Why The Hate for Sarah Palin?

PALIN CABINETI have been trying to go back and read some of the comments that I missed while I was on vacation. One thing that struck me was the hatred some espoused for Sarah Palin. I was literally reading it and saying to myself, “What the hell is this all about?” I understand she is a conservative. But it seems that the left has really strong hate for this woman. And I simply cannot figure out why. I mean, I have read all the same stuff. I have followed politics quite closely since well before she even entered politics. And I simply cannot figure out why the left hates her so much. She isn’t like Pelosi, who makes statements and pushes partisanship so blatantly and who is so far in left field that a ball that rolls to her has already long left the park. So I can’t figure it out. So I am going to talk a bit about Sarah, and maybe some of you on the left can help me understand your hatred for a woman who seems normal to me.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t question your right to dislike the woman. I wouldn’t expect you to conform to my ideals any more than you can expect me to give up my hatred for Nancy Pelosi. I just don’t understand the dislike for Palin. I know that whatever political shirt color you choose to wear has an influence. Republicans don’t like Democrats and vice versa. But the unadulterated hate for Palin seems to go beyond that. It goes at least as far as the hatred for Pelosi, and from what I can see, goes much further. I understand not liking the other shirt color, but why does this reach another level for a woman that really doesn’t seem to me to have accomplished nearly enough for the left to despise her.

Palin Talking AlaskaHer history in politics prior to being selected to be the VP candidate for McCain (from Wiki): Palin was a member of the Wasilla, Alaska (population almost 10k, about the size of my hometown when I left), city council from 1992 to 1996 and the city’s mayor from 1996 to 2002. After an unsuccessful campaign for Lieutenant Governor of Alaska in 2002, she chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commissionfrom 2003 until her resignation in 2004. She was elected Governor of Alaska in November 2006. Palin is the first female governor of Alaska and the youngest person elected governor of that state. On July 3, 2009, Palin announced that she will not be a candidate for reelection in 2010 and that she would resign the Office of Governor effective July 26, 2009.

Let’s look at her “platform”:

Actually Yes You Can Make This Up...More Attacks from the Left

Actually Yes You Can Make This Up...This was a doctored fake photo of her

She hails from the “pro-life”, anti-abortion, whatever you want to call it camp. Big deal. Half of America hails from that camp it should be noted. So what makes her different? Because she believes that abstinence should be taught in high schools? Asked about her thoughts on Roe V. Wade she replied “I think it should be a states’ issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I’m, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, it’s no secret that I’m pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that’s what I would like to see further embraced by America.” That doesn’t seem so much more radical than any other Christian stance I have heard. As a christian she dislikes abortion and would like to see it eliminated, but wants to see the states have the power to make the law on this issue. So what is to hate there? Or is it that people just love the idea of a christian who espouses abstinence had a teenage daughter who made the mistake of getting pregnant?

She doesn’t favor gun control, but does favor (and signed a bill saying so) education for young people who are going to carry or use guns. Doesn’t seem that radical to me, even when compared to many other pro-gun groups out there. Heck, even I am more radical than she is when I state people should be able to have any weapon they like and be punished only when they use it illegally. Her quote on this issue: “I am a lifetime member of the NRA, I support our Constitutional right to bear arms and am a proponent of gun safety programs for Alaska’s youth.”

Palin Simulator GunShe hasn’t worked to ban books, despite what the left claims about her. The most that has been leveled at her is that she asked the question of a librarian how she would react to some books being banned. A claim from a librarian who she was obviously at odds with. But she never named a single book to be considered for banning, or removed a single book, or even asked for one to be removed. The list of books she wanted banned that circulated on the internet included Harry Potter, which hadn’t even been written when she was accused of trying to ban it. So the book banning thing was a completely made up lie meant to damage her reputation.

She is against national health care (joining 52% of Americans currently according to Rasmussen). She has stated that doctors should run health care, not bureaucracies. She has argued for ensuring that regulations in place do not reduce the competition that would drive the costs of health care down. She has espoused personal responsibility for one’s own health and fitness.

She is against cap and trade. She made that clear with her op ed piece last week which correctly pointed out that the costs of cap and trade for Americans will be too steep. She didn’t claim to be an expert, just offered her opinion, which brought out the attack dogs who tried to tear her opinion apart as if doing so proves cap and trade to be right. She supported creationism being discussed in schools, which is not some radical statement. She did not, again despite claims from the left, attempt to force creationism to be taught in the public schools in Alaska. She does support the idea of intelligent design being added to the curriculum, but also 100% supports that evolution should also be taught.

She is for making the path to citizenship easier for potential immigrants but against amnesty for those who came here illegally, breaking our laws to do so. She never supported Pat Buchanan for President, despite claims to the contrary.

Palin WinkingShe isn’t dumb. The left has done their level best to paint her that way. I have heard a thousand times that Palin thinks there are 57 states! People don’t even seem to realize that it was Obama who made that mistaken comment, which I certainly don’t hold against him. A mix-up and nothing more. The whole “she didn’t know that Africa was a continent” thing was proven to be a hoax and even trashy MSNBC was forced to do a retraction on that story.

She was a whistle-blower on corruption with the Alaska government, and sought to eliminate ethics breaches in government. She campaigned on having a clean government and by all accounts (other than the lies that the left is spreading around) did so. The biggest claim that I have heard thus far is that she is a liar. Ray yesterday posted the Andrew Sullivan piece on her “12 biggest lies”. So I did a little research of my own, without the bias… Here is how I see those things:

-She has lied about the Bridge To Nowhere. She ran for office favoring it, wore a sweatshirt defending it, and only gave it up when the federal congress, Senator McCain in particular, went ballistic. She kept the money anyway and favors funding Don Young’s Way, at twice the cost of the original bridge. OK, start here… In an era of 9000+ earmarks being attached to an “emergency spending bill”, liberals hate her because she supported a bridge, dropped support when costs became difficult to nail down, and still supports a different bridge. This is really grasping at straws for a reason to hate her.

Another Liberal Attack... Imagine if someone had done this with Obama's image

Another Liberal Attack... Imagine if someone had done this with Obama's image

– She has lied about her firing of the town librarian and police chief of Wasilla, Alaska. She claimed, when called at home, that she planned to meet with them the next day and that they had thus far not actually been fired. The “evidence” to disprove this is that the police chief had a letter stating that she intends to fire him. Not that he is fired yet, but that she intends to fire him. Sounds like she was telling the truth to me. And for the record she revoked the firing of the librarian a couple of days later when people of the town expressed unhappiness with the decision.

– She has lied about pressure on Alaska’s public safety commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law. The State Personnel Board (SPB) reviewed the matter at Palin’s request. On September 15, the Anchorage law firm of Clapp, Peterson, Van Flein, Tiemessen & Thorsness filed arguments of “no probable cause” with the SPB on behalf of Palin. The SPB hired independent counsel Timothy Petumenos as an investigator. On October 24, Palin gave three hours of depositions with the Board in St. Louis, Missouri. On November 3, Petumenos found that there was no probable cause to believe Palin or any other state official had violated state ethical standards. So I guess she didn’t lie. But don’t let facts like these get in the way of hatred for her.

A Girl that can Hunt... Hell Yeah!

A Girl that can Hunt... Hell Yeah!

– She has lied about her previous statements on climate change. Alrighty then, the claim is that she lied when she said “I think you are a cynic because show me where I have ever said that there’s absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change.” and the proof was that she was quoted saying “I’m not a doom and gloom environmentalist like Al Gore blaming the changes in our climate on human activity.” I don’t see the lie here. The 2nd statement does not show her lying in the first. Saying that she is not doom and gloom like Gore is not the same as saying man has nothing to do with anything.

– She has lied about Alaska’s contribution to America’s oil and gas production. She said in a speech that Alaska contributes 20% of the oil and gas America contributes. Alaska contributed 18% at one point. So her “lie” was that she rounded up and didn’t have the most recent figures. Again… really stretching here.

– She has lied about when she asked her daughters for their permission for her to run for vice-president. Again we are stretching here. She said she asked her daughters for a vote on whether she should take it. Her husband remembers it differently. My wife remembers the conversations and timelines differently on nearly everything we talk about more than a month ago. So now we are counting this as a massive lie?

– She has lied about the actual progress in constructing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska. According to Ray’s source she stated in the convention speech that “And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence,” and in a subsequent press conference “that the state had finally obtained a commitment to build the pipeline.” I don’t see anything in her two speeches that say anything more than this and the proof that she lied is that the pipeline only exists thus far on paper? She didn’t claim otherwise. After talking with some state officials later she said in a speech, “We’re not turning dirt yet.” on that project. Again, this seems to be really stretching for a reason to call her a liar.

– She has lied about Obama’s position on habeas corpus. “In her convention speech she said, “Al Qeada terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and [Obama is] worried that someone won’t read them their rights.” when in actuality he was not, but was instead worried about whether they had the right to challenge their being held in a court of law. With all the lies told by all 4 candidates about opponents positions, this is the best they could come up with? And this is a reason to hate her so much?

Palin Calender– She has lied about her alleged tolerance of homosexuality. When asked whether she thinks homosexuality is genetic or learned she replied, “Oh, I don’t — I don’t know, but I’m not one to judge and, you know, I’m from a family and from a community with many, many members of many diverse backgrounds and I’m not going to judge someone on whether they believe that homosexuality is a choice or genetic. I’m not going to judge them.” The “proof” offered that this was a lie is that the church she attended for 6 years sponsored a conference to turn gay people straight using religion. If only liberals applied these same harsh standards to a person who goes to a church for 20 years with a pastor who screams “God Damn America”.

– She has lied about the use or non-use of a TelePrompter at the St Paul convention. She claimed that the teleprompter broke at one point and she just “winged it”. One McCain/Palin spokesperson said this was a lie and another said this was true. Doesn’t seem to be any proof of a lie here, just conflicting versions from two different people.

– She has lied about her alleged pay-cut as mayor of Wasilla. She said, “As mayor I took a voluntary pay cut, which didn’t thrill my husband; and then as governor I cut the personal chef position from the budget, and that didn’t thrill my hungry kids.” The offered “proof” that she lied is “As a Council member she voted against hiking the mayor’s salary from $64,000 to $68,000, but it passed anyway. When she came in as mayor, she passed the ordinance which brought her salary down to $61,200. But that may not actually have taken effect, and Council-mandated raises brought her actual salary up to $68,000.” OK, are liberals really this petty? She voted against a pay raise. When she got into office she DID lower her salary to $61.2k, and then the council (not her) mandated raises that put her back to $68k.

She's Blowin That Straight to You Ray!

She's Blowin That Straight to You Ray!

– She has lied about what Alaska’s state scientists concluded about the health of the polar bear population in Alaska. Clicking the link offered here took me back to the pay raise thing again, so I can’t dispute this “lie” as I don’t know what they are talking about.

So these are the 12 “lies” that Sarah Palin is responsible for that liberals hate her so much for. Suppose for a minute that these 12 things were all really lies. There are more lies than this told at every lunch table where a member of Congress sits down to eat. In a world where we are all well aware that politicians are the most dishonest group of people on the planet, I find it fascinating that these stupid subjects and the claims that they are the horrendous lies of Sarah Palin are the reason for the hatred liberals have for her.

It seems to me that Sarah Palin has been fairly honest and ethical during her time as the Governor of Alaska. She owned up to things she was corrected on. And take every lie that she has ever told and they don’t come close to Obama claiming during the campaign that 95% of Americans won’t see a dime of increase in their taxes.

As of tonight there have been 20 ethics violation suits filed against her. 25% of those were filed by a single person who obviously has nothing better to do. She has been exonerated in every one of these that has come to conclusion. It seems to me that these claims are nothing more than members of the left filing as much as possible and hoping to find one that sticks somehow. They have to get some real dirt on Palin before she turns too many people away from the dark side.

The "Classy" Left's take on Palin

The "Classy" Left's take on Palin

Sarah Palin seems to me to be a good person. She is not a member of the boys club in DC. She relates to people from the middle class, which is something that no other candidate in the races remotely does. She is an everyday person, believes in her faith, and pays her taxes (which is more than we can say for half of Obama’s appointments).

So why does the left hate her so much?

My only guess is that she scares the ever-lovin shit out of the left. She relates to people, she is well spoken, attractive, and ethical. I can’t find any other explanation than this. And they should be scared of her. She is a regular person with the possibility of breaking into the good ol boys club. The last thing that the left wants is a middle class woman standing up there and making sense. It would ruin their claim that the GOP is nothing but old rich white men.

I don’t think she is ready to be President. She certainly wasn’t any less ready to be Vice President than the joke that we ended up with. She hasn’t made statements nearly as offensive as good old Joe does on a regular basis.

So what gives? Why so much hate for Palin? She doesn’t seem nearly as smarmy as 99% of today’s politicians. And putting her “lies” up against a list of things Obama has said would make her seem like a saint. I just don’t understand why you hate her so much, unless it is just as I stated above…. fear.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Cyndi P says:

    The reason the Left hates Sarah Palin: She is everything they will never be.

    Need I say more?

    • tjbbpgobIII says:

      Cyndi P, IMHO that is the same reason so many on the right dislike her also. They seem to be afraid of an honest person with true conservative values that I (an you too, obviously) hold dear.

  2. I agree that she is the epitome of the all American woman, the girl next door (in the good way), and the left hates that she has morals and beliefs that they disagree with.
    BTW, wb USW. I am still wandering around the UK for another week or so.
    Willo

  3. I thought this horse was beaten enough this week.

    • I thought so as well, Edward, but I am not so sure now. It will be interesting to see responses today because I think it is different. Saw your post below and it is interesting but will wait to respond to it because it is not the topic today. I am sure that USW will note it and bring it up.

      Have a great day.

      D13

  4. All;

    palin is pretty much everything USW says she is, although I wonder about things in the closet; as she seems almost to good to be true. If she is what she appears to be then she is a real example of the common citizen residing in the US. That I believe is the sole reason the Left hates her so much.

    The Left fears her and is doing everything they can to discredit her early, in order to minimize her public appeal. They are doing this because they fear her, but more importantly. what she represents; that ‘common’ public which is slowly waking up. She is a candidate that those ‘common’ folks can get on board with.

    The Left is working to destroy her before she can climb the latter and become a real threat.

    CM

    • CM…I think that you may be correct (see my post below). I think it is not Palin so much as it is that she represents the middle class and this is a threat to the power base, as USW so eloquently said….the “good ‘ol boys and girls” in DC. I really think the left fears that she is a representative of the “silent majority” that I think is out there and I really think that this is a huge untapped voter base that is getting riled slowly but surely. Time will tell but I see and hear a lot of normally very quiet people now beginning to say things and get involved. Interesting to see what happens.

      Good day to you.

      D13

  5. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hi all,

    Sarah Palin is a “normal” person…The left is scared to death of that. She appeals to a great many people who consider themselves normal too.

    Regards,
    RS

    • Now now, Richmond….is there ANYTHING normal about a person whom aspires to politics? Jus’ teasing with you…see post #10.

      D13

  6. Murphy's Law says:

    Thanks, USW, for the time spent researching, breathing much-needed fresh air into the stinking rhetoric of the political left’s twisting of truth, and therefore providing the counterpoint to the Palin hatred expressed by a few on this blog.

  7. Kristian Stout says:

    I’m really hoping to hear from Ray on this as this is a question that I have asked him and not been answered. I don’t understand the disgust that is felt by the left for Mrs. Palin. It isn’t just hatred, it’s disgust. Almost as though she is a big pile of doo that they have stepped in. It makes no sense to me but then I am a narccistic(sp?)conservative woman…lol.

    • Oh, you will hear from Ray. Just have your suit of armor standing in the corner. He will not pass this one up at all. But, I like Ray…hear him out and then think about it. He and I do not agree on a lot but we can do so with honor and respect. I always tell him he has a right to be wrong….LOL. He knows I am teasing on this as well. But, rest easy, you will hear from him.

      D13

      • Kristian Stout says:

        I have listened to Ray and he is a very smart man, no doubt. I just can’t understand the hatred that he feels for Palin. I’d like to understand I just keep getting turned off by the hatred that is being spewed.

  8. Way off topic but I saw this and really liked the concise summary of the real data of unemployment and the economy. Plus I think the whole Sarah Palin discussion is quite pointless and doesn’t serve anything. MSM is out for MSM and libs.

    Nine Reasons the Economy is Not Getting Better
    By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
    On Wednesday July 15, 2009, 12:09 pm EDT

    We are now looking at unemployment numbers that undermine any confidence that we might be nearing the bottom of the recession. The appropriate metaphor is not the green shoots of new growth. A better image is to look at the true total of jobless people as a prudent navigator looks at an iceberg.
    What we see on the surface is disconcerting enough. The estimate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of job losses for June is 467,000. That increases by 7.2 million the number of unemployed since the start of the recession. The cumulative job losses over the past six months have been greater than for any other half-year period since World War II, including demobilization. What’s more, the job losses are now equal to the net job gains over the previous nine years, making this the only recession since the Great Depression to wipe out all employment growth from the previous business cycle.
    That’s bad enough. But here are nine reasons we are in even more trouble than the 9.5 percent unemployment rate indicates.
    One. June’s total included 185,000 people who were assumed to be at work, many of whom probably were not. The government could not identify them; it made an assumption about trends. But many of the mythical jobs are in industries that have absolutely no job creation: finance, for example. When the official numbers are adjusted over the next several months, look to some of the 185,000 boosting the unemployment totals.
    Two. More companies are asking employees to take unpaid leave. These people don’t count on the unemployment roll.
    Three. No fewer than 1.4 million people wanted or were available for work in the past 12 months. They were not counted. Why? Because they hadn’t searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey. The assumption is that they had found work or don’t want it, but there are other explanations: school attendance, family responsibilities, sheer exhaustion.
    Four. The number of workers taking part-time jobs because of the slack economy, a kind of stealth underemployment, has doubled in this recession to about 9 million, or 5.8 percent of the workforce. Add those whose hours have been cut to those who cannot find a full-time job, and the total of unemployed and underemployed rises to 16.5 percent, putting the number of involuntarily idle workers in the range of an overwhelming 25 million.
    Five. The inside numbers are just as bad. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory private-sector employees, around 80 percent of the workforce, dropped to 33 hours. That’s 48 minutes a week less than before the recession began, the lowest level of activity since the government began tracking such data 45 years ago. Full-time workers are being downgraded to part time as businesses slash labor costs to remain above water and factories operate at only 65 percent of capacity. If American workers were still putting in those extra 48 minutes a week now, 3.3 million fewer employees could perform the same aggregate amount of work. With a longer workweek, the unemployment rate would reach 11.7 percent, not the official 9.5 percent (which in turn dramatically exceeds the 8 percent rate projected by the Obama administration).
    Six. The average length of official unemployment increased to 24.5 weeks. This is the longest term since the government started to track these data in 1948. The number of long-term unemployed (those out of a job for 27 weeks or more) has now jumped to 4.4 million, an all-time high.
    Seven. The average worker saw no wage gains in June, with average compensation running flat at $18.53 an hour.
    Eight. The jobs report is even uglier when you consider that the sector producing goods is losing the most jobs–223,000 in the last report alone.
    Nine. The prospects for job creation are equally distressing. The likelihood is that when economic activity picks up, employers will first choose to increase hours for existing workers and bring part-time workers to full-time status.
    Many unemployed workers looking for jobs once the recovery begins will discover that jobs as good as the ones they lost are almost impossible to find because more layoffs in this recession have been permanent and not temporary. Instead of shrinking operations, companies have closed whole business units or made sweeping structural changes in the way they conduct their business. For example, General Motors and Chrysler shut down hundreds of dealerships and reduced brands; Citigroup and Bank of America cut tens of thousands of jobs and exited many parts of the world of finance. In other words, we could face a very low upswing in terms of the creation of new jobs, and we may be facing a much higher level of joblessness on an ongoing basis. Job losses may last well into 2010 to hit an unemployment peak close to 11 percent. And then joblessness may be sustained for an extended period.
    Can we find comfort in knowing that employment has long been considered a lagging indicator? It is conventionally seen as having limited predictive power because employment reflects decisions taken earlier in the business cycle. But today is different. Unemployment has doubled from 4.8 to 9.5 percent in just 16 months, a record rate so fast it may influence future economic behaviors and outlooks. Bear in mind that the lackluster increase in inventories suggests that there’s little prospect in the pipeline of real growth in consumption, investment, and exports. So the terrible state of the labor market is likely to be a strong head wind against consumer spending for a long time as wages and overall income growth are decelerating and households, within a fairly short period, will have received their full portion of the stimulus package.
    How could this happen when Washington has thrown trillions of dollars into the pot, including the famous $787 billion in spending that was supposed to yield $1.50 in growth for every dollar spent? For a start, too much of the money went to transfer payments–Medicaid, jobless benefits, and the like–that do nothing for jobs and growth. The spending that creates new jobs is new spending, particularly on infrastructure. It amounts to less than 10 percent of the stimulus package today.
    Second, the stimulus package may have been well intentioned, but it was too small and too badly constructed to get money into the economy fast enough to replace lost consumer and business spending and to slow unemployment. Workers’ pessimism is justified: About 40 percent believe the recession will continue for another full year. As paychecks shrink and disappear, consumers are more hesitant to spend and won’t lead the economy out of the doldrums quickly enough.
    It may have made him unpopular in parts of the Obama administration, but Vice President Joe Biden told it as it is when he said the administration misread how bad the economy was. The administration inherited the problem, but then it failed to understand how ineffective its solution would be. The program was supposed to be about jobs, jobs, and jobs. It wasn’t. The recovery act may have been a single piece of legislation, but it included thousands of funding schemes for tens of thousands of projects, and those programs are stuck in the bureaucracy as the government releases the funds with typical inefficiency.
    An additional $150 billion, which was allocated to state coffers so as to continue existing programs like Medicaid, did not add new jobs. Hundreds of billions of dollars were set aside for tax cuts and for new benefits for the poor and the unemployed, and that did not add new jobs. Now state budgets are drowning in red ink as jobless claims and Medicaid bills climb.
    Next year, state budgets will have depleted their initial rescue dollars. Absent another rescue plan, they will have no choice but to slash spending or raise taxes, or both. The complete state and local government sector, which makes up about 15 percent of the economy, is beginning the worst contraction in postwar history in the face of a deficit gap of $166 billion for fiscal year 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and a cumulative gap of $350 billion in fiscal year 2011.
    Similarly, households overburdened with historic levels of debt will be saving more. The savings rate has already jumped from zero in 2007 to almost 7 percent of after-tax income now, and it is still rising. Every dollar of saving comes out of consumption. Because consumer spending is the economy’s main driver, we are going to have a weak consumer sector, and many businesses simply won’t have the means or the need to hire employees. In the aftermath of the 1990-1991 recession, Americans bought houses, cars, and other expensive goods. This time, the combination of a weak job picture and a severe credit crunch means that people won’t be able to get the financing for big expenditures, and those who can borrow will be reluctant to do so.
    In recent times, Americans found myriad ways to fuel spending, even as incomes stagnated: borrowing against the once rising price of their homes and tapping plentiful credit cards. No longer. The paycheck has returned as the primary source of spending, and pay is eroding even for those who have jobs. This process is nowhere near complete, and, until it is, the economy will barely grow, if at all, and may well oscillate between sluggish growth and modest decline for the next several years until the rebalancing of the excessive debt has been completed. Until then, the private economy will be deprived of adequate profits and cash flow, and businesses will not start to hire. Nor will they race to make capital expenditures when they have vast idle capacity.
    In other words, there are many more reasons today to expect the downturn to continue than to expect a turnaround. Consumer spending and residential investment could be even weaker than most estimates, and, as the level of fiscal stimulus begins its decline in the second half of 2010, we may be facing an even more difficult future.
    No wonder poll after poll shows a steady erosion of confidence in the stimulus measures. One survey even showed 45 percent believe the limited results suggest they should simply be abandoned midway. The disappointment is understandable–but that would only make things worse. So what kind of second-act stimulus program should we look for? This time, it should not be an excuse to pass a lot of programs like those in the first stimulus package that do not really have the kind of multiplier effect on job creation and on economic growth that was intended. In any event, given the trends, it is absolutely critical that the Obama administration not play politics with the issue but really begin to prepare a second stimulus program, so that if the economy does take a major downturn, it will be possible this time to provide much more rapid government support to infrastructure spending that will maximize the creation of jobs. The time to get ready is now.

    • I think Zuckerman is guilty of mixing varieties of apples to boost his claims of actual unemployment. It is correct that if you add the part time but looking for full time and those who have stopped looking you get 16.5%. A more accurate picture of what total unemployment looks like right now. But note that in a booming economy we probably wouldn’t view the part time workers as essentially unemployed because there would be jobs for them if they wanted.

      When he starts adding other things like reduced work week to unemployment numbers he is creating an hypothesis. One that may have solid footing but not in then using it to change the unemployment numbers. The methodology must remain constant over time for numbers to be meaningful.

      Now, his numerous other factors are correct in stating that the overall economy is much worse than publicly stated and the chance of a meaningful recovery is slim to none this year or next.

      Remember some time ago I warned that there were more potential home defaults still in the market place than had already occured. I shared with you the concern that we could see a small improvement in the economy this year and next and then the hammer will fall big time. And this was before the Massive federal spendathon got into swing. It has the potential to drive the whole thing into the ground.

      My own opinion is that until consumer savings hits around 10% we won’t see much change. The problem is that as incomes decline the savings targets, in real dollars not %, are harder to reach and in fact it may raise the target rate (%). Then comes inflation. Once it sets in, the consumer will raise the target rate to adjust for increased prices, at least initially. That is what happens when the memory of hard times are still fresh in our minds. We tend to be a little more squeaky when things start to get better. Thus a slower rate of spending and therefore recovery.

      • American companies I deal with have made permanent staff reductions. Taken full timers(40+hrs) to part time(32hrs) reducing customer service (RMA) hours in the process and in one case completely closed their American footprint to work from Richmond BC and Hull QC. Other companies we deal with from China who used to supply through a third party in America are now available to us directly. I could go one for hours about what’s changed in the distribution models for North America since just this January. In short there are a lot of distro deals which used to hamstring us here with a 20% addon which were negated by those distro houses being unable to fulfill their contracts and we’re not going back to that model (just so you know) when things finally get better in America. There’s a lot your media, Bloomberg included, never speaks a word of.

        • “There’s a lot your media, Bloomberg included, never speaks a word of”: Truer words were never spoken my dear cousin.

          We are going to find out that the world made fundamental changes without us, while we were wallowing in our self inflicted pain.

          The best to you
          JAC

  9. Robert C says:

    Good article. I think you nailed it, The
    left is plainly scared of her, and for good reason.
    Can’t wait to see what she does in the coming monthsto
    shake them up more.

  10. USW…I will, on this topic, back off and let the Libs respond to this. I thought George Bush was hated but I have never seen anything like this. I am not a Sarah Palin fan as yet but that could change simply because of the way that she is being vilified. In Texas, we still have a western mind set and protect our women…. all women, whether Texan or not. I said the same thing about Hillary Clinton. I do not like her but, more so, I did not like the personal attacks upon HER. Her policies and beliefs, yes, free game. But picking on her and Chelsea, I considered in very poor taste. Like you, I have done a little research (not much as yet) on Palin and I find so very little on her that I just do not understand. Our President has told waaaay more significant whoppers than she has and his are on record and have halos around them. There must be, in reality, no God for sure now because I do not believe that any God would put up with the competition. God better do something quick because ACORN will become the disciples and God will be out. But that is another story. Back to Palin.

    I will begin more research on her as I may be missing something. On the surface, I do not think that it is Palin, so much, as it is what she stands for that is bothering the left. The left should just leave her alone. The more they rail against her, the more that she will be supported. Obama proved that.

    One thing else that I see. This is becoming polarizing. Born in 1948, I have seen a lot on the political scene. I lived through the “social revolution” of the 60’s and 70’s. Even supported some of it. Much to my consternation, I was wrong. The social experiments that we undertook then are dismal failures today and we, the parents of the 60’s and 70’s children, are responsible for a generation of entitlement children. We have allowed all the incentive to be taken away to be great and aspire. I believe that the beliefs of Palin are threatening this entitlement mindset and she represents the true silent majority or middle America and that is a threat to a power base that has been around a long time. However, this is my first pass on this and I will sit back and enjoy the comments today.

    Have a bodacious day.

    D13

  11. I’m Canadian, and an outside observer. My mother grew up on a farm, got her hands dirty, hunted, fished, all that stuff. So Sarah Palin does not stand out as any kind of “frontier woman” or any other kind of image. Up here in Canada, snowmobiles, hockey moms, hunting is very normal and ordinary.
    Does the left hate Palin? Just as much as the right hates Obama. US politics is a weird animal, dominated by mud-slinging. More press and rhetoric is spent on personal attacks than actual discussion of issues and proposals for solving them. And the usual US voter is polarized, conditioned to believe that there are only two decisions, Republican or Democrat.
    I have observed that both sides are equally guilty of categorizing and heaping undeserved criticism upon the other. Just examine the outrage when that whacko entered the Jewish building and murdered the security guard. He was painted as a right-wing extremist, and many took exception that this nut job would be linked to them and their right-leaning views. But those same people go out and categorize anyone with sympathies to the left as all part of the socialist revolution, and traitors to the US Constitution.
    Ever since Obama was elected he has been at the receiving end of unending criticism and attacks. When anything goes wrong, he gets flamed for it. Just wander over to the FOX forum and just look. So why would the conditions be any different for Palin?
    Geez guys, the leader of the left, Obama gets crap each and every day from many on the right. So why are you surprised when they do to you what you have been doing to them?

    As long as the general public tolerates this unproductive mud-slinging in politics, it will always go on.

    And geez guys, get over the Letterman incident. Palin took her daughter out in public with her to a baseball game. That act exposed her daughter. Letterman screwed up, and was under the impression her elder daughter was with her. That’s all it was, a screw-up by an entertainer. If that’s all you have to offer, a very distorted and biased version of the true events, you’re desperately grasping at straws trying to paint Palin and her family as victims.

    • See post #10. I think most conservatives see it this way. Could be wrong but doubt it. You are correct in one thing. Personal attacks have always been a weapon in US politics to divert attention away from the issues. It sucks, and, as an American, I agree with this statement. As a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, (there are a lot of us) we do not agree with the vicious attacks on the children of EITHER candidate. Most feel as I do.

      I do not agree that taking the children to a ball game opens anything up on the child. I do not believe that Chelsea Clinton should have gotten the attention that she did. When you use a disabled child, as Palin did, as an example of not undertaking an abortion and you adopt the theory that since the child was brought up it is a fair target, is the most ludicrous and vile argument that can be made. It is the belief of Palin on abortion that should have been the target and not children. Forget Letterman…he was a distraction. Hell, no one liked him to start with. He got his fifteen minutes of fame opening his damn mouth.

      So, as a right leaning moderate…keep the children out of it….ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. We have far more problems of wanting to emulate other countries that are failed social experiments in health care, job protection, and non productive workers rights that are disincentives to individualism.

      However, thank you neighbor, for your post. You do, if anything, have a beautiful country up there. I do like to hunt and fish there.

      Have a great day.

      D13

    • Kristian Stout says:

      “Palin took her daughter to a baseball game” and I suppose that was all the reason that was needed to attack her daughter, because her mother took her to a baseball game. That is outrageous!

      • First off, any attack on a child is unconsciable. My meaning is that if a campaigning politician brings their children into the public spotlight .. FOR ANY REASON .. they are exposing that child to public scrutiny and whatever comments the media may inflict. Not that it is right, but that is what happens. If a responsible parent wish to properly protect their children from this kind of crap, then keep them out of the public spotlight. Good parenting is anticipating harm to their children and taking steps before any damage is done. Letterman is a jerk, but Palin brought her daughter into harm’s way.
        Kristian Stout, you have the right and are correct in expressing revulsion and indignation at this situation. But does the door swing the other way? Honestly, did you do anything when Chelsea was called a dog? What did you do? Did you vote Republican at that time?

        • Kristian Stout says:

          No, as a matter of fact I voted for Bill Clinton. I thought he did a damned fine job while he was the president. I thought it was wrong then and I think that it is wrong now. I’ve always been a registered republican, at least until this last election. I’m now a registered Independent. As far as doing anything when Chelsea was attacked? No, unfortunately I did not have the means to do anything but express my disgust as a mother that the media felt it necessary to attack a child because they didn’t like the father’s policies. It’s mean spirited and uncalled for no matter what party you side with.

        • v. Holland says:

          “If a responsible parent wish to properly protect their children from this kind of crap, then keep them out of the public spotlight.”

          I’m sorry-you still seem to be saying that although it’s wrong to do this type of attack-it is justified because knowing that the public can be jerks and still having the nerve to spend time with your children outside of your home makes you a bad parent and makes the attack your fault.

          • Let’s imagine a little scenario. You live in the woods, and unfortunately there has been a widespread rabies epidemic of all foxes. If you allow your child to run around all day outside, the odds of that child contracting rabies is high.
            You may not like the situation outside, but that is the harsh reality of what is lurking out there.
            So although the weather may be wonderful and your child wishes to go outside, a responsible parent takes into account the fox rabies threat, and protects the child.

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Hi Dave,

              Your scenario is extreme, but is true. It is up to parents to protect their children from wild animals that can do them harm. Not to do so would be considered neglect.

              In the “real” scenario being discussed though, would you consider it to be neglect to not allow children to lead as “normal” a life as possible such as ball games, amusement parks, restaurants, etc. IMHO, it is the responsibility of ALL adults to treat children with respect (no matter what their parents’ vocation is) because as a child, they are innocent bystanders.

              I do like your make-believe scenario because it reiterates in my head that our media/entertainers are indeed “rabid” and should be culled!

              Best regards and I hope you are having a wonderful day!

              Richmond Spitfire

              • v. Holland says:

                :rabid” lol-thank you for stating my feeling so eloquently.

              • And the same to you Spitfire. I wish you a very happy day.
                The current problem in this society is that celebrities are big news. And the children of those celebrities are themselves scrutinized by people who have no moral compass. To them, it’s really not about protecting children, but instead exploiting them for more ratings, or selling more newspapers. Sadly, many people follow this kind of news, enabling the whole sick process.
                I wish that each and every child had the real freedom of enjoying their youth, without enduring the trauma and scars of being attacked and picked apart by some media outlet. But the sad truth is that in public, children of celebrities are vunerable. It is not right, and definitely unfair to the child. But that’s what is happening now.
                So if you are a celebrity, how can you ensure your child (or children) can enjoy the real freedom of being children? Move to a quiet corner of France like Johnny Depp? Or use the resources of your position to erect a barrier between your children and the media like Mr Bush did? Whatever you do, you can’t just move into a house in Anywhere USA and not expect the press to descend upon your neighbourhood like a pack of vultures.
                As long as there is a market for tabloid-style journalism it will happen.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Hello again Dave!

                I fear that you are correct! It is truly disheartening that somewhere along the way “moral compass” has gone south.

                And Dave, you know as well as I, that the loss of “moral compass” is NOT only over politics. I see it everyday…on the road, at the grocery store, on You-Tube Videos, the TV, the Radio, on the phone, etc. Oh, I yearn for the days when people mostly respected each other.

                It drives me nuts to see a person “enjoy” another person’s misery or embarrassment or peccadillos.

                I do not know the answers to your questions, but I agree with you that until America starts seeing their “moral compass” pointing north and refuting the garbage, we’ll continue to see this sort of behavior from the media and so-called entertainment personalities.

                Thank you for the wishes of a good day!

                Regards,
                RS

    • v. Holland says:

      “As long as the general public tolerates this unproductive mud-slinging in politics, it will always go on.”

      The above statement is so true and it’s part of the reason why we end up with so many bad politicians, the good honest people either won’t run or quit because of the constant personal attacks.

      • Alan F. says:

        I’m just wondering when Jason Chaffetz is going to be accused of witchcraft?

        • v. Holland says:

          If your point is, that I may have overstated my feelings, I have to agree, I should have used one of those words like MOST. From the little I know about Mr. Chaffetz he seems like a good guy. Do you think he will become a leader of the party? Perhaps Presidential potential.

          • He’s the change you guys can believe in. A young guy talking sense while the old guard, on both sides of the isle, are busy clearing their throats and trying to look sentient when the lot of them clearly would be buying a vowel on a one letter word with “in the first person” for a clue.

    • DaveE,

      “And geez guys, get over the Letterman incident. Palin took her daughter out in public with her to a baseball game. That act exposed her daughter. Letterman screwed up, and was under the impression her elder daughter was with her.”

      How dare Palin go out in public with her daughter!!

      In your mind, should Palin put her children in a closet and push food under the door?

      His comment would have been inappropriate even if Palin’s older daughter was at the game.

      Garth
      Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral – but it ensures Paul’s vote

    • Dave E: I must add something here I think you are missing on the Letterman point.

      What is it that even created in Mr. Letterman’s mind that a joke, basically accusing the daughter of being a slut, A) was acceptable and B) would be accepted as funny?

      The rationalization is that he was talking about the older daughter. So what? The phsycology is the same. A girl who got pregnant with her high school sweetheart. Publicly ridiculed and the brunt of a joke by a major national comedian. Something is seriously wrong here.

      And shame on the right for sticking the “rape” angle on the joke immediately. It was obviously intended as a “slut” joke. The talking heads could have just stuck with that and been just as indignant. They damage their opposition by reaching beyond for even more outrageous comparisons. And quite frankly, I think the Palins allowed themselves to get sucked in with it all. The initial reaction was that the joke was inappropriate and disgusting. Nuff said. But then it escalated, and now we have a media circus. Just what the media wanted in the first place.

      Dave, while you are correct about the personal nature of American politics, I must say I have not seen the personal vitriol coming from the left since Goldwater ran for President. And it may even be worse than then. There is a venomous and vile nature to it all. It is more than just the attacks. Yes Mr. Obama undergoes those as well. It is this deep seated hatred that one feels when around folks who talk about this. I first saw it with Bush. It is growing worse and with Palin it almost seems personal.

      In closing, I think there is something more psychological going on here than political. Those who want to understand why Palin is hated need to only look to Joe the Plumber. The hatred is not personal, it is general in its nature. That is why in my view it is dangerous.

      Hope you are all having fun today.
      JAC

      • Hey JAC….whassup? I think you are quite right. It is not Palin. There is something more sinister at work, here. Palin is a distraction. From what? I think that I know but I am watching and observing. One thing for sure that is gospel….I am beginning to see a huge under current with my friends and acquaintances here. They, my democrat friends, and some very liberal ones, are saying that this is not the change I voted for. This is not what I envisioned. I see this building.

        D13

        • I am glad to here that, because it is the first sign required to being able to determine if there is in fact any hope of making real changes, the fundamental kind.

          Without them there simply aren’t enough to make a difference.

          And for the record, it has been my view that they needed to come to that on their own. Having others yelling at them about Mr. Obama wouldn’t get it done.

          The leftists are aware of this and that is why I think they are moving so quickly. Their choices were A) to go two steps up and one back. Like always, tiptoeing along pushing their “support” to the edge then backing away to rest. Or B) Run hard and fast and break down the wall before anyone could stop them. I think they chose B.

          A Big Sky day here Colonel, wish you were here to enjoy it.
          JAC

          • v. Holland says:

            I have some friends who don’t vote, who seem to be paying more attention now and I think they will vote in the coming elections and from what they say it won’t be for the democrats.

        • D13

          Could your theory be related to the idea of:

          What happens when the pent up progressives (where most of this vile hatred exists) realize Mr. Obama and Congress are not moving their agenda fast enough?

          Then what happens when they explode?

          Then what happens after the “what happens” actually happens?

          Who will be left?

          Something along those lines thinking are you?

          JAC

        • D13,

          I, too, think this sort of hatred is dangerous. It’s leading to something. I think I know what it is, but I hope I’m wrong. Now most folks will think I’ve finally gone off the deep end on this one, but here goes. I believe this is anti-white racism. The ultimate objective is a final solution similar to what the Nazi’s had in mind for the Jews. Whites have been demonized for years. Think about some of the comments non whites have made about whites in general. Even the president of Brazil blamed white skinned, blue eyed people for the economic meltdown. Obama refered to his own grandmother as ‘your typical white person’. Alcee Hastings is working on some interesting legislation. ( http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/two_bills_worth_close_scrutiny.html Read HR 2647). Look at the hate crimes laws. Conservatives are portrayed as racist, bigoted, and dangerous. I believe the Republican party at some point, will be declared a hate group, and outlawed. Then what? Will all Republicans be criminals and be imprisoned? Just about every white liberal I know, would support this. So what’s next? Will the assests of those criminals be confiscated and redistributed? Will those assets be enough? Will white liberals be targeted when they no longer serve their purpose? Am I insane to think this is where we could be heading? It happened in Nazi Germany. What’s to stop it from happening here?

        • Alan F. says:

          I told you guys when I first posted here Vegas has never seen so much smoke and mirrors. David Copperfield is green with envy over what president Obama just vanished, your country as you knew it.

      • Thank you JAC.
        First off, I do not watch Letterman, not do I have the time to stay up late at night. I work for a living. But from my impressions, Letterman made a sleazy, low-brow comment directed against Palin and her elder daughter. That’s all it was, a cheap shot by a sleazy cheap shot artist on the tail end of his career. But lo and behold, it was Palin’s younger daughter, and Palin and her handlers seized upon it to portray themselves as victims. And boy oh boy, did they run with that. Nationwide coverage, all over the news, talk about a cheap joke getting blown out of proportion.
        I too sense a growing polarization and personal antagonism between camps in the USA. I need to make a small explanation before I go further. Although 100% Canadian, I was named after one of your presidents (Dwight David Eisenhower). Whether you believe it or not, Canada is your closest ally and friend. When the terror of 911 was unfolding, that morning in Toronto every operating room was being cleared and all elective surgery cancelled in anticipation in treating any victims of this attack. We were there for you when you needed it. Scores of police, forefighters, and volunteers cancelled all plans and prepared to journey to New York to assist as much as they could.
        But what happened? A few days later when Mr Bush addressed the nation, he totally ignored Canada. I don’t know why, but he did. Trust me, it did not go unnoticed. When preparations were being made to invade Afghanistan, we were there from day one. And we are still in Afghanistan, fighting the fight, watching our soldiers die while cheap asshole entertainers like Greg Gutfeld disrespect our military. How would you like it if I started disrespecting your military personnel? I know the answer.
        Mr Bush tried to do a good job, but he alienated and polarized everyone around him. I’m sure everyone is aware of his mantra, “You’re either with me or against me”.
        Contributing to this division is the media. Entertainers are believed and almost worshipped. For instance, Rush Limbaugh inflames many, and motivates others. But he gets paid, not as someone who deals with politics and policy, but as an entertainer. As long as his ratings are good, there is no accountability. He can say whatever he wishes, and stir up controversy as much as he wants, because in the end, his ratings are good, and he gets his paycheck. As an entertainer. And if he further divides your great nation, what does he care? He will not be held accountable, as long as his ratings are good. But people listen to him, and many come away with an attitude that further divides your nation. Hint, the enemy is not within. The USA was famous for the fact that you guys bickered and disagreed at times, but always closed ranks and dealt with external threats as one. But no longer.
        Wonderful people, the youth of your great nation are being killed in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and what are people talking about? Palin’s daughter? A supreme court nominee? Someone needs to get their priorities straight.
        I used Mr Limbaugh only as an example. The problem is the media, who enjoy playing upon this division of political will. It makes for good ratings, and for them, that’s all that matters.
        Two days ago, July 14th, Russia test-launched a missile. It was an older platform (Delta IV boomer) refurbished and updated to launch the R-29RM Sineva missiles. Older missile, but with an improved delivery system. So what does that mean? The Russians are taking older, near-obsolete launch platforms, repairing and upgrading them to have the capability to launch a vastly improved and capable SLBM.
        India has just completed and are now moving towards field trials and commisionning of a nuclear powered sub with the capability to launch nuclear armed ballistic missiles. (the ATV submarine)
        As long as the media keep you divided and arguing over minor crap, the real threats that truly challenge the existence of the USA will be ignored until too late.

        • Dave E: You are dead on in so many ways.

          But I would like to fine tune a couple of points. First is the ““You’re either with me or against me””. I do believe it was “us” not “me” in that statement. And it wasn’t used as in the “us = USA only” but because of the already existing venom from the election it was quickly played that way. I honestly believe it was meant to be “us = those countries on the right side”. He did absolutely blow it my not naming Canada as a prime ally and supporter in everything after 9/11. That may have been more a reflection of the attitude by State dept but it was still a major oversight. That by the way, should have been Mr. Obama’s first apology.

          I think Bush was doomed from day one. The left and most of the Dems had no intention of ever letting his administration govern. The normal grace period following the election was never given. 9/11 only offered a short reprieve because his poll numbers went so high. Remember how quickly the left tried to portray him as a coward and idiot because he finished the book reading with those school kids? It didn’t stick right away, but they sure brought it back again later when his numbers started slipping.

          Again, while both sides slash and hack away at each other, it is only on the left that I have seen the deep, gut level hatred. At least so far. I see signs of it starting on the right now and that is troubling.

          I think your characterization of Limbaugh is off a little. I have listened carefully to him and others for years. I think about 90%+ of what he says is simply stating a strong foundation for his values and those who share them. The other 10% is the inflamatory rhetoric to emphasize the point or to get national attention to his arguments. I see much more intelligent design in his efforts and show than almost any other. I would say that Hannity comes closer to your analysis and of course the entire second tier fits the bill even more (Savage, et al). I don’t understand the attacks on Beck at all (not you, but others). He is on an entirely different path, one in fact that many here are on right now.

          For many years I wished our border be dissolved or at least made wide open. Now that we have proven ourselves unworthy of the gift of Liberty I do not wish such a calamity on my cousins to the north. Keep it tight until we get our act together. And for the record, this American would like to thank Canada for all it has done to support us when we have needed help.

          Now if we could just split off the east side of both from the rest! Sorry, just suffering a little nostalgia there for a minute.

          Keep your stick on the ice
          JAC

          • If you whack the east side from America will you please take GA with you? 😉

          • And for the record, this American would like to thank Canada for all it has done to support us when we have needed help.

            First off, I wish to reciprocate by thanking you. Each and every citizen of the USA.
            Bud, we’re all in the same boat. Anyone with any information can realize that whatever happens to the USA will happen to Canada. We share a common history, borders, and a lot of culture. If conditions improve in the USA, it will happen up here. And if the s–t hits the fan, we will get it too. Anyone who wishes misfortune on the USA does not realize that that same misfortune will migrate up here too.
            Just like good neighbours, we try to help each other.

        • v. Holland says:

          You are still justifying these types of attacks-it’s Palin’s fault because she brought attention to Letterman’s remarks, you make this statement without mentioning that there have been numerous such remarks made before this one, have you ever heard the saying,the one that broke the camels back. Ignoring the remarks certainly didn’t make the attacks against her children stop. At least by confronting them she was fighting for her children not just taking it, like a good little politician is supposed to do. Now that is change I can believe in!

    • DaveE, Quebec or BC?

      • Worse, and I honestly wish I had a job in either of those wonderful provinces. I have lived in both, but sadly, mournfully, painfully I have to admit .. Toronto, Ontario.

        • Alan F. says:

          Been to those two myself and my dad was 51 and 22 Division until his death so TO is no stranger here. After being in Sask for the last 28 years though, I’m not leaving even if I can afford BC.

      • Alan F. says:

        In other words lighten up. We’re just not that “heated”. Witty yes, heated no. Just head of to Timmy’s for a double-double, a cruller and if you’re me a 60 minute drive through he country to get there.

    • Additionally, I would like to point out that currently, Palin is the most visible Republican. The right throw crap at Obama, expect the left to respond. Who do they attack? Palin, the lightning rod. Most of what is left of the Republican party has disappeared, gone to ground, out of sight. Observed from a distance, the Republicans have not recovered from the election, and leadership is absent. Here in Canada we have specific leaders of political parties. Name a party, and we have an individual who represents them. But when you look at the Republican party, please name the individual who represents them and is their leader in action and policy. Because right now, Palin is the only one still standing.

      • Most of what is left of the Republican party has disappeared, gone to ground, out of sight.

        I keep seeing that opinion. But it’s primarily from the talking MSM heads that WANT that to be the truth. Consciously, but NOT conspiracly (sp) the MSM will do it’s level best to NOT give any one the time to espouse their views. They learned their lesson in 93-94 with Gingrich etal – ‘they’ talked down about them, but gave them the media time – and see what happened.

        They also don’t give Ron Paul the time that he should have also.

  12. For those of you who find this topic useless, try this link for a couple of things:

    Billboards for “No Religion”

    Video about girl arrested for swearing on a 911 call as her father lay on the floor having a seizure.

    http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html

    sorry i don’t know how to put in a link.

    • how nice, it did it automatically

    • v. Holland says:

      I guess the officer forgot that he was supposed to be the calm, respectful, and professional one and that he has a job that carries with it a life and death responsibilty, maybe he was having a bad day. They said he was a good officer but too not apoligize seems to say he doesn’t think he was wrong.

      • Ever notice when a cop or other govt official screws up there is always a rationalization for the behavior?

        Never just an apology or admission of being wrong.

        Government cannot admit it is wrong. Even at the lowest and most personal levels. It always rationalized in a way that allows it to continue existing.

        • JAC,

          You might rewatch the video. The police chief said this was wrong.

          In general you are right about government not admitting its guilt when it is wrong. Sometimes, tho, they will admit guilt when they are right (for political gain).

          Apologists – remind you of anyone

          GarthD

          Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral – But it assures Paul’s vote

          • My statement was meant as a “generalization” and not aimed at this particular.

            And yes, they will even use admission of wrong doing as a ploy at times.

            By the way, I don’t have as much heart burn over Mr. Obama’s apologies to foreigners. We owe them an apology. But most of all, we owe them and ourselves a major change in our behavior towards them.

            The problem is that he apologizes and then continues doing the same damn thing that caused him to apologize for.

            You are standing on the threshold of the promised land Garth. Do not turn back and remain consistent with your stated values.

            Hope all is well with you today
            JAC

            • Apology for what? All the US has done is look out for the the best interests of its citizens. We have absolutely NO obligation to ANY other country to put its interests before ours.

  13. I dont know why people/media attack her so much. I put under the file of you attack the one that you feel is the biggest threat.
    My thoughts on Palin are still out on recess. I want to she her do more first. Example- maybe run for AK senate or something.

    This is why I will not join womens groups. If you are in defense of women- it needs to be all women. Not ones that you feel will help later on.
    I have never like when the media and people take low blows on women in the public. Whether I agree with their ideas are not. It is usually done in poor taste. Example: Hilary’s daughter was asked several times that I saw about how she felt about her dad’s affair? Really? Or taking shots at Palins daughters.
    Truly a sad person who thinks that is fair game

  14. Okay, I guess I will get in on Palin.

    Link shows Palin will campaign for Gov Rick Perry of Texas as he battles Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for the governor position.

    http://www.rickperry.org/media-articles/palin-campaign-perry

    Personally, I like Perry better than Hutchison and would vote for him if I voted. Perry thinks that the federal gov’t should stay out of the State’s business. At least that matches the Constitution.

    • Yes, it is going to be difficult for this Texan in this election. I personally think he is wrong in bringing Palin down but that is a gamble that may pay off. Most of Texas abhors “cosmopolitan” ways and do not want to emulate the big cities of the East or Far West, although Dallas and Houston try to but it does not get very far. Palin represents, I think the more independent flavor that Texans like and not the big city ways.

      I like Perry because he told the US gov’t, I don’t want your damned money. He did take some for infrastructure but did not take money that had strings. (ie. Extended unemployment money because the condition was that when it runs out, the State must continue the same program with increased State Taxes). Perry did say NO. I also like his governing style. He has done well by Texas. This is going to be a toughie.

      However, Kay Hutchinson is very well liked. I do not want to lose her as a Senator but I also know two of the candidates that will run for her Senate seat and they are ok. I will probably campaign for one of them, as I know him personally and know his beliefs and he lives his beliefs.

      D13

      • Oh, sorry Garth…forgot to say “hey”…..so a big Texas HOWDY to ya !!

        • Howdy back at ya’ll

          Is your choice for Senator the one mentioned in the following link.

          For those of you who aren’t Texans, the following link shows a way to succeed (at least better than most other states)

          http://www.rickperry.org/media-articles/going-alamo-why-jobs-and-companies-are-flocking-big-small-government-state

          A moderate Republican is one who will only take some of your freedoms away.

          Garth
          Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral – but it ensures Paul’s vote

          • Not a bad article and from the National review. No, he is not the one but he is formidable. There is another Williams that is doing exploratory work about running for the Senate seat…his name is Roger Williams. He was secretary of state for awhile. Conservative and a successful business man.

            We are an independent lot and our separation of powers in our State government, does not support control. As the article states, we can have a democrat Lt. Governor that has power over the Senate and a Republican Governor that can veto. It works for us and has. We are doing well as a State and do not deficit spend..well, we can’t by constitution.

            D13

            • I think part of our federal answer lies in the base of the Texas system.

              However, notice that even with such strong separation and constitutional limits, the govt has continued to grow and those who would pick up the ring to do good for “the people” are ever attempting to take control.

              Why don’t some of you Texicans move to Montana? Say about 20,000 of you. Then we could have three states, counting Wyoming. Oh I forgot Idaho and Utah. They are pretty much in already as well.

              Seems to me a good start.

              • Right you are JAC…one good thing about our legislature…it only meets every two years and our legislators are not full time paid. Our constitution has direct reference to bribes, etc. Not that it does not happen, but when caught…dealt with harshly. We have our faults but we do correct them and we actually have great bi partisan efforts because of the short legislation time. They do not have time to sit around idly and think things up. Our big ticket items do get taken care of, however, we do have interlopers coming down trying to get elected but, again, they have to be self sufficient. There is no money for serving in our House or Senate.

                can you imagine the US Government reducing their salaries to $7200 per year and only meeting once every two years…WOW…what a concept.Might not get anything done but could not screw much up either.

                We are an independent lot…and just try to come take our guns away…Hell, I could shoot before I was weaned from mama.

                D13

              • We also have the bicameral legislature. Kind of like a necessary evil.

                It creates problems, especially a run away bureaucracy. But until we can figure out how to tie them down tight, there is truth in keeping them separated for at least two years.

                By the by, did you ever see my comments regarding the pay scale we should consider for Congress?

                JAC

            • Don’t let BF read your post as finding out that, in Texas, it works close to the way it was designed to work might put him in a coma

              BF, just a joke. Your thinking and presentation are great. You and JAC make this site worthwhile.

              GarthD
              Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral – But it assures Paul’s vote

            • v. Holland says:

              You better be careful D13-all this talk about how great Texas is-makes me want to move-Texas could have a huge influx of all us conservatives-a population explosion.

              • Come on V…you are welcome. How would I not be a “true Texan” without the bragging rights that we are known for?

                There are plenty things wrong here but we do have a tendency to fix them but our ideology is still pretty simple. Up to now, we have been a pretty independent lot and for the most part, pretty consistent.

                Did you catch Chris Dodd’s statement about Texas? He said, “any State that balances the books and pays as you go cannot possibly be taking care of it’s citizens.” Go figure.

              • “be taking care of”

                Therein lies the mind set we are at war with.

              • Amen
                !!

              • v. Holland says:

                Yea, I heard him, maybe I have too simplistic a view but I figure if you’re broke you can’t help anyone because you will be the one needing the help.

              • The cost for the rental of a U-Haul trailer from Austin TX to California is $900. The rental of a U-Haul trailer from CA to TX is $3,000. U-Haul has too many trailers in TX.

                Soon, they will probably be paying people to haul their trailers back to CA. Could pay the gas for the trip.

                Would sure like to know the cost differential for New York, New Jersey, etc.

                GarthD

                Sure hope those who want to rob Peter to pay Paul stay where they are or head to states that have more altruistic governments

  15. Vinnster says:

    Truth be known the Left is terrified of Palin. If it was just hate they would have forgot about her and stopped the constant attacks a long time ago. Their reaction to her is proportional to their fear of what she can ignite in the country.

    Their biggest fear is she will do what Reagan did to them…and she just might.

    • Vinnster says:

      I will add…I hope they keep it up. I have spoken to some lifetime Liberal women who are furious about how their side has treated her…the term I keep hearing is the Democrats are acting like male chauvinist pigs!

      Another thing she has shown most folks who do not pay attention to the news is how utterly uncouth, vile, ill-mannered, foul-mouthed cads the self-proclaimed “intellectual elites” really are.

      If my grandmother was alive today she would describe the Liberals behavior as “white trash”.

  16. Ray Hawkins says:

    First off – nice work on a lengthy piece – apologies are in order in that due to your own circumstances you may not have been able to read and follow the entire three tracks of Sarah and provide something more than narrowed context:

    Criticism of Sarah Palin from the left (and increasingly the center and even the right) – but more importantly from me and why (and yes Karyn, we’ll keep this clean):

    (a) The Resignation – I could have generally cared less what she did in Alaska before or after the campaign. As offered previously my belief was that she had a tremendous opportunity to return home, re-tool/refine herself and her positions and then return as a more solid candidate in 2012 that would make for a more compelling race. Instead, she quit, under confusing and ill defined circumstances. I wanted to see her in 2012, not because I longed for more ugliness, but because the dynamics of that race would have been unprecedented and, I believe, would have engaged more people in the political process. Instead she quit. I’ll get over her quitting quickly, because apparently she is already ready and willing to open herself up as a pundit of sorts. I just think it sucks for the people who supported her.
    (b) Position on Cap N Trade – I congratulate Sarah on her engagement in writing OpEd for one of the few major right leaning newspapers. I’m just curious why she smashes Cap N Trade now when she supported it during her campaign? What happened? A sudden epiphany? Did she change her mind? Was she not aware that she supported Cap N Trade? (http://www.seethroughthepodium.org/issues/climate/environment_mccain.pdf)
    (c) Political Positions – well, in re to several of what is mentioned as her positions. I will not inherently hate someone that has an opposing viewpoint. What rankles me is that when people question you on your positions, you resort to empty platitudes and campaign-speak that leaves me dumbfounded. Complicating this is the nastiness from the right that challenges the very premise of asking the question to begin with. It is assumed that since a question is asked by anyone not concerned right leaning then the question is inherently loaded and therefore bad. If wanted, we can debate and dialogue all day about each of her positions (although with respect to Cap N Trade it may be tough to know what she actually thinks). We can wrangle about her abortion views and wonder why she was mentally making plans on how to abort her last pregnancy all the while haranguing anyone publicly that might consider such an act. That is where I draw the line with her.
    (d) A heartbeat away – as VPOTUS nominees both Biden and Palin deserve pervasive scrutiny on their records, thoughts, beliefs and actions. Biden, chief of all gaffes, has a well established public record that could be scrutinized and interrogated – he has been ‘out there’ from some time. Enter Ms. Palin – someone we know almost nothing about that could become VEEP under a guy with a history or health problems. Anyone that dare vote for someone like this – meaning someone you know almost nothing about – better stop and consider whether proper scrutiny is being placed on the person – are they being vetted? I’m certain Barack Obama was – and rightfully so. But to suggest that any vetting be seen as attack was a cop out by the right. When simple softball questions to the VEEP nominee are continually fumbled, people get curious. People start to wonder – what the f? This person cannot answer simple questions w/o regurgitating disconnected campaign-speak and you want me to think that is “normal”? I tire of hearing that “we love Sarah because she’s just a normal person”. Focus on this folks – in our world today – are you looking for leaders who have command of the issues, can articulate positions, can dialogue with other world leaders, can see both the big picture and the minutiae – OR – are you looking for someone who could not communicate whether she could see beyond her own State’s issues, is good at hunting and fishing, is a ‘hockeymom’, wears her clothes well, is a good winker, and is generally as normal as your next neighbor? I didn’t vote for Obama because he is supposedly good at basketball and likes the White Sox. I voted for him, inexperienced as he may have been, because I agreed with the preponderance of the policy positions and I saw in him signs of leadership that I feel are important. When I look at Ms. Palin I feel like I am watching a Jay Leno ‘on the sidewalk’ segment when seemingly normal people cannot answer simple questions. That bothers me.
    (e) The issue of lies – funny how so much of the writing in this article is focused on a bloggish posting lifted from yesterday – that alone is not why I offer criticism. Look deeper in this issue and sure it is clear that you accept at some level she lies – apparently there are degrees of acceptance you are okay with, especially when it comes from her. Lies are not THE reason but A reason. I was asked what she lied about (as the implication thereby in the question is that she does not lie) – I provided several responses. Funny you only picked one article link that was I guess easier for you to dispute/question than the others offered – by omission do you then agree with the examples I provided yet just cannot bring yourself to say she is a liar? I call b.s. when you indirectly admit she is a liar (“…….And take every lie that she has ever told……”) and with nary a breath taken try and tell me she is ethical (“……she is well spoken, attractive, and ethical…”
    (f) “…she never supported Pat Buchannan” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9rZkJfKoEU&NR=1 – help me understand this?
    (g) Book banning – I’m not certain why someone would ask about banning books if they did not have some thoughts around banning books? Do people research how to kill someone via poisoning such that they’ll never be caught if they are not at least considering it? That does not equate actual book banning – I get that – but it should have raised a flag for you. Snopes and others are correct that is there is no evidence of a planned effort and so-called list. But there is/was certainly a lot of smoke surrounding Palin, her Church, the Howard Bess book and the influential Evangelicals in that part of Alaska.

    Overall I think the bulk of conservative thought has unfortunately fallen into a deeply authoritarian influence that is failing you wherein you would eagerly scrutinize someone on the left and hinge on any shortcomings (any nominee that has ever, ever, ever not paid a tax). You would eagerly jump into a fray that looks at every conceivable angle of a candidate or politician. When the same light is turned upon a VPOTUS candidate you are smitten with (her attractiveness) you become infuriated because you have fallen into the unfortunate stereotype you otherwise would not – that challenging upon someone such as Sarah is improper, inappropriate, misguided, mean spirited, etc. The Linda Beigel’s and Andree MCleod’s of the world do not the liberal/Democrat movement make.

    Its maybe egregious of me to hate her as a person – I do not know her on a personal level. I do hate the persona and what I will perceive as an empty attempt to snow so many in America that what was good for Wasila was good for America.

    • Ray, I know the answer to b).

      Same reason Old Bush forgot all about “voodoo economics” when he agreed to run with Reagan instead of against him.

      Politics.

      Hope your doing well today
      JAC

      • Alan F. says:

        Voodoo economics? And here I thought it was because back then she wasn’t aware of Al Gore’s having actually written his manifesto as the script for the sequel to The Day After Tomorrow. Oh well, at least he got a nice waterfront condo out of the deal. Can’t fault him that.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Ray,

      Please stop whining and crying about Sarah Palin.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        You win Peter.

      • Kristian Stout says:

        Peter,

        That isn’t fair. We wanted to know what Ray thought and he told us. I don’t think he was whinning, I think he explained himself very well and I understand a lot more now than I have over the last few days as to his attitude toward Ms. Palin. Thank you Ray. That actually made sense to me. I don’t agree with you but it makes sense.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Kristian,

          Indeed it wasn’t fair. It was also quite humorous, although you may have missed the humor. Go over Ray and Todd’s posts ever since the day that USW posted his article about whining and crying.

          I am sure you will note MANY examples of Ray and Todd accusing people on the site of whining and crying when they were attempting to have an honest discussion.

          I just went ahead and turned the tables today… that is all 🙂

          • Kristian Stout says:

            I saw the humor but sometimes turning the tables just gives them more ammunition. I said this to Ray yesterday and never got a response, He doesn’t understand the conservative mind but I don’t think he wants to either. I could be wrong about that but somehow I just don’t think so.

            Have a wonderful evening!
            It’s almost Friday!!! Halleujah!!!
            Kristian

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Kristian – apologies if I missed a specific question or some bait. I actually go to great lengths to understand the conservative mind (I am here for starters). My current reads in trying to understand the conservative mind:

              George Lakoff
              John Dean
              Stanley Milgram
              Bob Altemeyer
              Joseph de Maistre
              Edmund Burke
              Mark Levin
              Roger Scruton
              Milton Friedman
              Leo Strauss
              Winston Churchill
              George Nash

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              The question to you is – aside from debating me – what do you do or read to understand those on the left?

              • Kristian Stout says:

                I read MSNBC on the internet and I listen to them on the tv. I have a subscription to the wall street journal and I have a liberal husband. Makes life interesting to say the least. I even went to dailykos to see what the fuss was about and oh boy! Those people are mean. I want to understand the left but I can tell you it would be easier to do without the meanness and the attitude. I’ll admit I’ve seen some attitude on this site as well but not to that extent, I believe that US would ban someone who got that nasty here. I like talking to you, I can’t call it debating because I’m not a debator, but I learn from you and everyone else on here so that’s a plus.

            • USWeapon says:

              I disagree Kristian. I do think that Ray tries to see every issue from both sides. I sometimes feel he gets it wrong or is severely misguided, but I don’t think he is unfair or unwilling to listen to other points of view and evaluate them.

    • Oh, Ray I forgot one thing.

      Given the track record of the intelligent, big picture, leadership types over the past 100 years or so, I think next time I am looking more for people like the rest of us.

      One of the best governors Idaho ever had made Palin look brilliant, in terms of public persona. He was a successful farmer/businessman.

      I want the firemen in that Nextel commercial, Joe the Plumber and everyone in between.

      • v. Holland says:

        That may be hard to find JAC, people like “the rest of us” have more sense than to get into politics or if they do, they either change or they quit.

      • JAC,

        I posted a story a while back. Jon Bon Jovie is a big fan of Al Gore. He said about Gore, that he is probably the smartest person he ever met, and that he is in awe of him, and that is what makes him such a good candidate for President.

        First, credit to Jon, that’s a well thought out statement. Second, I cannot agree with that thought process. That’s a sheeple response. I want a candidate who shares the same VALUES as me. I think that is why Sarah is so popular, and Joe the Plumber. They have shown they share the same values as most Americans. Does anyone else know someone who’s daughter became pregnant in H.S.?
        How do you handle that? Privately you feel ashamed, your moral code does not allow out-of-wedlock childbirth. Publicly, you stand by your daughter against the world.

        The baby’s father seems to be pond scum looking to exploit the media frenzy. Am I wrong that she has been reserved in criticizing
        that prick?

        • I think Palin’s famil and spokesperson have already spoken too much about that young man. Sometimes complete silence is in fact the right answer. A simple, “we are saddened by XYZ’s comments as they do not help our families deal with this sensitive and very private situation.”

        • Alan F. says:

          Jabba the Gore is a fraud. During his “$125,000 global BBQ” speech in Regina Saskatchewan 2 years ago he was supposed to take questions from the kids… which they then suddenly had to submit in writing… which was then pulled altogether. When I asked my daughter what it was like she answered “The play version of the movie.” to which I asked “Anything new?” and she then replied “Nopers.” and told me she was disappointed by the “no Q&A”. How in the world could anyone worth their salt not be able to expand on or defend their position to a bunch of 16 year old’s. They were farm kids and he crapped his drawers at what they knew to ask. Pretty easy to impress singers I take it.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          On Levi – he needs to shut the F up and go work to support his kid – and shame on network news for giving this dickhead a pulpit. Palin is better served by ignoring anything that spews from his piehole.

    • JayDickB says:

      Ray – Buried in all of your left-wing talking points are a few kernals of truth that constitute the reasons I have reservations about Palin.

      She seemed unable to properly respond to questions which, although laden with southpaw spin, would have been easy for a politician who had thought much about important issues. Her speeches seemed similarly shallow.

      Others have said she was just nervous or inexperienced, but I don’t think I buy that. I mean, I could have provided better responses than she did, and I’ve never been close to a political campaign.

      I probably agree with most of her issue positions and I don’t have a problem with her resignation (that’s a highly personal decision I don’t want to question), but there are many important issues she hasn’t addressed and the ones she has addressed I don’t think she has handled very well. She comes across to me as a political lightweight. She doesn’t seem too heavy in the intellect department either, but it’s harder to get a handle on that aspect.

      BTW, I wasn’t exactly bowled over by Biden either, and I disagree with almost all of his positions on issues. Palen vs. Biden? Hold my nose and go with Palen.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Joe Biden = professional politician. I’m sure there are some valid reasons behind his selection?

        – Foreign policy creds?
        – Low impact guy that can be kept in the background and brought out for special projects?
        – Capable enough to serve as POTUS if needed (and if surrounded by capable Cabinet and support structure (Read: career politician that if all else failed could just maintain until next general election))?
        – I think Obama could have done better than Biden (Sam Nunn maybe? I dunno).

        • Joe Biden? Capable enough to be POTUS??

          The Main reason (aside from pure humanity) that I hope nothing happens to Obama is because 1, Biden is next in line, and 2, Pelosi is next. A plain case of the alternative being worse.

        • JayDickB says:

          He has experience, no doubt. But he’s been proven wrong on too many issues, is a blowhard, and has hoof in mouth disease. But, mostly he’s a liberal.

          Being a professional politician is, to me, a huge weakness.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            He’s an insurance policy Jay. I saw Palin as more of a risk.

          • right his experience in being a lapdog polititian with the standard DNC political money raising dinner speech. (I sat thru enuf of them to know) LOL – It was even so obvious in the VP “debate” which I only watched a segment but I caught his story about “going to his favorite restaurant to talk to the folks”(which if you didnt konw had been closed for many years) and I KNEW he was lying about something, but didn’t know what or tried to figure out why he would lie or make up a story!! It’s just the 40 years of democratic bull sh$t politics !

            And when the moderator didn’t pick up on some other misdirection BS response, I turned it off.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I don’t want to suggest that ‘normal folk’ cannot aspire to lead in political office – I think that is actually a novel idea. But I think we increase risk when we get to the highest stage in the world and don’t have the right talent on that stage. For me, the jury is still out on whether Obama will pass any number of tests as to whether he was the right talent. I voted for him, I support him, I know he is not perfect, and I know putting him on a short leash would only handicap him.

        • Ray,

          Do you think that all the founders of our Constitution agreed on how the Constitution should be framed? No way!

          Palin is a person and no person should be treated as she and her family have been treated. Can we agree on this point?

          GarthD
          Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral but assures Paul’s vote

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Garth – its my opinion and you’re more than free to disagree with me or tell me I am an idiot – but aside from a bad photoshop pic, some stupid Letterman jokes and some toe-the-line “whats up with abstinence” coverage I fail to see how her family has been treated far more inappropriately. Letterman is a comedian and Linda Kellen Biegel is a small fish in a small pond. What else is there?

        • Kristian Stout says:

          Maybe we could find a little shorter leash than the one that he is currently on? I think that he is a brilliant speaker and he has made some decisions that I can get behind…but, and you had to know that was coming, some of the bills that he is pushing for are going to bankrupt everyone not just the “rich”.

          • Kristian:

            “he has made some decisions that I can get behind…but

            As to the decisions that he has made that you can get behind, for any that are programs that are being legislated:

            1)are they a program about things for which the federal government has been granted the right to legislate or control. If not, it is immoral.

            2)do they “Take from Peter to pay Paul”; if yes, it is immoral.

            3)do they infringe on other of Peter’s rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If so, it is immoral.

            4)is the program one that has been costed and is not cost justified; If so, it is immoral.

            If it is a decision that can not be cost justified also let me know what it is.

            If the program is up to this point moral, let me know what it is.

            I admit to not have studied all legislation and would like to find something he is putting forward that I can support.

            Any decision that fails any of my morals tests is immoral and should not be supported.

            GarthD
            Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral.

            • Kristian Stout says:

              I think I may have mis-spoken earlier. Not issues, but some of the things that he has said. Now that I think about it there is really only one thing that he has done that I agree with and that was staying out of the Iranian election mess. Then he turned around and got into the South American election, I believe it was Venezuela? Never mind, I recant, I recant, I recant!!! Does saying it 3 times make it unsaid? LOL

              • Kristian:

                I was really hoping that there was a program that was not immoral.

                Maybe Ray can give me one. Ray, let’s handle them one at a time if you feel there are more than one.

                GarthD
                Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Garth – what exactly is your question? Are you asking to name a random program and then prove to you it is not immoral? Sorry – I have plenty of my own homework and legwork to do w/o doing yours as well.

    • Ray, I moved this from yesterdays post for easier reference. But first, my compliments on a well written response to US. I do think Palin has “lied”, if you want to get nick-picky. She changed her stance on AGW when accepting the V.P. slot to align with McCain. I saw it then and did not like it at all. Show me where Obama has not reversed himself, or lied about issues.

      Whats that line from ” A Few Good Men”?
      “I want the truth! You can’t handle the truth!”, yada, yada, etc.

      I asked you to respond to her viewpoint. Do you support Cap & Trade, or are against it for reasons different than hers?

      Ray, your answer is pure evasion. I think you have spoke against Cap & Trade. Could it be that you and her think alike on this issue, and it is so painful to admit?
      Reply

      *
      Ray Hawkins said
      July 16, 2009 at 11:53 am

      Okay LOI – since I mostly done on this Sarah bs I will take your bait.

      AS I have stated previously, in its current iteration and process I am against the cap and trade bill.

      The bill is over 1000 pages long – I am still reading it and marking all the areas I do not understand or want to research further. Anything so far reaching and encompassing, in my mind drives me to look for the devil in the details. I will not support it simply because I voted a straight ticket last year.

      The facts and figures regarding impact external to the bill are complex, messy and ill-supported. I am trying to wrap my head around both CBO and Heritage among others so I can understand how each arrived at their conclusions

      I cannot inherently support a bill that was slamdunked through the House w/o deep debate, analysis and understanding by those we elected to make decisions on our behalf.( And here I want to ask why you had all those negative remarks about her when she voices an opinion similar to your own?)

      Now I would ask you – is your opinion ‘for’ or ‘against’ the bill due to your own objective analysis and assessment – or are you relying upon information and data that was produced by someone else that cannot be independently verified?

      My opinion against Cap & Trade comes first from hours of personal research on the subject that proved to my satisfaction that global warming is not caused by mankind. Second, my more limited understanding of the economy still leads me to think that nothing good will result from this bill. Consider China & India rejected complying with any CO2 restrictions at the G8 conference. I don’t claim to be as informed as Flag on economics, but even an idiot can understand the impact that will have on our economy.

      Thanks for taking my “bait”. It is helpful to me in trying to understand issues to have intelligent expressions that oppose my own thoughts, makes me examine how I got there. Was it good for you?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Thanks LOI – I don’t think Sarah and I have the same opinion. For fear of her own safety I would not want to see her debate the cap n trade issue. I don’t support it (partially) because I do not fully understand its impact and results. I am not sure she does.

        • Now that’s a poor answer Ray.

          For fear of her own safety I would not want to see her debate the cap n trade issue. If she is to be a national level politician, should we not get to properly vet her on her stance? Safety, she’s a big girl. Do you know of a liberal plot to kill her or steal all her shoes?

          I am not sure she fully understand its impact and results.
          So lets let her and Al Gore debate this, Jon Bon Jovie can
          be the moderator. Better yet, Palin vs Pelosi.

          I also am not sure she understands this issue, but I am willing to listen to what she has to say before deciding.
          Has Obama, Pelosi or Reed rebutted her op-ed?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Huh? Are you serious? Do you think she actually wrote that OpEd or even did any research to support her opinion? My point was that this is not an issue she should try and debate in the public space – she’ll be eaten alive. Maybe I am wrong – maybe she is deeeep on this issue, maybe she is smart as a whip. I doubt it. She is against it because it is either politically expedient to do so or she was originally against the idea.

        • I do understand it. Its easily the most efficient way to tax everyone who spends money on products and services which themselves consume products in their being executed without actually using the word “tax” or admitting it affects all incomes from $0.00 on up. The hidden tax. We had a manufacturer’s tax decades ago and it too managed to keep the issue of the “working poor” paying as much as the “filthy rich” on a purchase of product X in the shadows. To get nailed by it, all you had to do was spend a buck. At least its an equal opportunity tax until that is president Obama starts cutting checks to rebate the hidden tax to low income types which he’ll have to do too.

    • Bama dad says:

      Ray said:
      “We can wrangle about her abortion views and wonder why she was mentally making plans on how to abort her last pregnancy all the while haranguing anyone publicly that might consider such an act. That is where I draw the line with her.”

      I am calling the bs flag on how you know she was mentally making plans to abort Trig.
      In a news article written (May 2008) before she was selected as McCain’s running mate the following was said:
      In December, her doctor told her that prenatal tests indicated the child she was expecting in May would be born with Down syndrome
      , a genetic condition that stems from an extra chromosome and that impedes a child’s physical, intellectual and language development
      .
      Only one year into her governorship and with four children at home already, a child with Down syndrome would present serious challenges. Studies in the late 90s showed that more than 80 percent of prenatal Down syndrome diagnoses end in abortion.
      Ending the pregnancy, however, was never an option for the Palins. On April 18, Sarah Palin gave birth to a 6-pound, 2-ounce son, Trig Paxson Van Palin.
      “We’ve both been very vocal about being pro-life,” Palin told the Associated Press, speaking of herself and her husband, Todd. “We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential.”
      The day after the birth, the Palins released the following statement: “Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives. We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed.”

      Now if you have a source on what you “know”, please share.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Bama – call whatever you want. My hardcopy source (VF) is at home while I am work at the moment. She was quoted as sharing that while in the continental US, and wherein hardly anyone knew she was carrying she considered aborting the baby. Apparently for her it was a moment of crisis which I can understand – it would not be pleasant to have thoughts as such when you are publicly and vehemently opposed to such. I’ll refrain from sharing my psychoanalysis of this, but she ended up deciding as aligned with her core values. Fair enough. Just remember that when you want to bulldog others on it.

        • v. Holland says:

          I’ve thought about doing a lot of things that I would never do, thinking about something doesn’t mean you believe it’s a viable choice, it just means your human.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            You’re right Holland – but when you bulldog others for the same thing or for actually making the choice you did not you loose points.

            • v. Holland says:

              have to disagree with you Ray-I haven’t heard Palin bulldog anyone-just heard her say she disagreed with abortion-I have seriously thought about running into the back of someones car who has stolen by parking place, doesn’t mean I would actually do it or that I believe anyone should have the choice to do so, just because I had the thought cross my mind

        • Bama Dad says:

          Ray
          Went to Vanity Fair to try and find your source, man VF really hates Palin. Typed Palin in the search bar and they had 300 articles or posts listed. Only made it through the first 100 and 90% of those were negative. Some of them were downright vile (who really was the mom of Trig). Part of the stuff was just copied from blogs but it was on their site. From what I saw, they would be less than credible as a reliable source.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Read VF with a HUGE grain of salt. The article on her, while it had some valuable insight and facts was overall a piece of shit writing.

    • USWeapon says:

      Ray,

      Let me first say thanks for offering some explanation as to why you have such a dislike of her. I tried to make it clear in my article that I simply don’t understand the hatred. I don’t see anything that warrants it.

      The Resignation – As offered previously my belief was that she had a tremendous opportunity to return home, re-tool/refine herself and her positions and then return as a more solid candidate in 2012 that would make for a more compelling race. Instead, she quit, under confusing and ill defined circumstances. I wanted to see her in 2012, not because I longed for more ugliness, but because the dynamics of that race would have been unprecedented and, I believe, would have engaged more people in the political process.

      I did not necessarily want to see her in 2012. I would have been OK with it I guess, but I would rather see her in 2016. I personally think that this is what the resignation was about. There is going to be a Senate seat to elect in 2010 for Alaska. I think she will go after that. Then she may run for 2012, or better yet run in 2016 with 6 years of being a US Senator under her belt. If the attacks on her were getting in the way of being Governor, good for her that she stepped aside. It was certainly costing the state money, $500k in defense funds thus far for frivolous ethics complaints.

      Position on Cap N Trade – I congratulate Sarah on her engagement in writing OpEd for one of the few major right leaning newspapers. I’m just curious why she smashes Cap N Trade now when she supported it during her campaign? What happened? A sudden epiphany? Did she change her mind? Was she not aware that she supported Cap N Trade?

      The version of cap and trade that was passed by the House was very different than the version of cap and trade supported by the McCain Camp during the campaign. Even if it had been exactly the same, perhaps she would have simply become more educated and saw the light. Interesting that when we here on the blog discuss an issue and one of us understands things better and thus changes their position, we are seen as good and willing to learn. When a politician does it they are attacked for changing their mind. Why might that be?

      What rankles me is that when people question you on your positions, you resort to empty platitudes and campaign-speak that leaves me dumbfounded.

      Does it rankle you when Obama does it daily in his press conferences? How about Gibbs? Biden? anyone on the left? Every politician uses this tactic. EVERY one. why call her out as though she is an exception?

      A heartbeat away – as VPOTUS nominees both Biden and Palin deserve pervasive scrutiny on their records, thoughts, beliefs and actions. Biden, chief of all gaffes, has a well established public record that could be scrutinized and interrogated – he has been ‘out there’ from some time. Enter Ms. Palin – someone we know almost nothing about that could become VEEP under a guy with a history or health problems. Anyone that dare vote for someone like this – meaning someone you know almost nothing about – better stop and consider whether proper scrutiny is being placed on the person – are they being vetted? I’m certain Barack Obama was – and rightfully so. But to suggest that any vetting be seen as attack was a cop out by the right. When simple softball questions to the VEEP nominee are continually fumbled, people get curious. People start to wonder – what the f? This person cannot answer simple questions w/o regurgitating disconnected campaign-speak and you want me to think that is “normal”? I tire of hearing that “we love Sarah because she’s just a normal person”. Focus on this folks – in our world today – are you looking for leaders who have command of the issues, can articulate positions, can dialogue with other world leaders, can see both the big picture and the minutiae – OR – are you looking for someone who could not communicate whether she could see beyond her own State’s issues, is good at hunting and fishing, is a ‘hockeymom’, wears her clothes well, is a good winker, and is generally as normal as your next neighbor? I didn’t vote for Obama because he is supposedly good at basketball and likes the White Sox. I voted for him, inexperienced as he may have been, because I agreed with the preponderance of the policy positions and I saw in him signs of leadership that I feel are important. When I look at Ms. Palin I feel like I am watching a Jay Leno ‘on the sidewalk’ segment when seemingly normal people cannot answer simple questions. That bothers me.

      Fair points. I suggest that she wouldn’t do any worse with the right people surrounding her than Biden would. And I would bet that the world would like her more than him too. As for who I am looking for, I think you got plenty of answers from others on that one. The “seasoned politicians” have screwed us pretty good for 100 years. I could do with a dose of someone who isn’t “seasoned” for 4 years. She couldn’t do any worse than what we have already seen.

      funny how so much of the writing in this article is focused on a bloggish posting lifted from yesterday – that alone is not why I offer criticism.

      You offered the link, not me. You gave it as your answer, so I clicked on it and gave my opinion on the “12 big lies”

      Look deeper in this issue and sure it is clear that you accept at some level she lies – apparently there are degrees of acceptance you are okay with, especially when it comes from her.

      I accept that EVERY politician lies. I do think that her possibly lying about whether she told her kids about the VP offer is far below Obama saying that 95% of America won’t see a dime of tax increase. I don’t see lies as acceptable, but I do recognize that this is how politicians work. My point was that her lies seemed pretty innocuous when compared to other politicians. Yet you hate her for her lies and don’t feel the same way for a President that has told some pretty damn big whoppers and who continues to keep us pretty in the dark about his past.

      Lies are not THE reason but A reason. I was asked what she lied about (as the implication thereby in the question is that she does not lie) – I provided several responses. Funny you only picked one article link that was I guess easier for you to dispute/question than the others offered – by omission do you then agree with the examples I provided yet just cannot bring yourself to say she is a liar?

      I didn’t even read the other link you offered yet. I simply picked one and went with it. Since when have I shied away from confronting the truth. If the other one was better and provided tougher “lies” to overcome, I can do the same to that one if it makes you feel better.

      I call b.s. when you indirectly admit she is a liar (“…….And take every lie that she has ever told……”) and with nary a breath taken try and tell me she is ethical (“……she is well spoken, attractive, and ethical…”

      Can you name a single person living on earth who has never told a lie? I directly answered the 12 from the link you provided. My point was that even had all 12 been proven lies, none of them were nearly as blatant and harmful a lie as those being told by the POTUS. Yet you hate her and not him.

      “…she never supported Pat Buchannan” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9rZkJfKoEU&NR=1 – help me understand this?

      This will have to wait. I am at work and cannot watch youtube videos here.

      (g) Book banning – I’m not certain why someone would ask about banning books if they did not have some thoughts around banning books? Do people research how to kill someone via poisoning such that they’ll never be caught if they are not at least considering it? That does not equate actual book banning – I get that – but it should have raised a flag for you. Snopes and others are correct that is there is no evidence of a planned effort and so-called list. But there is/was certainly a lot of smoke surrounding Palin, her Church, the Howard Bess book and the influential Evangelicals in that part of Alaska.

      Maybe there is a lot of smoke there. No more smoke than surrounding Obama and Jeremiah Wright. As for the book banning thing, we are operating completely on what you think her motive was for asking that question. First, the only person to hear her ask that question and say so is a woman who Palin fired. Is it not possible that the question was never even asked in the first place. Especially since no further action at any point in the 4 years since indicates a furthering of that line of thought? Second, if the question was asked, I offer an alternative version of why, since we are trying to guess at a reason for asking a question like that. Could she not have possibly been just trying to get an idea of how the librarian does her job, how she would react if someone else wanted to ban books. After all, she was a new mayor getting to know her city officials. Just an alternative thought there.

      Overall I think the bulk of conservative thought has unfortunately fallen into a deeply authoritarian influence that is failing you wherein you would eagerly scrutinize someone on the left and hinge on any shortcomings (any nominee that has ever, ever, ever not paid a tax). You would eagerly jump into a fray that looks at every conceivable angle of a candidate or politician. When the same light is turned upon a VPOTUS candidate you are smitten with (her attractiveness) you become infuriated because you have fallen into the unfortunate stereotype you otherwise would not – that challenging upon someone such as Sarah is improper, inappropriate, misguided, mean spirited, etc. The Linda Beigel’s and Andree MCleod’s of the world do not the liberal/Democrat movement make.

      I think that you highly mis-characterize my position. I am not smitten with her at all. I am not even sure she was/is a good choice. My point was that the left hates her so much more than any other GOP figure (other than Rush perhaps), and I cannot understand what about her causes this reaction.

      Its maybe egregious of me to hate her as a person – I do not know her on a personal level. I do hate the persona and what I will perceive as an empty attempt to snow so many in America that what was good for Wasila was good for America.

      Maybe not exactly what is good for Wasilla is good for America, but I can certainly appreciate the idea of a more down to earth and logical approach to solving America’s problems. For 100 years we have let the “pro’s” do it and they certainly have screwed it up pretty good.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Drive-by responses:

        – the money was already spent at the State level – I’m still not buying the number but at this point frankly do not care any more. Sounds more like Alaska needs to reform their ethics investigation process;

        – her responses during interview clearly showed someone who had no idea what the campaign position was on cap n trade – if the rest of her persona is valid, she likely would not have bothered learning nuances or differences;

        – in re ‘seasoning’ – I cannot balance looking the risk you offer in having Barack Obama (implementing sweeping changes via policy) and the risk of someone a heartbeat away who lacks complete command of issues. You’re okay with one risk but not the other. Puzzling.

        – ‘lies’ – again a portion of and not the whole. You centered much of your post on this and offered your opinion on interpretation. If you feel value in countering every instance of a perceived lie about her then go for it – dare say you’d never apply the same scrutiny to what is pushed about folks on the left. I was asked for ‘evidence’, found some quick links and shared. I don’t research to the nth degree everything I place here and neither do you. If there was a difference in perception of two people that I called a lie then shoot me. I’ve seen enough smoke and I have shown you enough fire (and you do now admit she does lie)

        – Book banning – look – I know she banned no books. But c’mon – what friggin mayor asks about banning books if they aren’t thinking about it? Especially a mayor rooted in a far right wing Evangelical church with a disputed record regarding gays and jews.

        – Smitten? Hell I dunno – maybe you are or aren’t. I can only judge by your words and pictures. If you’re afraid to share deep dark thoughts on her because Mrs. USW is watching/reading then I understand. I can overanalyze from time to time.

        – A logical approach to solving problems – sure – I love moose huntin and snowmobilin analogies as much as the next guy. But I’m not sure the world stage would be so forgiving. The pros have put us in a pickle, but I’d rather reach down to Triple A rather than Single A for my next player.

        • “- in re ’seasoning’ – I cannot balance looking the risk you offer in having Barack Obama (implementing sweeping changes via policy) and the risk of someone a heartbeat away who lacks complete command of issues. You’re okay with one risk but not the other. Puzzling.”

          Huh? I’m going to guess here but likely USW sees Obama as “lacks complete command of issues” also. He’s been more wrong than right thus far and has actually shown no clarity as to the actions having been taken. I’m not going on political rhetoric here but hard data. If I can swing some leafy green into the American market and make another quick 20%, I’ll do it and I look for such each night in North American and China-Russia. The hard data doesn’t exist. As for a lot of the current “investments” in America, they’re not creation of new industry but stripping the bones of the old. I don’t see the comprehension of that anywhere.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Alan:

            “Huh? I’m going to guess here but likely USW sees Obama as “lacks complete command of issues” also. He’s been more wrong than right thus far and has actually shown no clarity as to the actions having been taken. I’m not going on political rhetoric here but hard data”

            Please share some hard data for the point you are trying to make referencing hard data – or put a sock in it.

    • Ray, etal

      Try Thomas Sowell instead of John Dean! LOL

      Seriously – You can pick any week or months of his columns, from the ’90 even and they stand the test of time. (At least the ones I’ve picked) This site goes back to 98!

      http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp

      Or if you like comments by a few good posters – you can read him here:

      http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell

      The couple of books of his I’ve read, tend to read as a doctoral thesis instead of a best seller, but for the last 20-20 yrs I usually only read books for entertainment so I might be jaundiced.
      http://tsowell.com/

      Thomas Sowell’s Biography

      Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina and grew up in Harlem. As with many others in his neighborhood, Thomas Sowell left home early and did not finish high school. The next few years were difficult ones, but eventually he joined the Marine Corps and became a photographer in the Korean War. After leaving the service, Thomas Sowell entered Harvard University, worked a part-time job as a photographer and studied the science that would become his passion and profession: economics.

      After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), Thomas Sowell went on to receive his master’s in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).

      In the early ’60s, Sowell held jobs as an economist with the Department of Labor and AT&T. But his real interest was in teaching and scholarship. In 1965, at Cornell University, Sowell began the first of many professorships. Thomas Sowell’s other teaching assignments include Rutgers University, Amherst College, Brandeis University and the University of California at Los Angeles, where he taught in the early ’70s and also from 1984 to 1989.

      Thomas Sowell has published a large volume of writing. His dozen books, as well as numerous articles and essays, cover a wide range of topics, from classic economic theory to judicial activism, from civil rights to choosing the right college. Moreover, much of his writing is considered ground-breaking — work that will outlive the great majority of scholarship done today.

      Though Thomas Sowell had been a regular contributor to newspapers in the late ’70s and early ’80s, he did not begin his career as a newspaper columnist until 1984. George F. Will’s writing, says Sowell, proved to him that someone could say something of substance in so short a space (750 words). And besides, writing for the general public enables him to address the heart of issues without the smoke and mirrors that so often accompany academic writing.

      In 1990, he won the prestigious Francis Boyer Award, presented by The American Enterprise Institute.

      Currently Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif.
      \

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Thanks for sharing Frank.

        What be interested in any particular academic journals you read (or used).

        ~Ray

        • HUH?

          If that’s supposed to be a put down, it’s weak !! LOL

          Read a months or even a weeks worth of Thomas Sowells columns and tell us what you think.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            No – it was a serious question – folks such as Sowell write differently for articles versus academia – no big deal.

            Thanks,

            Ray

  17. Hello Everybody:

    Here is a prayer I received from my son today, and I thought I would pass it along to everybody here.

    First Book of Government-Psalam 2009

    Obama is the shepherd I did not want.
    He leadeth me beside the still factories.
    He restoreth my faith in the Republican party.
    He guideth me in the path of unemployment for his party’s sake.
    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line,
    I shall fear no hunger for his bailouts are with me.
    He has anointed my income with taxes,
    My expenses runneth over.
    Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life,
    And I will live in a mortgaged home forever.
    I am glad I am American,
    I am glad that I am free.
    But I wish I was a dog .
    And Obama was a tree.

    Hope all has a wonderful day today

    Judy

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Thanks Judy! 🙂

      I had a Sarah Palin gospel that began “….there once was a witch from a Wasila….” but I dare not post it here less I offend someone.

      • Hi Ray

        I hope I didn’t offend anybody here, that wasn’t my intention what so ever, just passing along things once in a while from my son’s that I thought might put a lighter touch on things here, that’s all.

        Regards

        Judy

    • Kristian Stout says:

      Judy,

      I had to copy that and send it to some of my friends! That was too, too funny. Would be interested in the one that Ray has about Palin. I know it may not seem like it Ray, but I do have a sense of humor. So, go ahead, hit me with your best shot…LOL!

      • Hi Kristian

        I agree with you, and I too have a sense of humor, and was wondering the same thing.

        Go for it Ray, what could it hurt. I’m sure everybody here wouldn’t mind.

        If I put the one about Obama up, then it’s only fair play that you put the one about Palin up.

        Judy

      • I am hoping that if it is not fairly clean, he will remain a gentleman and not post it.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          I’ll get filtered if I post it (not by USW) – is not clean

          • Judy S. says:

            Okay, I can understand that, and I wouldn’t want that to happen to you Ray, so don’t fret none. It’s not worth getting censored for.

            Judy

          • Kristian Stout says:

            No, I don’t want you to get censored either. Bet it was funny though. Just so we understand each other, I have no problem with jokes made about her. It’s the “jokes” about her children that bother me and it doesn’t matter really if it is her children or anyone elses. You don’t pick on kids like that and retain any kind of credibility. That is just because I am a mom and I know how pissed I get when someone picks on my kids. Makes me want to skin someone alive. I’m amazed that she stayed quiet as long as she did with some of the things that were being said.

            • Judy S. says:

              Here, here Kristian, I am in agreement with you 100%. Anybody makes any comments about my 2 son’s, doesn’t matter how old they are, my mother bear comes out to defend her cubs.

              All children of politicians, no matter who, should always be off limits when it comes to the jokes. I don’t care if they go on the campaign trails with them or not, I don’t believe the kids are fair game on that.

              You didn’t hear anybody making any about Obama’s girl’s, at least I didn’t hear any, and I think the way they went after Palin’s kids was way our of line.

              • Judy S. says:

                Now, I regret I put that thing up about Obama. Wish I could take it back, I know can’t, and I now apologize for doing so. I just thought it was funny at the time.Sorry.

                Judy

              • v. Holland says:

                I haven’t been on this site for long but it’s been long enough to know that you are a very nice person and I don’t think you have offended anyone.

              • Thank you V. I appreciate it very much.

                Judy

  18. I like Sarah and don’t care who knows it. I do however think she has a lot to learn about Politics before she could possibly be President. And ain’t that just the awful shame of the whole dang thing.

    The whole problem with Washington and the Federal government is that it’s full of Politicians.

    • Judy S. says:

      I like her too, but what does that say about Obama. He didn’t and still doesn’t have a clue on how to be a president. That’s my opinion any way.

      • Obama has Global aspirations. Along with others, he sees one global government along Socialist lines, with him as President of the World.

        Why do you think we have been hearing more and more of global governance and global economy lately?

        I have personally heard the “global governance” crap from Obama’s mouth himself.

  19. The thing about Sarah Palin is that she’s such an easy target. Every time someone criticizes her, she jumps to such a big defense that she enlarges the issue herself:

    * The stupid Letterman joke
    * The stupid cartoon using her picture with Trig
    * Her rambling resignation and later attempts to ‘clarify’ it
    * Even during the campaign, when the $150,000 clothes thing came up: it had died down after a few days, and then she comes out on stage dressed very casually and talking about back to wearing her type of clothes, not needing a $150,000 wardrobe, etc. And the whole issue does another news cycle…

    * Levi – every time he makes a stupid comment or appearance, it seems Palin has to make a “stupider” one.

    Sometimes the best reply is no reply, as Obama did (for the most part) with her “Paling around with terrorists” line during the campaign.

    A few of her contradictions / hypocrisy:
    * Cap & Trade
    * Abstinence only sex ed with a pregnant teenage daughter
    * Paling around with terrorists, while sleeping with a secessionist
    * Support (or not) for the bridge to no where

    It seems like she has been bitten by the ‘spotlight bug’ and now she can’t get enough. It doesn’t seem to matter if she gets good press or bad press, just as long as she’s in the spotlight. She’s always got a (bad/uninformed) opinion, and she’s always gotta tell it.

    US Weapons,
    On a couple of your points:

    She isn’t like Pelosi, who makes statements and pushes partisanship so blatantly and who is so far in left field that a ball that rolls to her has already long left the park.

    Palin is exactly like Pelosi – she makes the same type of statements and pushes partisanship just as blatantly as Pelosi. Maybe you don’t see it because Palin is closer to your thinking than Pelosi.

    why does this reach another level for a woman that really doesn’t seem to me to have accomplished nearly enough for the left to despise her.

    You answered your own question – she’s not accomplished – or qualified. That’s the problem.

    12 Lies

    Your defense of the 12 lies seems to be:
    1. Everyone does it
    2. Technically not a “lie”
    3. Selective information
    4. Close enough (don’t bother me with ‘facts’)
    5. Not her fault

    Remember these ‘defenses’ the next time you accuse liberals/democrats of lying.

    Some specifics:

    She has lied about the Bridge To Nowhere. She ran for office favoring it, wore a sweatshirt defending it, and only gave it up when the federal congress, Senator McCain in particular, went ballistic. She kept the money anyway and favors funding Don Young’s Way, at twice the cost of the original bridge. OK, start here… In an era of 9000+ earmarks being attached to an “emergency spending bill”, liberals hate her because she supported a bridge, dropped support when costs became difficult to nail down, and still supports a different bridge. This is really grasping at straws for a reason to hate her.

    One correction:
    “dropped support when costs became difficult to nail down” should be “dropped support when the bridge became politically unpopular”

    You forgot a few lines:
    “and then lied when she said that she never supported the bridge to no-where in the first place.”
    “and was quite the hypocrite for de-crying earmarks and pork while requesting her own.”

    The Trooper Gate investigation that was launched by a bipartisan Republican-controlled legislative body before Palin was picked as McCain’s running mate stated:

    I find that Governor Sarah Palin Abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act … Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional… The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least, engaged in ‘official action’ by her inaction if not her active participation or assistance to her husband in attempting to get Trooper Wooten fired. She knowingly, as that term is defined in the above cited statutes, permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor’s office and the resources of the Governor’s office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired. Her conduct violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act… Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda.

    Sounds like she violated some laws to me!

    As of tonight there have been 20 ethics violation suits filed against her. 25% of those were filed by a single person who obviously has nothing better to do.

    I agree that many of these are petty. But she ran as a reformer against corruption, and she signed many of the ethics laws that are now haunting her. Isn’t complaining about those laws now hypocritical?

    She has been exonerated in every one of these that has come to conclusion.

    What about the family travel expenses and per diem expenses she paid back to the state?

    She relates to people, she is well spoken, attractive, and ethical.

    Yes, No, Yes, No – 50% ain’t bad!!

    I think the biggest reason the left dislikes Sarah Plain so much is that the right pulled her from relative obscurity and thrust her onto the national stage, trying to claim that she is ready to be a national leader. And 45% of the US population seemed to accept that.

    That scares the crap out of me!

    • Oops, I screwed up the html at the end 🙂

    • So Todd,

      How many “lies” has Obama told?

      Every person Palin fired has been found to have been legal. Obama’s firing of the GM CEO is LEGAL how?

      Transparency?

      Bi-partisan?

      Stop un-employment from reaching 9%?

      End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000

      “Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors — saving them an average of $1,400 a year– and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all.”

      Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

      To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

      Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials

      “No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.”

      Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs

      “During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Todd,

      Equating a “secessionist” with a terrorist is a stretch, even for you.

      Palin said nothing incorrect about Cap & Trade. It is, in fact, a great danger to what is left of our economy.

      Just because someone has a pregnant teenage daughter does not necessarily negate their support for abstinence-only sex education… after all, if Palin’s daughter had abstained, it is pretty darn likely she would not have gotten pregnant, no?

      And of course she supported the bridge to nowhere… all that proves is that she is a well-qualified politician!

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Oh, and by the way, Carter was just a hick governor from Georgia, Reagan was just an actor/governor of California, and Clinton was just a hick governor from Arkansas, so I don’t really see how they were better qualified to be President than Palin was to be VP. Please ‘splain.

        • “Carter was just a hick governor from Georgia”

          No Peter. Carter was a MORON from Georgia. He wasn’t a good Governor. He was a worse President.

          The only thing Carter is good for is running his mouth about things he don’t know jack about and stirring doo doo.

        • Peter,
          I didn’t compare Palin to any other previous presidents or call her a hick…

        • Didn’t Bill Clinton graduate from Georgetown with a degree in international relations, go on to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar, and then graduate from Yale Law (the best law school in the world)? That doesn’t really sound like a hick to me.

          I’m a hick and all of my friends are hicks. I can’t recall any of them having such an education.

          Oh, and didn’t Carter graduate in the top 10% of his class at the Naval Academy?

          From what my dad tells me all Reagan did was make some bad movies, VD films for the army during WWII, and serve as president of a union (Screen Actors Guild) before getting into politics. Obama catches hell for using a teleprompter (just like every other president has), but Reagan couldn’t speak without a script. Granted, when he had a script he had no equal. But he was just a talking head president whose people made back room deals with Iranian terrorists and provided arms to the same Afghan ‘freedom fighters’ whom we are now trying to hunt down.

          • bama dad says:

            Actually Iran released the hostages 20 Jan. 1981 the day Reagan was sworn in, would be hard for him to do all that backroom dealing after they were released. Check your facts before you spout.

            • Bama Dad,
              Reagan’s incoming administration negotiated with the Iranian terrorists that were holding the US Hostages to delay their release just long enough so Reagan could announce it after he was sworn in.

              It was a final slap in the face for Carter.

              You need to check your facts before you spout…

              • bama dad says:

                As I was alive and well during this period and was up on current events, please site your source.
                Here is mine:
                Talks that finally succeeded in bringing a release began secretly in September 1980 and were initiated by Sadegh Tabatabai, a brother-in-law of Khomeini’s son Ahmad and “a mid-level official” in the former-provisional revolutionary government. By this time resolution of the crisis was made easier by the fact that two of the hostage takers demands were moot — the Shah was dead and “most” of his wealth had been “removed from American banks” – while the threat of war with Iraq made availability of American-made military spare parts for Iran’s materiel important. Iranian demands for the release were now four: expression of remorse or an apology for the US historical role in Iran, unlocking of “Iranian assets in America and withdraw any legal claims against Iran arising from the embassy seizure, and promise not to interfere in the future.” The demands were listed at the end of a speech by Khomeini considered “a major shift on Iran’s side of the impasse” by journalists.[99] Tabatabai, and Ahmad Khomeini secured the support of Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, the speaker of the Majlis.
                The talks hammered out an agreement to bring to there higher-ups, with the US agreeing to three demands but not to an apology. [100] Talks were stalled first by Iraq’s invasion of Iran which Iranian officialdom blamed on the United States. Rafsanjani delivered a vote in parliament in favor of releasing the hostages. Then negotiations began over how much money US businesses owed Iran — Iran believing the sum to be $20 to $60 billion and the United States estimating it at “closer to $20 to 60 million.” [101] — and how much Iran owed US businesses.[102] Negotiations continued through the American elections (which President Carter lost) with pressure being added by President elect Ronald Reagan’s talk of not paying `ransom for people who have been kidnapped by barbarians.` [103] and a New Years Day threat from Radio Tehran that if the US did not accept Iran’s demands the hostages would be tried as spies and executed.[104]
                Algerian diplomat Abdulkarim Ghuraib’s negotiations between the U.S. and Iran resulted in the “Algiers Accords”[105] of January 19, 1981. The Algiers Accords called for Iran’s immediate freeing of the hostages, the unfreezing of $7.9 billion of Iranian assets and immunity from lawsuits Iran might have faced in America, and a pledge by the United States that “it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”
                The release of the hostages came a day after President Carter’s term ended. While Carter had an “obsession” with finishing the matter before stepping down,” the hostage takers are thought to have wanted the release delayed as punishment for his perceived support for the Shah. [106]
                It was all Cater.

              • I was alive and well, too. I also remember when Reagan’s people wanted to use “Born in the USA” as a campaign song even though it was about a Viet Nam vet who couldn’t get a job in his hometown. It’s a real upbeat song until you actually listen to the words.

                Regardless, this seems like a pretty good article:

                http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/102506.html

              • bama dad says:

                That was a he said she said article written in a anti Conservative news trash bin. Credible would be a word unknown to this rag.

              • You just gave me a ‘he said/she said’ response. Credible would be a word unknown to the likes of you.

                But seriously, it was on the first page of hits and the author asks some pretty good questions (none of which you cared to answer). Feel free to accept the word of Wikipedia’s faceless editors. At least the article I posted has a known author (even if you don’t consider him credible).

              • bama dad says:

                If this is your proof, don’t bother.

                One of the leading, national issues during that year was the release of 52 Americans being held hostage since November 4, 1979, in Iran. Reagan won the election. On the day of his inauguration—in fact, twenty minutes after he concluded his inaugural address—the Islamic Republic of Iran announced the release of the hostages. The timing gave rise to an allegation that representatives of Reagan’s presidential campaign had conspired with Iran to delay the release until after the election in order to thwart President Carter from pulling off an “October surprise”.
                According to the allegation, the Reagan Administration would have rewarded Iran for its participation in the plot by supplying Iran with weapons and by unblocking Iranian government monetary assets in US banks.
                After twelve years of mixed media attention, both houses of the US Congress held separate inquiries and concluded that the allegations lacked supporting documentation.
                Nevertheless, several individuals—most notably former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, former Naval intelligence officer and National Security Council member Gary Sick, and former Reagan/Bush campaign and White House staffer Barbara Honegger—have stood by the allegation.
                If you believe this I guess you think Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were inside jobs.

              • Bama Dad,
                So now you believe that Congress can do a valid and thorough investigation??? 😉

                Of course the “allegations lacked supporting documentation” – it was covert negotiations!! 🙂

          • bama dad says:

            Earl said:

            “provided arms to the same Afghan ‘freedom fighters’ whom we are now trying to hunt down.”

            Not so.

            The mujahideen won when the Soviet Union pulled troops out of Afghanistan in 1989, followed by the fall of the Mohammad Najibullah regime in 1992. However, the mujahideen did not establish a united government, and many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other over the power in Kabul. After several years of devastating infighting, a village mullah organized a new armed movement with the backing of Pakistan. This movement became known as the Taliban, meaning “students of Islam”, and referring to the Saudi-backed religious schools known for producing extremism. Veteran mujahideen were confronted by this radical splinter group in 1996.
            By 2001, the Taliban, with backing from the Pakistani ISI (military intelligence) and possibly even the regular Pakistan Army, as well as al-Qaeda which found a refuge in Afghanistan, had largely defeated the militias and controlled most of the country. The opposition factions allied themselves together again and became known as the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (Northern Alliance). In 2001 with U.S. help and international military intervention, they ousted the Taliban from power and formed the new government, and gradually militias were either incorporated into the new national army and police forces or demobilized.
            At present the term “mujahideen” is sometimes used to describe insurgents, including the Taliban/Al Qaeda, fighting NATO troops and the security forces of the US-backed government of Hamid Karzai and allied militias in Afghanistan, although most of the Mujahideen leaders who fought the Soviet Union later fought against the Taliban.

            Again get your facts right.

          • So for the record nobody is disputing that Ronnie was a bad actor who made VD films during WWII (and never freed any prisoners from concentration camps) and made an ass of himself when he spoke without a script, “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

            [audio src="http://radio.about.com/library/reagan_bomb.mp3" /]

            Oh yeah, what about Iran-Contra and supplying arms to numerous third world dictators (including Saddam Hussein)?

    • USWeapon says:

      A few of her contradictions / hypocrisy:
      * Cap & Trade

      I explained above to Ray

      * Abstinence only sex ed with a pregnant teenage daughter..

      So because her teenage daughter didn’t listen to abstinence means that she is a hypocrite or a liar for pushing it? This one completely baffles me TOdd. You can call it ironic, but to call it a lie or hypocrisy is not only false and misleading, it is low.

      * Paling around with terrorists, while sleeping with a secessionist

      I gotta tell you, a lot of Americans are secessionists these days Todd. And deciding that you should secede from the USA is not nearly as bad as say, blowing up a police station. Another one I am shocked ot see you fall victim to.

      * Support (or not) for the bridge to no where

      I explained above to Ray

      Your defense of the 12 lies seems to be:
      1. Everyone does it
      2. Technically not a “lie”
      3. Selective information
      4. Close enough (don’t bother me with ‘facts’)
      5. Not her fault
      Remember these ‘defenses’ the next time you accuse liberals/democrats of lying.

      You and Ray fall into the same trap here. I did not say that she was OK for lying, if that is what she did. I found most of these examples to be really stretching as examples of lying. At any rate, I at no point said lying was OK. The point of the article was I don’t see why liberals hate HER so much. So comparing her lies to those of other politicians is relevant, since liberals don’t seem to mind much bigger lies being told by the President and other candidates. What about these 12 “lies” was worse and therefore justified the hatred spewed at her? That was the point. Instead you decided that I was OK with her lying or defending her lying.

      That whole thing you copied from the legislature was completely overturned by the section that I copied and pasted in the main article. Not your fault, you just weren’t up to date with where the “trooper gate” investigation had gotten.

      What about the family travel expenses and per diem expenses she paid back to the state?

      She was not mandated to do so. She did so on her own. And this was not one of the 20 ethics complaints. This was a question asked by the legislature that was investigated at the behest of the mainstream media.

      Sometimes the best reply is no reply, as Obama did (for the most part) with her “Paling around with terrorists” line during the campaign.

      Oh I get it. It is her fault for defending herself. Obama kept quiet on the terrorist thing because he knew he was guilty of that and didn’t want it blown up. Smart political move. What kills me is that you seem to hate her for defending herself. That makes it her fault rather than the pieces of shit that leveled the accusations in the first place.

      I think the biggest reason the left dislikes Sarah Plain so much is that the right pulled her from relative obscurity and thrust her onto the national stage, trying to claim that she is ready to be a national leader. And 45% of the US population seemed to accept that. That scares the crap out of me!

      And a larger percentage of people thought a community organizer who happens to be a great speaker but has less experience than her was qualified to have a spot a step higher than her. THAT doesn’t scare the shit out of you? At least she had some experience as a top leader in a government. What was Obama’s? The only difference was he was a better speaker. You should feel dumb for letting that fact sway you so heavily.

      • USWeapon,

        Cap & Trade

        Ok – She changed mind. Does that apply to everyone?

        Abstinence only sex ed

        If ‘Abstinence only sex ed’ doesn’t work in the family of a major proponent, I question its effectiveness.

        Bristol said ‘Abstinence only sex ed’ was unrealistic, and then changed her mind – maybe after some pressure from Mom. Guess that’s Ok too…

        Paling around with terrorists, while sleeping with a secessionist

        I think both arguments are stupid.

        Support (or not) for the bridge to no where

        I don’t see your explanation to Ray, just your original post

        12 lies

        Seems to me you were defending – or ‘explaining’ – why they aren’t lies. Not much difference to me.

        That whole thing you copied from the legislature was completely overturned by the section that I copied and pasted in the main article. Not your fault, you just weren’t up to date with where the “trooper gate” investigation had gotten.

        The original investigation wasn’t overturned. There was just a second investigation that Palin requested.

        What about the family travel expenses and per diem expenses she paid back to the state?

        She was not mandated to do so. She did so on her own. And this was not one of the 20 ethics complaints. This was a question asked by the legislature that was investigated at the behest of the mainstream media.

        Sorry, guess I’m not following the investigations that close. But she had submitted incorrect expense reports. That’s pretty serious – at least in the business world – including possible termination.

        Sometimes the best reply is no reply, as Obama did (for the most part) with her “Paling around with terrorists” line during the campaign.

        Oh I get it. It is her fault for defending herself. Obama kept quiet on the terrorist thing because he knew he was guilty of that and didn’t want it blown up. Smart political move. What kills me is that you seem to hate her for defending herself. That makes it her fault rather than the pieces of shit that leveled the accusations in the first place.

        Defending yourself so stridently against stupid accusations just feeds the flames. If an accusation is unfounded, it will die on it’s own. If not, then you’re in trouble.

        I think the biggest reason the left dislikes Sarah Plain so much is that the right pulled her from relative obscurity and thrust her onto the national stage, trying to claim that she is ready to be a national leader. And 45% of the US population seemed to accept that. That scares the crap out of me!

        And a larger percentage of people thought a community organizer who happens to be a great speaker but has less experience than her was qualified to have a spot a step higher than her. THAT doesn’t scare the shit out of you? At least she had some experience as a top leader in a government. What was Obama’s? The only difference was he was a better speaker. You should feel dumb for letting that fact sway you so heavily.

        Thanks – I mostly feel dumb for spending so much time on this.

        • USWeapon says:

          Sorry Todd,

          Didn’t mean to demean you. I don’t think you are dumb. My point with the whole argument was not that she was right or wrong on any of this stuff. I don’t care to get into that big of a debate over her unless she runs for President again, in which case I will have plenty to look at, investigate, and comment on. The entire point of the article was that I don’t see anything that justifies the vitriol that seems to be thrown at her. So I asked for someone to explain it to me and tried to offer the view from my perspective. Liberals don’t seem to dislike her, or to think she is unqualified. They HATE her and attack nearly every move she or her family make. That is what I didn’t understand, and still don’t. I don’t suggest that you and Ray have to answer for liberals everywhere. I was just hoping for some enlightenment. You guys wanted to go issue by issue, which I took as you explaining why liberals hate her. Those things didn’t make sense when weighed against the rest of the politicians out there who liberals don’t hate. That was my only point. I will let the Palin thing go for now. She really isn’t that important of a player. I was just making an attempt to understand.

      • OMG – I don;t have the time or writing skills to respond to so many points, thus I’ll focus on Bristol ! The statements judging her from the non-judgmental left is incredible.

        Plus – Are you freaking kidding me? Bristol is so … in tune … to have sex it amazing that she hasn’t had several kids by now !! There are just some girls that are like that! and that comes across on TV – can you imagine what that would be like in person in High School? 30-40 years ago she MIGHT have made it to 2 or 3rd yr of college, but not in today’s society unless they sent her to a private boarding school.

    • TexasChem says:

      Is it just me or when you guys read Todd and Rays’ posts about Sarah Palin they are full of fallacies such as:

      Ad Hominem
      Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
      Appeal to Authority
      Appeal to Belief
      Appeal to Common Practice
      Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
      Appeal to Emotion
      Appeal to Fear
      Appeal to Flattery
      Appeal to Novelty
      Appeal to Pity
      Appeal to Popularity
      Appeal to Ridicule
      Appeal to Spite
      Appeal to Tradition
      Bandwagon
      Begging the Question
      Biased Sample
      Burden of Proof
      Circumstantial Ad Hominem
      Composition
      Confusing Cause and Effect
      Division
      False Dilemma
      Gambler’s Fallacy
      Genetic Fallacy
      Guilt By Association
      Hasty Generalization
      Ignoring A Common Cause
      Middle Ground
      Misleading Vividness
      Personal Attack
      Poisoning the Well
      Post Hoc
      Questionable Cause
      Red Herring
      Relativist Fallacy
      Slippery Slope
      Special Pleading
      Spotlight
      Straw Man
      Two Wrongs Make A Right

      I mean cmon do the libs’ have a training seminar to teach how to blatantly twist and corrupt relative premises and conclusions with errors of reasoning?

      I wish I could get one sound arguement from a Lib with all true premises to support their claims rather than these opinionated fallacies full of factual and reasoning errors.

    • You asked why I don’t like Sarah Palin. I gave you my opinion. I don’t expect you to agree with it.

      We’ve been doing this for over a week – I’ve been going back thru previous posts looking for ‘facts’ cause I think we’ve already overturned most of the ‘rocks’, and now we’re just kicking ’em around some more.

      Only time will tell what Sarah Palin’s future holds. It will be interesting to watch.

  20. Hello to all! Thought I’d chime in today, been reading alot, but not writing much, sometimes I like to just take things in and get a better feel for my thoughts.

    I’m not a Palin fan, but I enjoyed the election process alot because of her. She wasn’t the smartest politician in the race, but I don’t mind that much, cuz I’m not the brightest either. I used my own experiences during Desert Storm to allow me to understand that what you may see, isn’t always what you get. I was a young NCO, with alot of responsibility to maintain weapons for the base defense of King Abdul Aziz Air base throughout the conflict. With over 800 security troops and 25 square miles to protect and defend, and 17 weapon systems, it was a daunting task for anyone, especially a 25 year old with two younger Airman to assist.

    Officers and SrNCO’s don’t listen to the young folk to often, especially in that environment. Over the span of time, three different decisions about weapons deployment and tactics were ordered by the higher ups. On those three accasions, I went out and took the equipment, moved other weapons to other locations and had to stand before all the so called smart people to explain (and defend) my decisions. I could have been Court Marshalled for this, but after explaining the cause and effect of the poor decisions by leadership, my Colonel backed me up everytime. After the third time, noone was allowed to make changes without having a meeting with the Commander and myself ( a lowly NCO, and they hated that).

    The moral of this, is just because a person may not seem like they can make good decisions, based on many different views (mine was youth), is not a reason to condemn them, shrug them off, or attack them. I cannot always articulate what I want very well, and maybe Palin was similar in nature. That doesn’t always correlate to making good decisions when they need to be made. If your heart is in to making the best decisions that will help people, articulation means little.

    On a side note, my opposition to Obama was not about him, but about his idealogy. I see him as a good father and husband, just not a good POTUS. He has lied to us, just like every other politician, that’s why there are so many lawyer jokes! That’s my story, and I’m stickin to it!

    Peace to all!

    G!

    • There you go G. I too think he’s probably a fine man and husband and father. He’s just not got very good ideology. The problems we have as a nation did not start with him, but he is steadily making them far worse.

      Cap and Trade and Universal Health Care will be the death of our nation. But that’s just my opinion. And those are like buttholes. Everybody’s got one.

    • G-Man –

      There have been several posts that spurred me to think about and plan to post some solid generalizations about experience, leadership, responsibility, etc etc

      based on ur post, I feel that YOU are more qualified to be president than Obama, Biden, McCain !! You have made executive decisions for your group which involves not only making the decision, validations, supporting it and being responsible for the results. That I believe is the criteria for an executive position.

      McCain might have had that opportunity in the service, but Obama and Biden have only been lapdog, slime ball, political hacks with NO responsibility for their actions, comments or anything. Why do you think that Biden was ignored by the democratic party for years? Because he is a follower.

      People make fun of Palin as a small town mayor, but my experience has been, that a little pond is more of a challenge than the big pond, no matter where you are in the pond! Much less, what governor of what state is treated with such ridicule? Do you people have any idea what it is to be a governor of any f#$%^ing thing?

      Hell, pick any chairman of any school board in the country and you can find as many if not more inconsistencies or lies (as Ray & Todd call them)

  21. Off topic — Does anyone know what this is about?

    Obama Handshake Snub in Russia youtube video

    c

    • Judy S. says:

      I just watched it, and can’t quite figure it out. Did he not shake hands with Putin or what? It went so fast, had to watch it at least 3 times, and still couldn’t make it out, sorry.

      Judy

  22. Judy S. says:

    To All:

    I just received this in my email box and thought I’d share this with you, and see what you think and thought about it.

    Judy

    _____________________________________________________________________
    Congressman Dean Heller

    Second District of Nevada

    _____________________________________________________________

    Important E-News Update

    Members of Congress Must Participate in Public Plan

    (Washington, DC) – Today U.S. Congressman Dean Heller (R-NV) offered an amendment to the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200) during the House Ways and Means Committee markup that would require members of Congress enroll in the government-run healthcare program. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 21 to 18.

    “I do not believe the federal government should be running healthcare in our country and levying massive tax increases on America’s small businesses. However, if this Administration and the majority party are going to force government-run healthcare on the American people, then Members of Congress should be required to enroll in that plan. If the government-run ‘public plan’ is good enough for millions of our constituents, then it should be good enough for Members of Congress,” said Heller.

    H.R. 3200 creates a government-run insurance plan that will place Washington bureaucrats in control of healthcare services, limiting choices for many Americans. While the Congressional Budget Office has yet to score the bill under consideration, independent estimates place the bill’s cost to American taxpayers at $1.5 trillion or greater. This legislation could also result in 114 million Americans losing their current health insurance coverage.

    • I think it is just for show, Judy. If they get it passed, they will “undo” that part when we aren’t looking.

      I’m sick and tired of this stupid crap in Washington. Passing bills without having a clue how to really run these new wonder programs. Disgusting.

      • Judy S. says:

        Hi Dee

        I don’t know what’s truth or fiction anymore to tell you the truth. We heard that on our local news last night, and when I got that from Congressman Heller today, I just thought I’d pass it along and let everybody else see it.

        It would be nice to see if they were forced to live like the rest of us,and see how they would manage, but I know it’s only wishful thinking on my part, but I too am sick of all this crap going on in Washington. No regards for anybody, on anything. Let’s just cram all this BS, don’t bother to read anything, just sign away. Enough is enough already.

        I think it’s getting time for everybody to start to revolt against them and see what would happen if we all just stood up and said, “ENOUGH”. How do you start to do something like that anyway? ANYBODY?

        • Now you know what happened in Atlas Shrugged.

          As I have said before:

          We may be able to slow things down but we will not stop and reverse them.

          Why, because both the Republicans and the Democrats are voting away your rights. The R’s just do it slower than the D’s.

          Following the Constitution and not Taking from Peter to pay Paul would be a good start. But not one either party has as a goal.

          Why would they do either of those things? They wouldn’t because the people in both parties do not believe it is in their interest. They all want something for nothing. Something for nothing costs somebody else.

  23. TexasChem says:

    Jesus said, “Five sparrows are sold for two pennies, aren’t they? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God.”

    Sarah Palin has the ability to awaken the apathetic populace to vote.The so called silent majority.This silent majority is the backbone of the approximate 159 million Americans that consider themselves christians.Imagine what could be accomplished if you were to get all those votes together for a purpose.

    Her political stance is held in common with the majority of the working class in America.This is proven due to her ability to draw such large crowds from this social class when speaking publicly.

    That is the reason the left attacks her so vehemently.

    That’s my 2 cents on this topic so spend it any way you want!

  24. Well, here is another email I got just a bit ago, thought I’d put this one up too. Hope this won’t offend any one, last thing I want to do. It’s called:

    The Ten Commandments According to Obama

    ________________________________________________________________
    I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE

    II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE

    III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE

    IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE

    V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE

    VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE

    VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE

    VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you’ve been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE

    IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE

    X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE

    • Judy, Today I was called a “militant” by a member of the Democratic party here.

      While I haven”t engaged in any form of violence in over a decade and then some, I was labeled as such.

      My answer was ” Do not wish for something you can”t handle!

      We will overcome this mess!

      G!

      • v. Holland says:

        G

        I would really like to known what kind of militant behavior you use to participate in. 🙂

      • Hey G.

        I know you’re right, just hope it doesn’t take too long though. I feel like a fish out of water getting gutted more and more, and more.

        BTW G. don’t know if you saw my note to you last night, but I’m going to repeat myself here.

        A GREAT BIG HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU, since it’s your B-DAY tomorrow. Hope you will have a wonderful day on your special day tomorrow. I bet you thought I’d forget, huh?

        Take Care

        Judy

  25. TexasChem says:

    By Rep. John Carter, 31st District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives.
    07/16/2009

    Pelosi Censors Republicans:

    Monday night Democrats voted to shut down the U.S. House Representatives rather than allow a handful of Republican Congressmen to speak on the floor. What could have been so offensive or frightening about our discourse that Speaker Pelosi felt she had to protect her party by gagging free speech in the House?

    In fact, we had planned to speak on the lack of transparency of the House since Democrats took control. We had planned to criticize Speaker Pelosi for repeatedly denying Members, the media, and the public to right to read legislation before it was voted on. We were set to discuss House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s statement last week that if his Members were required to read the Democrats’ healthcare reform package before it was voted on, it would fail.

    So the Speaker obviously feels that if the public is truly aware of her party’s agenda, they will reject it. She is now making sure the public is kept in the dark by trampling the centuries-old democratic traditions of the House.

    What are those traditions? Every day that the House is in session, following the final vote of the day, representatives are allowed the privilege of free speech on the House floor in what is known as “Special Orders.” They may speak for one minute, five minutes, or one hour segments, and must request their time in advance. Time is allocated equally to both parties on a first-come basis.

    Since the advent of live C-SPAN coverage of the House, this has provided a national televised outlet for both Republicans and Democrats to speak to the nation on topics they feel were not adequately addressed during regular order in the House, during which the Democrat majority has the parliamentary ability to limit debate and speeches.

    Special Orders therefore frequently serves as a political safety valve if the party in the majority becomes too dictatorial during debate, using their majority status to truly oppress the minority’s ability to debate and offer amendments.

    That is now the case in the House, with the Democrat majority under Pelosi repeatedly rejecting House rules to ram a far-left agenda through before the public has time to learn what is actually in the bills.

    This is what we were committed to bring to public light.

    House rules require a bill be publicly posted for three days before it can be voted on. That basic rule was written by none other than Thomas Jefferson as part of the original rules package of the House, as it is essential to the survival of representative democracy.

    The House can waive that rule if it chooses on specific occasions. The Republican-controlled House chose to waive it when considering the Patriot Act in 2001 following the terror attacks of 9-11. They thought there was enough of a national defense emergency to just bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

    But Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats have chosen to ignore the rule on every major issue taken up by the House this year, including:

    The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – The Obama Stimulus: This one just had to pass that very day because time was a-wastin’ in getting those new jobs coming. We couldn’t wait for Members to read it. But then the President waited four days to sign it into law while he spent the weekend in Chicago, and months later none of the new jobs have come into existence.

    The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization (SCHIP): Speaker Pelosi couldn’t wait on this one either, although the deadline for reauthorization was still two months away.

    The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Lilly was peddled as covering decades-old wage discrimination cases, but after waiting 20 years, Congress couldn’t wait one more day to let Members actually read the thing.

    The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009: No excuses at all on this one. They just didn’t want the details known.

    The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009: This one has been languishing since last October, but we suddenly had to pass it that day.

    The AIG Bonus Tax Act: This had to get through right then, don’t mind the details, we just had to go after those bonuses. Only when we read what passed after the fact, the bill contained waivers for all of the same executives the bill was supposed to reign in, many with curiously close ties to Treasury Secretary and tax cheat Tim Geithner.

    The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009: No rush whatever on this one time-wise, the Democrats just didn’t want people talking about the hundreds of billions given to foreign banks that should have gone to our troops.

    The American Clean Energy and Security Act/National Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax:
    No excuse was offered on this one, the Speaker just didn’t want anybody reading Henry Waxman’s 300 page amendment he sneaked in overnight before we were forced to vote. Three weeks later, the Senate shows no intention of taking up the bill before the opening day of dove season, if then.

    There’s a reason all these bills are listed. The list constitutes every major policy bill undertaken by Congress this year. House Democrats are not just waiving the three-day rule — they have destroyed it, and are intentionally pushing their agenda to the floor with blindfolds on the media and the public.

    This constitutes an astonishing and chilling acceleration of the assault on representative democracy that began in earnest this January.

    Representative democracy works when a U.S. Representative listens to the input of their constituents, and votes the way the majority of their district would vote. Only a Representative can’t listen if no one has ever seen the bill, or had time to provide input. They have to vote blind, which for too many, is voting the way their leadership tells them.

    This is what Republican House Members were going to the floor to say Monday night. We were set to decry the loss of openness in the House.

    Instead, we were met with a slammed door by Democrats, who are now committed to burying truth along with democracy.

    The Democrats are the majority — for now. They chose to silence debate on the floor by gagging House Republican Members from using their historical right to speak after the close of the day. But they cannot stop us from speaking outside the halls of Congress and letting the American public know the truth about their ongoing attack against the very foundations of a free Republic.

  26. And they wonder why we’re going to hell in a hand basket.

    GOD HELP US ALL.

    Judy

  27. an interesting point…

    545 vs 300,000,000
    EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT IT.

    Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

    545 PEOPLE
    By Charlie Reese
    Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

    Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

    Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

    You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.

    You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

    You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

    You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

    You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

    One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

    I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

    I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.
    The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

    Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

    What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

    The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party.
    She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

    It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

    If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

    If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.

    If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ

    If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

    There are no insoluble government problems.

    Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

    Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

    They, and they alone, have the power.

    They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

    Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

    We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

    Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

    It can and should be done while we still have free elections.

  28. Wow! even the Ruskies snubbed B. Hussein. With so many world leaders snubbing him to an extent that they cant even play nice in front of the cameras, makes me wonder if they know something much bigger about him that makes them shun him the way they do. I actually felt pity for him after watching the last couple utube videos of his snubs. He looked like the nerdy goof that others play a joke on,after the nerdy goof realizes it was a joke. but this wasnt a joke and he got that. ouch.

    The world govt. knows something, and i dont mean in the sense that they think he is the anointed worldy one who comes on the world stage over night, with loads of charisma and leads the world astray or that the bilderbergers or rosicrucians with the worlds destiny in their hands, know his path and they dont like it.

    Nothing like the above, But just they know something of mistrust surrounds his persona and that he is not worthy of a handshake. I wonder how this may effect things if an uncomfortable world situation occurs?

    About interest in banning books, many mainstream Americans look into it because they see classics like Harriet Beecher Stowes Uncle Toms Cabin to Mark Twains Huckleberry Finn being plucked out of libraries and of course the koran is welcome and the Bible is slowly being banned. So many Christians follow up and do have questions. I dont know if the librarian in Wasilla was a radical with an agenda to ban certain books or just not order books like G Becks, M Levin and A Coulters. But at any rate, coming to the conclusion that Palin was the one who wanted to ban books because she asked questions about this matter, is ludicrous to me.

    All bases seemed to be covered on the hatred of Palin,and all the things that liberals hate her for have been rebutted. I agree where all this hatred comes from and not that its directed at Palin per say but more of a general hatred for conservatives who articulate their thoughts.

    the lettermen thing shows how liberals pick and choose who has to steps down and who keeps their jobs. if its disparaging the lowliest form of a minority(a conservative christian and white at that) its okay, any other minority its anathema. Also running a illegal gay prostitution ring using govt vehichles on govt time is excusable if its a liberal doing it. If marion Barry was a republican smoking crack and soliciting prostitutes and distributing drugs using govt limos all on camera, would he have been reelected. Or if ACORN was a republican voter fraud group would it be given more power and monet all the time.

    Why did Letterman keep his place on T.V. with the pure hatred he spewed in the form of a joke, when Don Imus was run out of town for a silly name calling stichk that was in bad taste. Imus and his N.Y. bodies put down and talk trash to each other and any one else they talk about, Imus is an equal opportunity offender if you listen to his attempt on humor. It was almost like he was just trying to be cool in rapper lingo that day. If you listened to him for a month though, he picked on everyone with that N.Y. kinda love. everyone was a bald sob or a dick with ears or some other sophmoric name. At any rate Imus was bannished and leterman floats on.

    Palin will win in 2012 if ACORN doesnt get away with its shenanigans. Stop ACORn and we have a chance to keep our freedoms.

  29. Fearful of her politically, because she is capable, experienced, demonstrates common sense. Jealous of her because she is attractive, not of the standard politician mold.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Nelson – you are fearful of her because she is capable, experienced and demonstrates common sense?

      • No Ray, I appologize for the lack of proper wording. I am referring to those that do not like her, and the underlying reasons for that dislike. It is a human trait to dislike something or someone when you are affraid or distrust it or them. I personally respect the lady a great deal. I am not certain at this time that she is a viable candiadate for 2012, but I do see in her a honest straightforward person that is a pleasant departure from the self serving egotistical career politicians we presently have to choose from. Thanks for the slap on the head.

  30. Jim from Maine says:

    Palin keeps it simple, honest, and truthful. She is a very rare breed in politics and in general. Compared to those who attack her with ridiculous comments that are solely based on their own lack of intelligence, she is an Einstein. She is far more together than most politicians. She is refreshing, believable, and on point to those who have the guts to be honest and independent. I would go to battle with her any day. I trust her, and know she is only capable of doing what is best for others. Unfortunately, it takes true born intelligence, not education cloaked intelligence to get it. Those who attack her fear her logic since they can’t understand it. They fear her independent nature because they are not capable of independent thought. Their tactics are child like, and immature, but there are so many of them, that I fear the numbers will always be against her. I hope not, this country needs change, change like her.

  31. Ray Hawkins says:

    “So the hate proceeds from the Governor’s effectiveness, her charisma, and her solid, conversative, heart. I focus on her heart because the fact that her mind is solid is a given, but what she gives in her speeches and her actions is her true heart.”

    Show your face blogger – or are you going to hide behind nonsense as well? I suppose she does have a “conversative” heart, but her speeches tend to be mindless drivel – I’m sure her pageant speeches were much better articulated than her golly gee political stances.

    Effectiveness?

    “She did not fit, so she quit”

    History will judge her effectiveness – rarely are those who quit seen as effective.

  32. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Ray,

    Such a nice way to be so adversarial towards a “potentially” new poster at US Weapon’s site.

    RS

  33. Ray Hawkins says:

    Not so sure this is a NOOB

  34. I am like pre-NOOB, I am so new at this blogging stuff. I don’t even have a white belt yet. It shows because I meant to write “conservative” and not “conversative” if that is even a word. In answer to your question. What I meant by effective is her record as Governor in passing sensible legislation and her ability to light up the rank and file. I think it is the latter that most bothers liberals. They would never admit to the former or rather first they will distort her record (e.g. she decreased funding to special needs kids when in fact she tripled it) and then when they are faced with the truth, they will say it’s nothing significant.

  35. TexasChem says:

    Stop being so paranoid Ray…

  36. Ray Hawkins says:

    Me? Post just read as a hit n run. Sorry.

Trackbacks

  1. […] this blogger’s take on what Sullivan called the “12 big lies” of the Governor:  https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/why-the-hate-for-sarah-palin/.   When the blogger is done with Sullivan there ain’t nothing left of him but a three-leaf […]

  2. […] Why The Hate for Sarah Palin? « Stand Up For America […]

  3. […] She's Got the Bad Guys in Her Sights StandUpForAmerica.com […]

%d bloggers like this: