In defense of Sarah Palin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maplemaker

Does this not equate also to the "left" and its God, or pantheon rather, of socialized medicine, abortions on demand for reason, the extremes of NAMBLA and other affiliated groups, percieved destruction of the nuclear family, the ability of the state to dictate from on high and at a distance even the most miniscule of trade, etc. etc. etc. One's religion may not contain a "God", per se, but even the unbelievers rabidly worship at the alter of unbelief. I do agree with you that Christ probably wouldn't have much to do with either party as a party. "Render unto Caeser", as it were. Also, the question I posed is not a gauntlet thrown to anyone, simply an observation that what the extreme Right does, so does the Left. And when viewed from a distance, seems to be for the same reason. ("I'm right and I'm going legislate you into heaven!" "I'm right and I'm going to remove those silly blinders of an archaic belief system from your eyes and make you see that mankind is the the zenith of wisdom!" In other words, "I'M RIGHT!")

---

What about the pedophilia that has taken place by those great men of the cloth and were protected by the church? There are enough on all sides that do disservice to the traditional family and moral values, I don't think it has anything to do with party or religious affiliation.

I don't think I would equate either religion nor being liberal with NAMBLA. Those people are just sick perverts, I don't believe that either party affiliates themselves with such sick individuals. If you have some reliable evidence to the contrary please share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Layne

Hi All,

[Snip}

So yeah, I know when a thread's about to explode (and be closed), and would hope to head that off if possible. As I said in a previous post, the members here have impressed me with being able to handle political subjects in a gentlemanly way. That's tough enough, but religion is a whole other can of worms. I don't wanna even touch that booby trapped can.

Thanks for reading,
Martin

Oh Jim? Hehe, I just saw what you'd posted right above this one.........thanks.

---

Yeah, religion gets pretty flammable pretty fast. It's not something that we Unitarians understand -- we seem able to discuss faith in very civil terms, no matter what is said -- but I've seen this enough to share your worry that this will blow up.

Thanks for your watching of this thread.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike7120

Not only has he turned this thread into a distasteful attempt to bash conservatives, but he is also insulting Christianity. If I were to defend my religious beliefs and my conservative viewpoints, or to state my opposition to liberalism, not only would it be inappropriate for this thread, but it would likely be seen as retaliation and I would be banned from SRP.

Being a Christian, his statements are offensive, that’s all I’m saying and I will leave it at that.

---

I am an Orthodox Christian and did not find his comments insulting at all...one, becasue you can only be insulted if you allow yourself to be. I think his point is that people who are extremely un-Christian in their behavior have co-opted the desires and faith of devout Protestant Christians and let them down the garden path with promises to get their votes. I do not find anything Christian (regardless of denomination) about the behavior of either party on any topic, be it the war in Iraq, healthcare, individual rights, etc. Anyone who has a plank in their platform to force their religious views onto another via legislation is not adhering to Christian ideals.

Christ was a consumate debater - more often than not, he left the opposition speechless. He debated with Satan even. If Christ had not argued and defended his views, choosing instead to take offense and end the discussion, Christianity would not exist today.

The ONLY response to speech you find offensive is more speech. There is an ocean-wide divide between discussing/debating one's views and responding to personal atacks. I have not seen any personal attacks in this thread (not yet...we do have members who immediately begin to attack the person when anyone even slightly disagrees with them....that is why I love the ignore button!). Every person's views are sacred to them...but not to everyone else.

As one poster here noted, everyone wants to be right...not only for themselves, but for everyone else...which to me smacks of vanity and ego. My views are right for me, not for anyone else. Your views are right for you, but may not be right for me, and you have no right, authority, or justification for forcing your views on me.

I do not think you would be banned for defending your point of view, as long as it did not deteriorate into personal attacks.

A friend for a different country asked me what I thought was one of the traits all true Americans should aspire to. I told him that one of our greatest qualities is the Freedom of Ideas; that many Americans stand ready to defend the rights of someone whose points of view makes their blood boil, but that as Americans, they have the right to their opinions and that the attempt to force them to accept another opinion, either by legislation or force, is more heinous than their views. He asked "Well, what if their views were to be be able to do just that - force their views on others." I said that there is the difference - holding a view is different than acting on it. Your rights stop at my nose.

To bring this back to Palin, she has shown by her behavior that she will attempt to force her views on others via legislation or decree, as in her asking about what could be done to ban books and her removal (while mayor) of anyone who did not agree with her, regardless of their experience. Hardly a non-partisan behavior and contrary to her sound-bites during the debate.

"Ultimately, America's answer to the intolerant man is diversity, the very diversity which our heritage of religious freedom has inspired."

R.F. Kennedy

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."

Thomas Jefferson

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."

Ulysses S. Grant

"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives."

Barry Goldwater

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hutch

What about the pedophilia that has taken place by those great men of the cloth and were protected by the church? There are enough on all sides that do disservice to the traditional family and moral values, I don't think it has anything to do with party or religious affiliation.

I don't think I would equate either religion nor being liberal with NAMBLA. Those people are just sick perverts, I don't believe that either party affiliates themselves with such sick individuals. If you have some reliable evidence to the contrary please share.

---

I was wondering what the NAMBLA reference was for.....in recent memory, the only politicians involved any anything close to that are Florida State Rep. Bob Allen and Congressman Mark Foley.

:hmmm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hutch

What about the pedophilia that has taken place by those great men of the cloth and were protected by the church? There are enough on all sides that do disservice to the traditional family and moral values, I don't think it has anything to do with party or religious affiliation.

I don't think I would equate either religion nor being liberal with NAMBLA. Those people are just sick perverts, I don't believe that either party affiliates themselves with such sick individuals. If you have some reliable evidence to the contrary please share.

---

What about it? It's horrible. Inexcusable. My point wasn't to defend Christianity or any other belief system, and certainly not to show any support of pedophilia or any other crime. My point was to say that the divisions come primarily due to ego. Of course there is blame enough to go around, but to say that any group of believers that profess faith in some unseen being is a group bigoted and backward, is, to me, as absurd as saying that a group that is just as passionate in its fury against such a belief is where truth and knowledge are to be found. To wit, so what if Sara Palin believes in the Rapture? Is she any more underscritinized for that belief than say, Jocylen Elders, for her secular support of late-term abortion? What is left is an adult game of, "MOM! David won't stop poking me!" "I didn't poke you!" "YES, YOU DID" "NO, I DIDN'T"... ad nauseum. "They are stupid for a belief." "They are stupid for a lack of faith." It is undeniable that those who would fight against a religious system's code are just as adamant and faithful to what they believe in as those against whose belief they fight. I think the whole thing is stupid, because I still hold to my own opinion that good people are too busy trying to earn a living and raise a family to go into politics, no matter what they believe in. WOW... Here, I'll give it to myself: :OT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WireBeard

I was wondering what the NAMBLA reference was for.....in recent memory, the only politicians involved any anything close to that are Florida State Rep. Bob Allen and Congressman Mark Foley.

:hmmm:

---

Let us not forget Barney Frank and his all male prostitution ring!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Let us not forget Barney Frank and his all male prostitution ring!

---

Wasn't that because of his boyfriend running an escort agency out of Frank's home while he was away? In reading the Congressional report, Mr. Frank turned himself into the Ethics Committee as soon as he found out. While he was reprimanded for dating a male prostitute (a mind-boggling gaffe in and of itself), he was exonerated of any wrongdoing as far as being involved with the business, esp. after the ex-boyfriend was found to be lying on numerous instances. Ironically, the campaign to have him expelled was led by Larry Craig!

As far as Mr. Frank, his committee was responsible for the oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...but then when it al went to hell, he started criticizing the SEC and Wall Street...and the bailout.

Instead of all those attorneys in Congress, maybe we need some CPAs? ("No, no...2+2 does not equal 5!")

A bit of an apologist for Barney frank are you?

Me and gugi pm'ed back and forth after my last post. in an effort to be more clear I am copying the pms and pasting them here:


Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS http://straightrazorpalace.com/image...s/viewpost.gif
A bit of an apologist for Barney frank are you?

gugi: Now, why would you say this, Mark? Look up 'apologist for' in your dictionary.

JMS: I used the word I intended![/I]

gugi: You misused it, or you do not understand its meaning, or you do not understand his post.
In any case, again, why would you post such post? The only thing I can see in it is an implication that coming in defense to somebody is bad.
If that's the level of discussion you're happy with, don't be surprised if somebody responds to you the same way and the thread goes south.[/I]

JMS: He offered a weak excuse for Barney Frank while leaving the other two names that he mentioned just dangling there!
I only mentioned Frank to show that these things go on on both sides of the isle!
After his weak excuse for Frank I only asked if he was an apologist! He can now clarify his intent.[/I]

gugi: With that reasoning, you may want to consider being direct. What is wrong with asking direct questions? Now you know that at least one person (me) could not derive from your post what you want it to be.
Not that I'm an expert on linguistics, or American English is my native language, but that's true for many others on the forums as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

A bit of an apologist for Barney frank are you?

---

Did you stop reading after the first paragraph? I was merely citing the contents of the Congressional Report...I'd be happy to cite similar info for former Rep. Foley and former State Rep. Allen....or for Rep. Craig for that matter. The only one involved with underaged males was Foley.

As far as being an apologist, I offered no justification or defense for Rep. Frank, only facts as they were publish by Congress. I also criticized REp. Frank for his apparent "short term memory loss" when it came to the mortgage crisis, as it is his committee that was involved in oversight.

Unless you meant "apologist" as a defender of Christian doctrine, in which case I am flattered that you consider my arguments so compelling, but am at a loss as to what that has to do with Rep. Frank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Layne

Hi All,

No offense to any poster, but this has gotten waaaay off topic. I'd hope this thread would remain open at least until the election coming up is over with. I can see this thing's starting to go south, and would ask members to skip any strong religious commentary. I agree with others who know what a minefield that topic can be, and would hope inflammatory comments meant to confront would be kept out of this particular discussion. Believe me, I have my own thoughts on that subject, but that's a whole other deal.

I believe there IS a religious connection to a certain party, and leave it at that. No comments on the methods of control being used or why.........no comments on how it looks to most others.....nope, I'm not gonna bring that up here. Hehe, I'd rather keep things on the 'lighter' side, and mention political observations on how the GOP is doing with marketing the Palin strategy and the like. That's a LOT less dangerous to post about than this religion stuff. You know, religion can **** people off like few other subjects, and I'd hate to see this thread evolve into a flame war.

Sigh.......I realize none of you know me or my previous experiences, but I WAS involved in a terrible war of words on another forum. This was 2-3 years ago, and some nasty things were said by both sides. It was a fight against..........oh hell, I'm not gonna get into that. The fighting lasted for well over a month, and finally reached the breaking point. I should mention that not only posting in the forum was going on, but live chat was also occurring on that site as well. Yeah, real time yelling at someone, with 40-50 other members watching the whole thing unfold. Not good.

Finally, the owners shut down the forum altogether for many months. When it returned, open for posting again, all the energy had been burnt out of the place. It never did recover and this forum became a ghost town. Turns out that even though my side won the battle, both sides ended up losing the war. I still stop in there and post very infrequently, but it's a dead zone now. I usta be fairly well known there, having been a member for 6 years now.

So yeah, I know when a thread's about to explode (and be closed), and would hope to head that off if possible. As I said in a previous post, the members here have impressed me with being able to handle political subjects in a gentlemanly way. That's tough enough, but religion is a whole other can of worms. I don't wanna even touch that booby trapped can.

Thanks for reading,
Martin

Oh Jim? Hehe, I just saw what you'd posted right above this one.........thanks.

---

Thats why sites have moderators. If the moderator is doing his job a situation like that should never have happened and rest assured it never would on this site.

Guys, this post is for ideas related to Ms Palin. lets stay on track. if you want to have a discussion of religious values and philosophies please open another thread to discuss this.

So to get back on track, if she doesn't want to talk to the general media out of fear of being questioned what's going to happen if she is V.P and has to talk to Mr Putin? Will she refuse and run in fear?

Nah, she'll wink at him and say, "I can see your house from mine, goshdarnit!"

Given Palin's vitriolic attacks against Obama for his association with Ayers, one would think she would make sure her own house is in order. Ever heard of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP)? Neither have I. Apparently, the group is controversial enough for the GOP to issue strong denials regarding Palin's membership and get leadership of the AIP to recant statements regarding her membership, but apparently her husband was a member. Strangely enough, she gave them a "shout out" earlier this year. Odd, if she was never involved with them.

I've always found it to be a good tactic in public speaking to randomly recognize groups I am not involved with (Thank you, thank you. I am honored to be speaking at this year's IT Project Managers' Convention...let me give a shout out to all the participants in the Betty Crocker Bake-Off...keep up the good work! <wink>)......not.

This group was founded by a guy named Joe Vogler, who was a proponent of Alaskan Secession. In 1993, he was to speak in front of the U.N. about U.S. tyranny and demand Alaska become independent. Interstingly enough, his attendance at the U.N. was sponsored by Iran.

YouTube - Sarah Palin and the Alaska Independence Party. Palin addresses AIP convention
Palin And The Alaska Independence Party - Marc Ambinder
On Vogler, an independent Alaska - Juneau Empire
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/us...l?ref=politics

If she is going to criticize Obama for associating with someone who did things back when Obama was a kid, then she needs to step up on this.

Fair is fair.

On a different note, regarding her comments about Russia, I wonder if she knows Alaska used to be part of Russia?

:hmmm:

Being an independent voter, neither rep. or dem., this video is reassuring, someone who is willing to crawl out of the two party box and think for themselves. Too bad she didnt make as much sense in the debates." Goshdarnit, why dont we all move out of this ****hole the dems and reps have created for us and move to Alaska, Lets leave the turds behind";) She shouldnt have sold out, she couldve been a contender!:D

Hmmmm....I'm all for people being independent thinkers...but to enlist Iran's support to achieve an end?

Apparently this Vogler guy was quite a character - very well educated, but just could not avoid annoying folks.

The whole issue for Palin is "Physician, heal thyself."

I bet her glass house gets chilly up there, unless she has thermal panes.........

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WireBeard

Hmmmm....I'm all for people being independent thinkers...but to enlist Iran's support to achieve an end?

---

How about the laying on of hands by a Kenyan witch hunter??

I was interested in what the founder of the AIP said about America and how much he hates it. So Palin "pals around" with these people, and her husband was a member? She's got a lot of gall accusing Obama of "palling around " with Ayers.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottS

How about the laying on of hands by a Kenyan witch hunter??

---

A segue from "Physician heal thyself"?

:roflmao

Don't you liberals get it? Questionable associations only apply to the other party's candidates. Why hasn't that sunk in yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

I was interested in what the founder of the AIP said about America and how much he hates it. So Palin "pals around" with these people, and her husband was a member? She's got a lot of gall accusing Obama of "palling around " with Ayers.

j

---

Not only that she slept with a member and spawned his off spring, wow.

I really hate this tit for tat guilty by association, it was a stupid path to go down. The vast majority of people at sometime in their life has had some type of association with someone who would stand the publics scrutiny. What decent person would even aspire to run for office?

Well, the thing with negative campaigning is that what matters is throwing enough mud at your opponent. As long as your opponent remains the focus you don't even have to answer anything about yourself (not that she ever feels she needs to answer a question).
To me negative campaigning is nothing but a sign of impotence and it panders to the worst in people. Sometime it works, but somehow I can't see it working in the current situation. We'll have to see though.

In defense of the McCain campaign's strategy - they have got no other option at this point. After such a long campaign my impression is that McCain lacks the discipline and determination to win. Instead of sticking to a strategy and just sticking to few cornerstone positions, he has relied heavily on gamble moves.

On the original subject of the thread I'm finally convinced that Sarah Palin was a desperate gamble, but they failed in executing it properly. She was a terrible pick and McCain will lose partly because of it. If he had picked Romney the race may have been a lot closer today.

Hi All,

I'd think there might be another good reason to keep Mrs Palin under tight control, and it's not because there's a fear of her being ignorant on some important issues. Actually, this reason's a fair bit worse, and would also be a liability if true.

Recently, when asked what she read, Mrs Palin seemed to draw a blank. Now really, you think that was because she doesn't read anything? No papers or publications of any kind? Or maybe you think she just panicked and couldn't come up with even one name? Well, it's a stretch.

How about she clammed up because she DOES subscribe to numerous publications, but thought it smarter not mention any. She was told not to bring anything up that could put her in a bad light, and possibly that's the reason she came up answerless. Now THAT makes more sense than her not reading anything at all, which was how she came out looking. Be interesting to get a list of magazine subscriptions and other material paid for by Mrs Palin herself.

So, that other reason for the lack of access might be because what her handlers are afraid will come out of the darkness. They may be spooked to let her say what she REALLY thinks, rather than what she's been told to say.

Nah........I'm probably just being paranoid............that darned politics will do that to me........heh.

Martin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Thats why sites have moderators. If the moderator is doing his job a situation like that should never have happened and rest assured it never would on this site.

---

Hi there,

You know, that's exactly right about the mods keeping on top of things. I shoulda mentioned that part of the story, but wanted to kinda keep things short (not likely). Yeah, the mods screwed up on that site, but it wasn't their fault really. They were looking for guidance from the owner, and he couldn't do what needed to be done. That included not banning numerous members (some of which were his friends) and not making other hard decisions, and the mods always take their cue from the top. The owner sets the tone in every forum I've ever participated in.

Hehe, I said some things to the owner that I thought might really **** him off........trying to get him off that damned fence. Didn't do a bit of good, which was a shame. The forum used to be.........it was a fun place to post in and read others comments as well. There were a LOT of smart, witty people, with plenty of banter going on between members. Sigh........I love banter, especially live chat. Nothing like schmoozing with some people who I like and who also make me laugh.

Ok, I'm done,
Martin

Just listening to her rally in Greenville NC, the rallies remind me of the Hitler rallies, not saying that she is Hitler (nor anything like that), but the crowd is worked up in such a fervor, I can't say that I've seen any politically rally in recent times like these. They respond to her half truths and lies like a pack of hungry lions, if the let Obama in there I'd swear that they would tear him limb from limb. The real problem is she's preaching to the choir, and I don't think it plays well with undecided moderates and independents, which they need to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hutch

I can't say that I've seen any politically rally in recent times like these.

---

You must not have watched the DNC convention

Oh I did, it's nothing like the live rally that I'm still listening to, not even close. It makes, McCain and Obama rallies sound like high tea. You'd think she was running for President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

You must not have watched the DNC convention

---

What, the DNC had shouts of "Kill him!!"? I must have missed that. That, and where they started shouting racial epithets at the TV crew's sound man.

As far as competing negative associations are concerned, it's not so much about that as it is about hypocracy. The Repugs have that market cornered. For them to try to build up a less-than-casual association Obama had with a '60s radical, decades after his radical activities, when Palin had numerous recent and profoundly disturbing ties herself shows not only an unprecedented level of hypocracy, but a cynicism about this country and a lack of judgement that frankly blow my mind.

j

hmm, I'll have to listen to this greenville rally, it must be quite a spectacle!

You guys are just slinging stuff against the wall in hopes that something sticks! Can we get back to more reasoned conversation?

I was appalled at how she dug herself in to not answer the reading question.
The way I interpret this is that it was very unexpected for her and she couldn't immediately appreciate the political consequences. She wants to be liked by everybody, but that's only possible if she can pander to that group and then that other group separately. Revealing something real about herself will pin her down and inevitably she's becoming very vulnerable. If she picks only conservative media she'll come out as too narrow minded to be in national politics. If she picks more diverse media she'll puzzle the core electorate she panders to, and God forbid some people may think she could be elitist.

The mention of NYT in her speech last weekend drew a lot of boos.

I do hope she reads New York Times, or at least has somebody on her staff read it and brief her on any important issues. After all it's the newspaper with the third largest circulation in US.

In any case Americans in general still know very very little about her and who she really is. Everything we've seen has been either the campaign narrative, or the opposition research. There are some interviews from before she was in the spotlight, but they seem to fly under the radar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hutch

Just listening to her rally in Greenville NC, the rallies remind me of the Hitler rallies, not saying that she is Hitler (nor anything like that), but the crowd is worked up in such a fervor, I can't say that I've seen any politically rally in recent times like these. They respond to her half truths and lies like a pack of hungry lions, if the let Obama in there I'd swear that they would tear him limb from limb. The real problem is she's preaching to the choir, and I don't think it plays well with undecided moderates and independents, which they need to win.

---

Hi Hutch,

Yeah, I agree she's playing to a certain type of audience. Hehe, let me just mention my thoughts of the recent GOP convention. I know it's been a while, but a basic theme sticks in my mind.

It looked to me like the audience coulda been at home in multiple other venues. The energy, coupled with the unwavering belief in what was being fed them, reminded me of a few things. I could easily see these people in places such as:

The Jerry Springer Show
'Professional' Wrestling Matches
Old Timey Revival Meetins

I'm sure I left a few out, but you get the idea. Now keep in mind I'm being serious.......that convention's audience (base) had bits of all those on that list.

Am I wrong, but is THAT the group who Mrs Palin is playing to? Pretty revealing if that's the case. Now sure, I'm NOT saying all Republicans are like that.........not at all. Please know I certainly understand there's some very very smart people in that party as well. Hehe, it's just I don't think they'd go along the way the faithful and unquestioning base would on some issues.

Yeah, thank's for the observation Hutch,
Martin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

You guys are just slinging stuff against the wall in hopes that something sticks! Can we get back to more reasoned conversation?

---

Well, you are still to tell us your reasoning on the subject. Please show us how it's done.

You think the Republicans would support US musicians at the Sarah Palin Rally, no they play Tom Cochrane and Shania Twain. So much for supporting jobs in the US.

:confused::confused::confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, you are still to tell us your reasoning on the subject. Please show us how it's done.

---

For accuracy's sake the "kill him" , "sit down, boy" and other racial slurs, were from a rally in Florida, Clearwater, I believe, they were not at the Greenville Rally.

You know you've gone overboard when Carl Rove says that you have, he's far from a moderate voice.

Hi All,

Here's an older song I've always liked, but it kinda takes on a new meaning now. I'm sure most of you have heard it before, and I included the video with the words on the screen. Yeah, the words are what makes this a bit special.

Seems like this thread's as good a place as any to post the thing, and I hope a few members enjoy it. The song's done by Blues Traveler, and is called 'Hook'. Yeah, as in hooking someone in.
Martin




YouTube - Blues Traveler - Hook

Thanks Martin, very appropo. Truly loved the accapella version, those kids were awesome!:tu

Hi All,

Since the election's in just a couple days, I figured these few opinions should be included. It was so sad seeing Mrs Palin's lack of support here........not one Republican could come to the poor woman's defense. Well, maybe I can fix that.

I'll include a few links to people who have no problem writing about the many virtues this lady has to offer. I'm shocked to find myself posting these, but I DO want to be fair in making my decision. Yeah, there's always two sides to every story,and it's only right I include the Republican opinion.

You know, this is a great site that I'm steering y'all to. I shoulda gone to this source much earlier for help in a Palin defense. These people seem nice..........

Yeah, this place was in the news a couple weeks ago........maybe a few of you remember the deal? It had to do with the founder's son (his endorsement for President), if that helps. I think many of you will enjoy these two articles. I know I certainly found them a good read.
Martin

Sarah Shows the Way by Michelle Easton on National Review Online


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2Y2NTNjMWIwYjI5MTUxNjliMTIwNDdmYzJiODk3Zjk


Oh.......Sarcasm disclaimer is in effect.

Michelle Easton is the worst kind of person, because she knows it's all BS, but she knows that the stupid will buy this BS and vote for it. The conservatives have figured it out, many Americans like stupid, they feel inadequate to smart people, they crave someone "just like me", I fear this attitude is only getting worse. There might be one silver lining in this cloud, the "policy conservatives" might finally separate themselves from the "cultural conservatives". The Conservative party at the moment is perfidious, they are the embodiment of the Id (and thats not intelligent design).

Give me a break, comparing Sarah Palin to Kennedy and Regan. "She got there on her accomplishments", right a mayor of a small town and the governor of a state that doesn't have the population of most big cities. There are millions of women that are smart and have accomplished way more than Sarah Palin. I really hope this is the last we have heard of Sarah Palin, but I fear not.

She's "A Happy American Warrior", personally I think the description of Hateful, Ignorant, Shrill Shrew is a more accurate description. Watch her she only looks happy while she's spewing venom, she looks miserable while talking about policy.