty of room in the Democrat party what with all of those retirees. I'm sure they'd welcome you.

Margie| 2.15.10 @ 12:49PM

My comment was to Jakey wakey.

Isaac| 2.15.10 @ 4:29PM

The views among the politically active on both the left and the right are sadly obscured by a cloud of hatred toward the other side. The politicians and the pundits are capitalizing on it for dollars and votes, all the while here we are feeding them what they want while willingly denying ourselves a better place. In a world aching for meaning, we're allowing ourselves to believe in these political celebrities -- to even believe that they are on our side on the quest toward salvation. People, please, wake up.

wwwexler| 2.15.10 @ 7:55PM

Poor whiny Isaac threw a pity party and only he showed up. Loser.

Isaac| 2.15.10 @ 11:10PM

Your comments are setting an example of what it means to be a winner, I take it.

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 3:01AM

At least more than one person shows up at my parties, whiny one.

Man up--we don't need more balless wonders.

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 11:44AM

Oh ok

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 9:31PM

Thought that one would hit home with you.

Wonder why.

Bill,from WV| 2.14.10 @ 8:51PM

Folks, you are all missing the point here. Her attraction isn't that she is or isn't a reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. Her attraction is that she has more in common with the voters, than anyone else. They can relate to her. That puts her in "their" camp, when it comes to them against the professional politicians.
She is popular BECAUSE she is NOT the normal politician, who will do anything to stay in political office forever!
If she behaved like your typical politician, her poll numbers would not be better than anyone else.
The Democrats and some Republicans are making the mistake of characterizing her as some kind of idiot (ie. notes on hand) ,when we have a President who can't speak to six graders without a teleprompter!
Both parties better wise up, Americans have made it clear it will not be business as usual come election time, and Sarah Palin will still be around!
MRD

Jeff| 2.14.10 @ 11:47PM

I seriously doubt I'm the only guy who feels this way, but here are three points I have yet to hear anyone bring up:

1. Palin describes herself as a Christian, yet her political career and presidential aspirations put her in direct violation of 1 Timothy 2:12. As hilariously irrelevant as this will seem to most, there's a significant number of us who still take the Word seriously. Biblically, we can't vote for someone like her, and I expect this will be exploited by the media at some point if she continues on this path.

2. She is extremely attractive, and this clouds peoples' judgment. Her undeniable physical appeal isn't a bad thing, and it's funny that the Ruth Buzzy types on the left hate her all the more for it. However, her good looks make those who would otherwise expect more from her simply nod their heads and say "Go Sarah!".
As conservatives, we're always proud to parrot the Reagan viewpoint on how ideas are more important than skin color or physical appearance. Would we really be as supportive of Palin if she looked like Hillary Clinton?

3. We need a real, truly conservative man - with an actual pair of testicles - in the White House. We haven't had such a leader in over two decades, and the threats to our nation's security are more serious than ever. While Palin's patriotism and zeal for our military are refreshing and commendable, she would be woefully underqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief in the event of an actual armed conflict. Getting people pumped up about American values again is one thing, but being able to lead us militarily at a moment's notice is something else entirely. If Obama ever finds himself in that situation, I think we'll find out how much this type of incompetence can cost us as a nation.
She's clearly no idiot, but I have to concur that she's not even in the same league as Reagan -- and we desperately, DESPERATELY need another Ronald Reagan right now.

All that said, I feel that Palin is far more of a long-term liability to the conservative movement than the tremendous asset that so many think she is. She is definitely a great cheerleader for the cause, and I appreciate that she's managed to be an effective thorn in the side of the current administration. On principle, though, I could never vote for her.

I'm of the opinion that we need a Patton or an Eisenhower or a Reagan to undo the damage of the past twenty years. Only a true man with real-world experience, a keen understanding of military strategy, and testicular fortitude is up to such a challenge. Sarah Palin simply isn't that guy, no matter how much we want her to be.

Nick| 2.15.10 @ 12:49AM

Jeff,

How is Sarah Palin violating 1 Timothy 2:12?

This instruction of Saint Paul's clearly refers to within the Church, not in life.

Do not mothers have some authority over their sons? Was Saint Paul against queens?

SoCon| 2.15.10 @ 3:06AM

Geez, Jeff, what an oinker you are! There's no way to put lipstick on a pig like you.

Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir were both valiant leaders of their respective countries. Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc were also courageous in their roles.

I would trust Sarah Palin with our country's security a million times more than I trust Obama.

Measure the quality and substance of a person's character, not their gender. You're a fool.

Isaac| 2.15.10 @ 4:17PM

Exactly. Imagine if Palin looked like, say, Susan Boyle. Would she have the fame or the following she has right now? No way, not even close, and you can bet your life on it.

wwwexler| 2.15.10 @ 5:01PM

Too bad men have so much trouble thinking with their big head.

Keep it in your pants, Issac--your obsession with Palin's looks is embarrassing and does NOT recommend you.

Isaac| 2.15.10 @ 11:11PM

Exactly my point -- I am not under the spell of her looks.

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 3:04AM

Then why bring it up?

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 11:43AM

I don't think you would understand.

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 9:29PM

Try me.

wwwexler| 2.17.10 @ 8:27PM

I know why and I don't care. Leave Palin alone, LR; it's beneath you.

martin j smith| 2.15.10 @ 7:33AM

My final comment and summary of my view of this hit peice:

Many have wither been suckered into the premis of the need to compare SP with Raegen--this totally false from my point of view.
second: The motivation of the writer and those who support this view needs to be questioned.
Finally, If Obama can be president with the division, and economic destruction and lessening of our national security the SP is equally qualified.

Bob| 2.15.10 @ 9:36AM

I normally disagree totally with Bandow, but on this issue, he is on the mark. Reagan may not have been an intellectual and a genius, but he was intellectually curious and worked hard at studying the issues. IQ alone doesn't make a success. But hard work and dedication, the kind of attributes shown by Reagan, can more than make up for that difference.

Palin is not a dunce, but she is not a hard worker and is not intellectually curious like Reagan. Reagan would never have quit his job when the sledding became tough. Being a quitter is a severe character flaw because it means when issues become too hard to complete, you give up. What if you take that mentality to fighting in Afghanistan?

No, I don't believe Reagan was any smarter than Palin, but he made up for it with hard work, dedication, lots of reading, discussing the issues with friends and foes alike, and never giving up.

But all of this may well be academic. 71% of voters think Palin is unqualified to be President in the latest poll. This is up 11% from the last poll at the end of 2008. The more people see her, the more they think she is unqualified. The internals of this poll are also interesting. 52% of Republicans believe she is unqualified and the biggest change from the end of 2008 was that her rating dropped by 20% with conservatives.

Yes, its true that idiots who are social conservatives (i.e., Fox News watchers) will love her because their decisions are based more on belief and emotion than rational thinking.

I'm part of the majority of Republicans and other voters who will never vote for Palin unless she takes the time and effort to learn the issues like Reagan did. She has proven that she doesn't have that kind of work ethic.

Although most of you don't like it, I'm still a Romney fan and hope he gets the nomination. Otherwise, I will vote for Obama again. Palin is simply the Paris Hilton of politics.

C4P| 2.15.10 @ 5:16PM

Bob, the 'RINO' who voted for Obama the proven failure just won't shut up.

Bob has also strenuously defended Globaloney Warming in the past--how's that junk science workin' out for you, Bob? No more 'hockey stick' for you! You've been debunked

Hey, Bob, you've been conspicuously ABSENT on the latest Globaloney Warming threads--why is that, oh wise one?

Your attacks on Sarah Palin are a joke--just like you.

If you're against it, I'm for it, clown.

Bob| 2.15.10 @ 9:02PM

As before, you have no understanding of the hockey stick theory and how it is applied. It does not negate global warming, only the pace at which it ensues. I guess you can't talk to idiots who just read headlines.

Nick| 2.15.10 @ 11:55PM

3/5 Bob,

It is you who does not understand the hockey stick.

It left out the entire medieval "global warming" period, because Mikey Mann, et al, only used three trees from Siberia as their data set for the temperature 1000 years ago.

It was warmer a thousand years ago than it is now. They didn't burn coal nor did they have cars back then, 3/5 Bob.

So, that negates the AGW Hoax.

C4P| 2.16.10 @ 3:13AM

You're right, of course, Nick. The Globaloney Warming hoaxers deliberately omitted the Medieval warming data which showed temperatures much warmer than today.

The hockey stick is a lie, much like Bob's claim that he's a republican.

In fact, there's been NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR 15 YEARS!!!

Too bad 'charts and graph' Bob is out of the loop. Silly old man, hush up.

3/5 refers to Bob's IQ. lol

Nick| 2.16.10 @ 11:30AM

Thanks, C4P!

Actually, "3/5" refers to the fact that 3/5 Bob, until last June, thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written.

C4P| 2.16.10 @ 4:53PM

Yes, I know, Nick; I just wanted to have a little fun with Bob.

Nick| 2.16.10 @ 8:57PM

C4P,

I was pretty sure you did.

But, you know me, I can't pass up a chance to stick it to 3/5 Bob!

Tired of Bob| 2.15.10 @ 5:25PM

"Palin is not a dunce, but she is not a hard worker and is not intellectually curious like Reagan."

Who is this "Bob" and does he always BS like this?

wwwexler| 2.15.10 @ 7:58PM

Yes. You'd need a steam shovel to get rid of all the BS Bob spews. And he's wrong E.V.E.R.Y. damn time.

Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 2.15.10 @ 8:47PM

Happy to oblige. For someone concerned about intellectualism, he's proven to be quite the curiosity.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.15.10 @ 9:57AM

Aw heck, Bob.

Sarah is very rapidly becoming similar to Rush Limbaugh. Heh!
He, and soon, she, will not be able to afford the Pay cut to be President.

Bob| 2.15.10 @ 10:12AM

Paris Hilton makes a load of money for what she doesn't do. Rush has found his audience and his niche and is a great entertainer. I would not begrudge Sarah if she can also be successful in that venue. I congratulate Sarah on making a success of her book. She does understand innately how to market herself. In fact, as an entrepreneur, I admire her. But if she runs for president, the answer is still no.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.15.10 @ 10:38AM

Thanks for that, Bob.

I would have to seriously re-evaluate her if she got your approval.

Bob| 2.15.10 @ 10:50AM

This must be the one day of the year you woke up on the right side of the bed. I'm even getting a giggle from your posts today.... But I'm also a fan of Reagan -- are you going to rethink your position on that as well?

Isaac| 2.15.10 @ 4:15PM

Notice: comments among those who support or defend Palin are mostly accompanied by a strong undercurrent of vitriol. In other words, her support is largely based on negative EMOTIONS rather than a reasoned consideration of political philosophy, and she's capitalizing on every penny of it. An objective reading of the comments here alone is more than enough to illustrate my point.

wwwexler| 2.15.10 @ 5:04PM

We're just tired of petty weak little men like you who are threatened by Palin's leadership abilities.

You bore.

Isaac| 2.15.10 @ 11:11PM

You illustrate my point very well.

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 3:15AM

Thin-skinned much? If you can't take it don't dish it, wimp.

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 11:46AM

I think it's clear to all who's thin-skinned here.

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 4:54PM

Yes, and it's YOU, weenie.

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 5:21PM

;-)

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 9:27PM

Libtard troll. :(

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 10:25PM

Angry little man :)

wwwexler| 2.17.10 @ 4:53AM

It's impossible to interact meaningfully with trolls who don't have lives. You're pathetic.

Isaac| 2.17.10 @ 10:28AM

"They're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." -- Palin wrong when describing the formal duties of the role she's campaigning for.

wwwexler| 2.17.10 @ 8:29PM

Who cares, LR? Obowmao screws up all the time--why don't you focus on his follies?

randyinrocklin| 2.15.10 @ 4:43PM

With all due respect to you Mr. Bandow, do you think that Obama was qualified to be president?????How can you judge whether someone is qualified to be anything? He was elected whether he was qualified or not. You're just like those ignorant idiots when polls ask them if Palin was qualified to be president more that 50% said no. Does anyone think Obama is a competent leader? or just qualified. There's a big difference in whether a person is qualified vs being a competent leader.

Jake| 2.15.10 @ 9:21PM

Palin supporters cannot elucidate the qualifications they believe Palin possesses which would qualify her to be POTUS.
Instead they pour boiling oil and ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to express the opinion that she is not qualified to be POTUS.
Guess the First Amendment only applies to them.
If they had any confidence in Palin's bona fides they would calmly list them instead of flying into hysterical and blind rages.
This is a phenomenon commonly seen on many conservative blogs and websites .
Because Obama is not nor was he ever qualified to be POTUS is not a good argument that Palin is qualified.
There have been four major polls over the last few months with almost identical results-70-74% do not believe she is qualified to be president. Including the majority of Republicans and Independents.
Her negatives in the polls are increasing .
Many Palin supporters have dropped off because of her bizarre decision to quit her Alaskan governorship and her silly public appearances .
Palin was on some afternoon show for women a couple of weeks ago, giggling about her new hair do.
She recently posed with her daughter and their babies for the cover of some supermarket tabloid.
She went to Hawaii in December and wore a McCain visor that was partially blacked out and an inflammatory
t shirt and when it drew the inevitable attention-she blamed the media for noticing.
Demanding that any words containing retard- like flame retardant and the verb retard must be banned from the national lexicon is ridiculous.
The FaceBook postings and Twittering are not adult forums for transmitting a legitimate and adult political point of view.
Senator Scott Brown ( Lt Col Brown , MANG ) calmly and intelligently gave his criticisms about Biden's slam of his military service in person, rather than resorting to FB.
Palin and her antics are a distraction , drawing attention away from Obama and the Democrats.
Palin supporters always attack the messenger , they are incapable of refuting the message that Palin is not qualified to be POTUS.
These are perilous times, the Republican Party must run an impeccable candidate with a stellar background who does not carry the personal baggage that Palin does.

Isaac| 2.15.10 @ 11:17PM

They don't need to make the case because the subtext of their statements about her shows they don't have one. She tells them what they want to hear, which is largely an anti-Obama, anti-elitist, America-the-beautiful-as-we-know-it-is-under-attack (ie, times are changing) message.

Nick| 2.15.10 @ 11:19PM

Jake,

Could you fit any more straw men into that diatribe?

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 3:31AM

Why are there so many petty little men who are threatened by Palin's strong leadership skills and success?

Is it because she's already accomplished much more in her 40+ years than they will ever hope to do?

Trying to tear her down with your snide personal attacks won't make you smarter, younger or handsome, you know--you'll still have to look at your same old lifeless selves in the mirror every morning.

Face it, you're losers living loser lives, and insulting a strong, courageous woman who is a real American patriot will NEVER make you REAL men. In fact, you're not men at all.

Your best years are behind you. Say bye bye.

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 11:54AM

Dude, the woman posturing for the highest office in the land writes cheat notes on her HAND (and yes, she too uses a teleprompter). She has yet to articulate on any of the sweeping generalities she uses (which even those often don't make sense), she doesn't speak to anyone anymore other than those who work with her on the same network, and when she did she fumbles at the most softball questions. Given what she has said in the past, we have no reason to believe that she knows much about American or world affairs (ie, supreme court, Iraq, Iran, North/South Korea, to name a few) ... These are not insults toward. These are just observable, objective facts. The only one who sounds threatened here is you. Would you like to offer any substance? Or do you think insults alone will convince others that Sarah is a great leader?

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 4:57PM

Isaac, you really do need to get a life. Lying trolls like you are a dime a dozen and are not worthy of true debate.

You don't argue in good faith, Concern Troll, why should I?

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 5:28PM

No doubt. I should take some notes from you on how to be a real man.

"Troll. Weener! Libtard! You are a tiny man!"

Nah, it don't work for me. Guess I will need to get a life.

*wink*

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 9:26PM

If you're so hot, dumbtard--why are you obsessed with a political blogsite you detest?

Either you're a paid Axelrod doofus or just another loser libtard with no life.

Both apply, I'm sure.

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 10:42PM

I detest this website? Ok.

"Blogsite" ... cute, old man :)

wwwexler| 2.17.10 @ 4:50AM

Don't get snippy, libtard--you sound like Jeremiah/Liberal Reader. I've noticed you've been incognito lately.

Your snotty and supercilious professorial sensibility always betrays you, bonehead. You just can't help yourself when you see minor errors. Petty ass, you must be HELL to live with. Ugh!

And I'm not a man, dweeb.

ScottyP| 2.17.10 @ 10:25AM

wwwexler, relax or grow up ... you sound like you need a pill.

wwwexler| 2.17.10 @ 8:31PM

Up yours, Scotty--who asked you, libtard?

Bob| 2.16.10 @ 7:56AM

1/5 Nick, et. al....

You guys still don't understand the hockey stick, do you. Let me give you the graphs of the data...

This is the RECONSTRUCTED data using the debunking of the hockey stick approach in 2003:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....arison.png

Notice that even with this reconstruction, we have a significant rise beginning with the advent of the industrial age.

This second chart shows instrumental readings from about 1880 when this process was started.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w.....Record.png

Notice the temperature drops from 1900 to 1910 and 1942 to 1963. This happens about once every 50 years and is happening again now. Anyone who understands pattern analysis would consider this to be a "temporary" drop rather than a change in the long term trend.

But then again, I'm talking to idiots who don't look at data and charts and just take the talking points from political queers.

Nick| 2.16.10 @ 9:46AM

3/5 Bob,

Still using wiki?
Why not use the National Inquirer, Weekly World News, The New York Times?

Also, why didn't you address my point? The hockey stick left out a 500 year warming period that started 1000 years ago.

Deal with the missing data, 3/5 Bob.

And what exactly is a "significant rise"? What is the ideal global temperature?

Nick| 2.16.10 @ 11:07AM

You must have missed my post from another thread, 3/5 Bob:

From Part 3 of the Pro-Global Warming Hoax UK Gaurdian's 12 part series on ClimatGate, a key graph:

"Three hours after receiving Folland's response, Briffa sent a long and passionate email demanding caution over the use of Mann's hockey stick. 'It should not be taken as read that Mike's series is THE CORRECT ONE,' he warned. 'I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data", but in reality the situation is not quite so simple... For the record, I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago... and that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate.' This last point is important. Briffa was saying not only that the hockey stick might not be right, but that any graph of the last thousand years could not be taken to represent the limits of natural variability."

Also, Jones (Phil, not Van) has admitted that we haven't been warming. Try reading "About Global Warming: Never Mind!", from above. You had to pass it to get to this thread. I notice you didn't comment on it, by the way.

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 5:00PM

Bob really is stupid! He's chicken, too--that's why he avoids 'inconvenient' threads. Loser.

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 5:02PM

"Political queers?" That wasn't very nice, enlightened Bob. Scratch the surface of a liberal and you always get a bigot.

Joan Laszczak| 2.16.10 @ 9:31AM

Wow....are you still on the page that what we need are more Washington "Politicians"? Oh no. What we need are the Sarah Palin's who don't know everyone in Washington - we are indeed looking for someone to shake things up...She's a bright bright one with an amazing gift of touching the common man - I think she's bright enough, but more importantly has common senses - sorely lacking in washington. Keep underestimating her intelligence...I guess I can always turn on MSNBC for more Sarah Palin intelligence bashing.

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 12:18PM

Fair enough. But can you see why there are some who have a rational skepticism toward her political competence? Maybe she was overly handled during the '08 campaign and so came across as fumbling at times, maybe she is "reluctant" to lead the country and so comes across as not so direct, a little hesitant at other times. Isn't is reasonable to grant that there are those who would see these things and not be willing to take the leap of faith in the potential greatness of her leadership? Wasn't that a criticism of Obama from the right -- we hardly know this guy? Despite the impressions of those such as Keith Olbermann project, it's not all "bashing". There are people with very legitimate reasons to be skeptical of her motives and abilities. That she left office mid-term and published a book and pursued other deals that made her millions should not give any single person pause and at least raise the question about her motives? It has been reported that she needed to be given a crash course on basic American and world history during the campaign. Is this story just made up? If so, how do we know? How do we know it's not? If I'm to believe it's not, then I'm to believe there is a mass media conspiracy against her, and a conspiracy against her by the very same people who chose her to be John McCain's running mate! That's hard to swallow, don't you think? This person who hardly anyone has known until very recently should be given the benefit of the doubt completely? If not, we're "bashing" her? Joan, you give me little reason to believe that you're not just as caught up in the Left/Right bashing as those you criticize for underestimating her. For me, she has to demonstrate that she's competent. I and many others will not just give her a pass given what we've seen so far. There are numerous and very good reasons to be skeptical. It is not all just "bashing".

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 5:05PM

Get a life, troll. Goose-stepping in your Axelrod jackboots around your step-mom's basement must be getting to you.

Sieg Heil, libtard!

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 5:26PM

There is actually a point in what you're saying. I really don't need to say anything at all -- Palin's actions speak for themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhJOYcwNXYY

;-)

PALIN FOR PRESIDENT! 2012| 2.16.10 @ 9:23PM

Good thing you didn't notice Obama brutalizing the word 'corpsman' numerous times--you could have written him off as an idiot. Oops, too late--I already have.

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 9:26PM

Yep, I saw that too.

wwwexler| 2.16.10 @ 9:37PM

Y R U HERE? NO LIFE? THOUGHT SO.

Isaac| 2.16.10 @ 10:39PM

I just love to make you seethe with anger, kiddo ;)

wwwexler| 2.17.10 @ 4:41AM

"Projection is a pillar of Leftist thought." That one's for you, bud.

Angry much? It shows.

Isaac| 2.17.10 @ 10:29AM

Ok Mr. "Blogsite" :-D

wwwexler| 2.17.10 @ 8:34PM

Okay, uptight, Type A personality Liberal Reader--acting a little 'anal' aren't you?