Success has many fathers, but failure is a mother of five from Wasilla, Alaska--at least if you believe anonymous Republican operatives looking to kneecap the principle rival to whichever anonymous presidential hopeful that they are loyal to. The media, looking out for their own "made" man, is only too happy to comply with their designs. As Matt Lewis articulated on MSNBC, the implausible assualt on Sarah Palin, the woman who injected life into John McCain's moribund campaign, as the cause of his defeat is more about 2012 than 2008. Savvy but sinister political hatchetmen for other unannounced GOP presidential candidates know that the media will run with anything, no matter how outlandish, that trashes the woman viewed as Obama's most likely opponent four years from now. Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed. I don't know who insisted that the campaign buy her clothes, but I do know that most of the people carping about this non-story have their wardrobes bankrolled by the television networks that they work for. The gossipy stories about her answering the hotel door in a towel are befitting of the supermarket checkout line, not reputable news organizations. It's a symptom of the sclerosis in the party that once new blood is pumped in, the old, diseased, clogged arteries attempt to block it.

I thought there was something to this. I WAS thinking the typical political "shirk" ones responsibility. Top GOP advisers cannot take responsibility for the failure of a isdirected party, so they must pass the blame to Mrs. Palin.

I am not sure if you listen to the Glenn Beck radio program, but he was saying some very revealing things about Mrs. Palin. Apparently she (personally) was calling him to be on the show. He intimated that the "handlers" did not want her to be on, and taht obviously Mrs. Palin does not like to be handled.

One more thing you forgot, Dan. Remember how air traffic was held up in CA a few years ago so that one of the Clinton's could get a fancy haircut? How about John BEDwards' $400 coif?

And you are right, at the end of every news show it says "Wardrobe provided by..." Since ladies like Ms. Couric do not like to wear the same outfit twice, I wonder what the wardrobe bill is for her. Could someone on here do some digging and find that out, please? I would bet it is more than $150,000.

And Dan, a personal thank you for always being a voice of reason since the beginning of flynnfiles. I am sure your rhetoric has made you numerous enemies on both sides. I appreciate your candor.

Be well,

Sponge

Conservative ballott propostions, which were closer to Palin's alleged gaffes than McCain's positions, won from coast to coast by as much as the ticket lost by. In 110 years, the GOP has fielded 14 candidates, two conservatives. That pair make up two out of the three who did not leave office under a cloud. Oh,yeah, the conservatives actually manage to get elected too, probably because their views don't win them endorsements from the New York Times.

The reason for McCain's loss is still in the White House, foisted on us by two succesive elections, once with the aid of strict constructionists on the Supreme Court.

Guido

The way that main and fringe GOP supporters act, I'm not convinced that going forward it will be a viable party.

It's fairly apparent that the reason the Democrats won big this time around is that they are united in their chaos and venom and reject all party blame or responsibility for flaws or wrong doing in order to focus on beating the opposition.

There were few factions in the Democrat Party that didn't get behind their guy. And that kind of direction is hard to beat.

Meanwhile, small 'c' and big 'C' Conservatives and/or Republicans seem to derive some sense of high minded entertainment from whipping their imperfect candidates, right down to choosing alternative party candidates who could not win just to make a point.

Now, we find that after the fact when it really doesn't matter, a diverse group including factions with varying degrees of "Party values" decide it's good form to blame and savage Sarah Palin as flawed and unqualfied to give credence to why the election was lost.

Heaven forbid a steady Conservative Republican star rises.

For all of those who are thinking of continuing to fracture the Party, you'd better come up with a pretty good plan within the next four years to either create a new party that could actually win or improve the existing one.

Dan,

On somewhat of the trollish note, I just saw Paul Krugman interviewed on Lou Dobbs tonight and remembered your post about him winning the Nobel Prize and what a weak selection he was.

After listening to him for five minutes, all I can say is, what an empty suit! Dobbs was giving him the respect due as an NP winner. But every time he asked him a question he stammered and stuttered and gave very vague answers about the economy and where it's heading.

The only thing he was sure of was that we need to come up with another trillion dollars in bail out money.

I'm sure there's a place for this light weight in the O cabinet.

I saw it too, and all I can say asdf is, you had me at "empty suit." I met him in a green room once, and the other guests were making fun of him. I didn't get in on the action because I did not know who he was. I am not joking.

I'm happy to see her dragged through the mud, frankly, because she was such a horrible candidate. Hearing her speak, I thought I heard an intellectual strawweight. Sure, she's conservative, but she sounds just dumb; she apparently did little or no preparation for her debate with Joe Biden; and she sounds like a teenage valley girl. It'll be a disaster for the GOP if she's nominated four years from now.

Alan, do you honetly think she is dumb, or just not "handled" enough?

Be well,

Sponge

In this day and age, it really seems that excellence has been redefined down. Krugman is a good example of that.

I agree with you Sponge. I'd point more to the McCain campaign and its flawed operators who didn't do an adequate enough job with her and less at the person and her qualities. To be sure, they went after her so they must have seen something.

Amazing to me that now that it's over, people will give a weak candidate like McCain a pass on the majority of the responsibility for losing and attempt to pin it on Palin.

And to go along with my previous post, would the Dems have done the same with obtuse human gaffe machine Biden if they had lost? I don't think so.

I'm going with dumb. I've heard the answers she gives to questions. You can't blame those on handlers. That's all her.

I would disagree. How dumb can you be to run a state and battle the corrupt forces that reside there?

She may not be Ivy educated like our new Commander in Chief and know that there are 57 states or as brilliant as the MENSA who is now second in command of our nation who can't tell that there are more than three letters in a four letter word, but she's appears and is likely pretty bright.

To battle corruption doesn't require intelligence. It requires integrity. As for running a state, I don't think her handling of the Matanuska Maid Dairy issue speaks well to her governance. And Alaska is a rich state (name one other state that sends its citizens money), which minimizes the difficulty of running it.

The mouth is the window to the brain, because when a person speaks, you see how that person's mind works. Seeing Sarah Palin attempt to answer questions (or attempt to dodge them) in a variety of settings has convinced me that Palin's brain could fit in a thimble with room to stretch. Explain to me how you can watch Palin stumble and BS her way through all those questions in interviews and at the debate (for which she apparently didn't bother to learn any more facts than she could count on one hand), and still think she's intelligent.

By the way, I hate Obama. So stop implying that I think well of him.

I'm not implying that you are an Obama supporter. Just using him and Biden as counter examples of how the 'winners' have been given a pass while Palin has had much criticism.

You make it sound like she's a bumbling fool. If, as you say, the mouth is the window to the brain, can you not agree that she come off clear, well spoken and, fairly eloquent? You might not like her down home Northwestern twang, but (as some might say about Southern folks) that doesn't mean she's dumb.

Now, that may differ from the content or command of what she's spoken about and it's possible that she wasn't prepped properly and didn't know certain things that were, at the time, above her pay grade. But she always sounded alright doing it.

I think you and a lot of other Palin haters are being unfair.

In fact, if you caught any of her press conference on her arrival home, she was quite excellent.

Bottom line is that many on the GOP and/or Conservative side don't like her because. They have their own agenda. And the other side is scared senseless of her.

So, she will be made a target until both parties can crush her.

The media have given Obama quite the pass. Condign punishment for McChurian, who was correct when he called the press his base back in the 2000 campaign--and he remained correct until the general election campaign began in early 2008. That being said, even though McCain deserved to have the press turn on him after years of vapid and unfounded lionization, the voters got screwed--the voters deserve a fair media, a media that will give an honest portrayal of both sides, which in this case would've been an immensely negative portrayal of both sides, given the poor quality of the candidates.

No, I do not concede that Palin is clear, well-spoken, and eloquent. I wasn't criticizing her Northwestern twang, and I don't understand why you thought I was. I compared her speech to that of a valley girl (of whom we have many in New York), which should've conjured up memories of her overusing the word "like" and using the verb "to be" as if it meant "to say" (e.g., "my son goes. . ."). Then there's the fact that she trips over her own irrelevant tangents when asked questions, as we see, for example, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc. You say she always sounded all right? Give me a break. What she said there wasn't clear, well-spoken, or eloquent. Neither was what she said in the Charlie Gibson interview. (There was nothing eloquent about saying, e.g., that Russia's proximity to Alaska gives her insight into what Russia was doing in Georgia, one of the historic howlers of this campaign--or any campaign.) Ditto what she said in the Katie Couric interview. Ditto what she said at the debate with Biden. (As to the latter, here's a non-exhaustive list: she gave no answer to the question on bankruptcy, a question that I think a lot of voters would have liked to hear her answer; she gave no answer re: why the Bush administration's policy toward Israel wasn't a bad one; as to Iraq, I didn't hear a plan, either, Joe. . .)

I want to know how you can possibly blame her handlers. If I were as ignorant about the issues as Palin, I wouldn't have the nerve to run for vice president. She's an adult, so start treating her like one, and let her take responsibility for the fact that she wasn't prepared to discuss the issues she attempted to discuss (or attempted to avoid discussing). Except that my criticism would be stronger than that, because I think her speech patterns would be awful no matter how well- or ill-informed she became. For support, I cite one of my favorite authors, the great Heather Mac Donald: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon1013hm.html

Explain to me how I'm being unfair. Explain to me why her verbal trainwrecks don't reflect on her intelligence, or on her fitness to serve in such a prominent position. Explain to me what business she had running for vice president if there were so many major issues where she's giving these brainless answers that you're going to excuse her by saying she wasn't prepared to discuss those particular issues. You said some matters were above her pay grade--a horrible cop-out when Obambi used it and at least equally bad when it's used in Palin's defense. If you can't even explain why the bailout package should be passed (a question that got Palin into one of many notorious verbal pile-ups), you have no business running for vice president. How can you be a governor--or indeed any person who's supposed to follow the news--and not be prepared to give a coherent-sounding opinion about why the bailout package should or shouldn't pass, for crying out loud? (And, although it's off the subject, how can you respect a person who says she'll read any newspaper that comes across her desk but won't even name a single one?)

I hope both parties do crush her. If the GOP nominates her again, another Democratic victory will be dead certain. Do Republicans ever talk about Palin to people who aren't Republicans? Because the enthusiasm that Palin pumped into the Republican Party when McCain selected her is nothing like the reaction that independents get when they see her interviews and see how stupid and ill-informed she sounds. Too many conservatives are letting their love of Palin's views and her friendly demeanor (and probably her face and body--for good reason) distract them from a serious appraisal of the merits of her speech patterns.

By the way, I've been bashing Palin-as-VP-pick since well before she was nominated--to be precise, since April, when some other conservative bloggers expressed hope that she be nominated. All the "Alan" posts at the following link are mine. http://www.savethegop.com/2008/06/04/palin-for-vp/ And this wasn't for the purpose of serving some faction of the party. By April, I had made up my mind not to vote for the Republican candidate, and I'd decided I was through with the Republicans for nominating Juan McCain (as, by then, it was clear that he would get the nomination). I'm not part of those who have some "agenda," other than fighting for what I consider to be the truth. And I *am* afraid of her, because, as I said, I think she's an intellectual strawweight. I don't need an Ivy League professor; I just want someone who doesn't make me think she got a brain transplant from a fifteen-year-old girl from Long Island.

Just to correct any misimpression I might have created regarding the bailout: I don't support it and I didn't support it. In fact I regard it as something close to an impeachable offense. But Palin supported it, and she couldn't say why. That is one reason why I criticized her so sharply.

hey al, wake up, she had to support it. you dont like her plain speak, i will take that any day over thes glossed up perry mason wannabe's for pres. lawyer double speak i hate it. sarrah hope to see you again.

Personally, I wanted Romney as the VP pick. For that matter, I wanted Romney on the top of the ticket.

But this, again, gets to my point. The Republicans/Conservatives are fractured. They seem to looking for the perfect candidate that is all things to all people. Guess what? There isn't one. So right now, unless there is an Obama disaster, I see an eight-year Obamanation with all of the Democratic trimmings staying in place.

I do understand why some don't like Palin. Everybody has an opinion, and of course she will rub somebody wrong. But I haven't until now heard the reason given that she has an annoying speech pattern. And that it is a direct indication that she doesn't have the intellectual capacity to handle A job never mind ever being able to handle some higher office.

She certainly could have been better prepared to deal with some tough interviews. I think the McCain team dropped the ball on that. But, he picked her and here was a person thrust into the national spotlight who started by getting picked apart in every conceivable way by the national media when the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential selections were not only given a pass on everything but were followed by pom-pom shaking "journalists".

Not for equivalence but for the sake of example and comparison, again, I think that if Obama and Biden got the same interviews and hard questions asked by partisan interviewers, they would not have looked that smart or in command either.

And please, don't be disingenuous and act like you don't understand that Palin was towing the McCain party line with regard to the Bail Out. The 'Maverick' was for it so what's his VP pick going to do?

As much as it will pi$$ you off, she's not going away.

Don't accuse me of being disingenuous, you jerk. I have no way of knowing what Palin really thinks about the bailout. I do happen to know that at least one area of disagreement between Palin and McCain was very openly discussed--at the VP debate, Palin referred pointedly to the fact that she and McCain didn't agree on drilling in Alaska. So that makes YOU disingenuous for saying that she's going to pretend to agree with McCain on everything. But even if she's against the bailout, that doesn't mean we should expect her to give an F-grade response to the "why" question. I hate affirmative action, abortion, and amnesty for illegal aliens, but I'm well-informed enough and bright enough that I can competently argue the other side of the issue, if only by repeating other people's explanations of why they think those are good policies. If Palin was well-informed about the issue but opposed the bailout, then she should've known how she could state the case for the bailout, and should've had the brainpower to state it coherently. That didn't happen.

Oh, by the way, why are you being so disingenuous (again) as to pretend that the bailout issue is the only issue as to which she sounded horrible trying to answer questions? For example, I still want to know how can you think of her as smart after she said that Russia's geographic proximity to Alaska gives her some insight into what Russia is doing in Georgia. I want to know how you can thiink she's smart after she said she reads every newspaper someone puts on her desk, but can't name a single paper she reads. I want to know how you can think she's well-informed after that answer she gave to Couric's question about the Supreme Court. I want to kinow how you can think she's smart when she keeps misusing words such as "like" and "goes."

I notice you're still blaming her handlers for the fact that she wasn't prepared. You say she was thrust out into the spotlight. But if she was unprepared to talk intelligently about issues that are in the papers, that's not her handlers' fault, that's her fault for not being well-informed.

I also notice that you've left the vast majority of my comments without response, including points I've made repeatedly. I'll take that as a concession that you have no response to give.

I want to know why Alan is still writing. The election is over dude. Whatever your point of view is... it really doesn't matter anymore.
Release your emotional responses and let it go.

Alan,

You're, the one with the final pronouncement on Palin; her aversion to the bailout being an unknown hurts your argument--unless we've started handing out the benefit of the doubt to people totally writing somebody off.

As the case that she was defending what she didn't believe in is up for grabs, your counter boils down to that she later disagreed with him. But you have to remember that her performance at the October VP debate recovered peoples enthusiasm following the September interviews. Again that this is not clearly the case is no reason that we should extend the benefit of the doubt in burying her with you.

She started with that she doesn't like that the taxpayers have bailout financial institutions. But I think the case can be made that she realized that she couldn't go that direction and tried to cover.

I suspect that Sarah Palin shouldered a unique burden: She had to appear authentic to her conservative positions, otherwise people would be criticizing here as a chameleon, or a typical politician. She still has to do her job as VP candidate and back John McCain's policy as a good idea. That right there is a disconnect, because John McCain not only reaches across the isle, but enough of the time is looking at there answer sheet. And she was given more scrutiny than any other VP candidate trying to do the same thing that I can remember in my life, only because she was bringing in more people than McCain was.

Don't get me wrong, but conservativism really isn't the position that weights intellectualism heavily. I'm not saying there aren't intellectual heavyweights on this side, there are brilliant people on our side of the spectrum. It just doesn't weight the smarty-pants plan for everything over the "way things have worked" that embraces the common experience. It's not expecting the answer to be published by some university.

Integrity is and should be weighted higher. Fortitude is another in that vein. You have to stand up to terrorists and aggressive nations. You have to cut the budget and give the American people back their money (or at least pay down the debt). "Creative bookkeeping" is what makes our debt much bigger than what the general American understands, or even what the media lets on. You have to mean what you say to the people. Monetary theory in the 70s gave us stagflation in the 70s. Gadget theories about selling bad debt with good ("layering debt") gave us this current credit crunch.

The dems like people who can rattle off numbers, but that trait only has the cachet with the American people that the dem media can convince people is important. Perhaps Bill Clinton had memorized the percent chance of default and knew the statistical tipping point of the layered debt instruments that he ordered the Freddie Mac to create. But those stats never considered the effect of Sarbanes-Oxley to make MBSs into hot potatoes, by marking assets to the current market price, making each issue more sensitive to the all of the debt underneath it. Thus, eliminating the theoretical effect of "layering debt" (90% of the mort-gages in highest grade MBSs are not in default and they would have conserved value if not for the current fear of MBSs to bring down book value).

"Palin probably should have said that they played the same "role" in this mess that a mechanic plays getting run over by a car driven by one of their customers. They didn't create this mess just carried the bad debt that government theorists projected they could. But, Katy, how much harder would it be for the American family to meet those ends when our financial system has collapsed? The Great Depression started with a stock slide which then just knocked out banks. I can't sit here and tell you that it's going to be a whole lot easier for them to pay their bills--let alone keep their jobs--if the financial sector is left to digest the poison pill."

I would love it if she had said that. I would have loved it if McCain had said something like that (but he probably wouldn't). I'd have loved it if I could really be certain that Gingrich would say something like that. (Of course, I wrote that, and speaking is harder than writing.) But I have sat and sat and sat watching conservatives founder on making their meaning as plain as Reagan did. I haven't seen that conservative in the primaries. I can't tell you how many times I've sat in front of my TV screen--even while watching Alan Keyes on MSNBC--feeling that the representative of the conservative position is selling the store.

Really, if you think the rank-and-file republicans can be fooled by appeals to "Joe Sixpack" as a substitute for being able to deliver a clear message, you have a bigger problem than Palin. You're kind of like McCain, thinking he just had to control the incivility of his party or keep the religious right at bay.

[Hey, I understand that mort-gage may be a dirty word now, but I thought that was only metaphorical!]

Sea King:

Are you nuts? You say that the uncertainty regarding whether Palin disagreed with McCain's position on the bailout cuts against my argument, but I'm not the one who even brought the issue up. That argument flunks out like Hayden Christensen in a drama class. In response to my point that Palin should've been able to come up with a less idiotic-sounding defense of the bailout, asdf said that she sounded so bad because she didn't really support the bailout and therefore had to be prepped by her handlers to make the case for the bailout. (Which is a stupid thing to say, because if you're smart and well-informed, you don't have to have someone feed you the arguments on both sides of the issue; you should know them already.) asdf wrote, "please, don't be disingenuous and act like you don't understand that Palin was towing the McCain party line with regard to the Bail Out." That was an unsupported, asinine statement, for which asdf has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. I'm not the one with the burden of proof; HE is, because HE's the one who attempted to support his argument by spouting that fabrication.

"As the case that she was defending what she didn't believe in is up for grabs, your counter boils down to that she later disagreed with him."

No, that's not true. Before Palin was nominated, it was known that Palin supported drilling in Alaska.

"Don't get me wrong, but conservativism really isn't the position that weights intellectualism heavily."

I repeat: I'm not asking for an Ivy League professor. I'm asking for someone who doesn't sound like a moron. Someone who doesn't misuse such words as "like" and "goes," the way Palin does, and who doesn't repeatedly answer questions by saying things so stupid that no one can defend them, as is the case with Palin. Or would you care to defend such verbal trainwrecks as her answer to Katie Couric's question about the Supreme Court, or her perverse assertion that Russia's geographic proximity to Alaska gives her insight into what Russia has been doing in Georgia? I've brought them up (and there are so many more), and no one's defending those statements. Because you CAN'T. Anyone with an above-average IQ wouldn't say those things.

By the way, the word is "conservatism."

So the only incentive somebody has to badmouth Palin is to give potential '12 rivals a leg-up? This is weak. Palin doesn't stand a chance in 2012, and if the intolerant right nominates her, the only way she wins is if there are successive economic, natural, or foreign/international disasters that can be blamed on Obama during his tenure.

We know for a fact that Palin spent 150,000 dollars on designer clothing for herself and her family. Nobody forced her to spend 150,000, and she herself picked the clothing. This spin about being "handled" is reminiscent of her bogus claim that she told Washington "No Thanks" on the bridge to nowhere. In fact, she initially accepted the cash gladly, and was later forced to send it back.

We know for a fact that she refused to prepare for the Couric interview, then bombed it. This gives credence to the rumor that she couldn't differentiate between the continent of Africa or African countries and that she couldn't name all the countries in North America during debate preparations. She couldn't even name one newspaper she reads, for Christ's sake, and she was a journalism major.

We know for a fact that many people were upset with their treatment.

I think in this case where we see smoke there is or was a fire. Only the degree to which the fire burned is a valid point of contention.

There are two groups I refuse to have an ongoing argument with:

1. The zombified followers of the Messiah
2. Anybody suffering from a Derangement Syndrome of any kind

No matter what you say to either group, there is no real discussion or getting around the fact that no matter what is said, that their rabid dislike of the object of their ire makes discussion impossible as they refuse to try to understand any reasonable alternative talking point.

And please. How petty and childish are members of our side or the other to make Palin’s purchase of $150,000 worth of clothes and services an issue. She was invited to run on a major party ticket for the Vice Presidency of the United States! After the capital of all types that’s been spent on this last election, we’re going to worry about a lousy $150 grand to outfit a major candidate? Tedious.

So, not only will the person who will soon (formally) occupy the office of the most powerful individual on the planet bring this country to its knees, but there is a popular pettiness brewing that will work to help add to our demise.

Palin rules! she helped the mcain ticket big time. my question is how in the world did mcain become the repub main man. he is a good man but not the ''man" we needed. and to Sarrah, aim that black rifle baby, and sqweeze that trigger and aim center mass. hope to see you back in 4yrs. so i can hear alan cry somemore.

"She certainly could have been better prepared to deal with some tough interviews. I think the McCain team dropped the ball on that. "

The potential VP shouldn't need intensive interviewing prep. to be competent with basic current events. She was just a puppet like Bush. Not one original idea ever comes out of their mouths.

"I want to know why Alan is still writing. The election is over dude. Whatever your point of view is... it really doesn't matter anymore.
Release your emotional responses and let it go."

Alan is writing to get through the thick heads that say stuff like "There are two groups I refuse to have an ongoing argument with:

1. The zombified followers of the Messiah
2. Anybody suffering from a Derangement Syndrome of any kind"

That seems like the source of pent up rage and anger that needs to be released and 'gotten-over'.

Alan, I don't care if you are left, right, up or down, but it is good to see someone who can form a rational argument without sensationalist phrasing like some Adolescent-Suffering-Deranged-Feelings.

Armyant, you are the wind beneath my wings.

Thank you for what you wrote.

Oh, and I notice my points about the indefensible things Palin has said still haven't gotten any response, other than something along the lines of, "You just can't be reached. You've got a derangement syndrome. I won't argue with you. Sure, I COULD actually come up with a defense of the stupid things Palin said, but I won't, because you're too dense to get it." Which, to me, looks suspiciously like an admission of inability to make the point. There is absolutely no defense of the stupid things Palin has said.

stupid things she said, hmm so you say she is to dumb to be vp ok. funny you havent said the same thing about Joe blow biden. whats up wit dat al? seeing a man in a wheel chair and then tell him to stand up how dumb is that!! if that dont disqualify you for vp nothing does. so come back al with yer 4 page op ed piece defending joe blow, and i will sit hear and laff.

The difference between Biden and Sarah Louise Heath Palin is that Biden may make a slip of the toung, catch it shortly thereafter and squash it within a week, while Sarah Louise Heath Palin will say something completely ignorant and stand behind it for weeks or months on end just because it was a spoon fed line concoted in some GOP war room.

p.s. the grand old party has turned this election into a GET-OUT! party.

tagm, how many angels can dance on your head?

I'm not a Democrat. Stop being stupid.

"I repeat: I'm not asking for an Ivy League professor. I'm asking for someone who doesn't sound like a moron."

Alan, you sound like an elitist neocon or maybe an elitist liberal.

It's not at all clear to me at all how you get that. I might, in a stretch, agree with you that she got stumped or otherwise sounded uninformed. But a moron?

Either way, I think you're wrong and unless you have a valid alternative to help our party, move on.

Although, I doubt your criticism is meant for constructive purposes. But if it is, do tell. Until then, I'll take it that you're a pi$$ed off liberal NY snob.

Am I wrong?

King, I just re-read your November 9, 2008 06:34 PM. Brilliant.

"It's not expecting the answer to be published by some university."

Go back to the dark ages if you don't like science... I am sorry you don't believe in observation and logic. There are plenty of mystic cults you can still join.

"Integrity is and should be weighted higher."

I'm sorry, was Bush high or low on the integrity scale? Cus' we know of some 200+ incidences where he lied to our country.

Did Palin realy have an ounce of integrity when she denied a government report affirming her abuse of power or when she consistantly lied about her support for the bridge to nowhere?

"She may not be Ivy educated like our new Commander in Chief"

ASDF, you seem to be the elitist in all of these arguments because you are the only one who cares about and brings up this kind of stuff. You are projecting your flaws on the rest of the world. Stop it.

p.s.
"The 'Maverick' was for it so what's his VP pick going to do?"

Become a socialist right along side him with no independent thoughts, and give Paulson more power than god.

"It's not at all clear to me at all how you get that. I might, in a stretch, agree with you that she got stumped or otherwise sounded uninformed. But a moron?"

Our last president created his own class of words, Bushism's. Palin was on thin ice to start, because like all of Bush's other folly's we want someone who can speak English, form sentences and paragraphs around a subject, and not have brain farts in crucial moments. Yes, she sounded like a moron. Yes, she sounded like that girl on the Ms. Teen USA clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

Is that her illegitimate child???

brain fart= BO i have talked to live ex prez. lol and a I KNEW YOU WOULD GIVE joe blow a pass.

asdf: Yeah, you're wrong. I am a conservative. Maybe you've never read anything else I've written on this site, or on the other site to which I linked in this thread, or in college magazine articles that made me duly infamous... But really, who cares? Even if all you have to go on is what I'm saying here, are you incapable of understanding that there are genuine conservatives out there who will say, or who have said, the same things I'm saying? Do you think that there are certain opinions about the intelligence of a candidate that no true conservative can have? You regard as implausible the idea that a conservative could actually find Palin to be dumb. Yet you aren't even capable of explaining why you think the things I've said are wrong. You just make assertions; you don't make arguments. You say things like "I might, in a stretch, agree with you that she got stumped or otherwise sounded uninformed. But a moron?" First, you should be ashamed of yourself to say that it's "a stretch" to concede that she got stumped or sounded uninformed when she never gave specifics in so many of the answers (or non-answers) she gave. If a person gives many, MANY answers that don't have specifics in them--the kind of answers that a person who knows nothing concrete about the issues could give--then it's no stretch at all to call the person uninformed or stumped. Second, if a fifteen-year-old talked the way Palin does ("I'm like, and he's like..." "so then he goes, like..."), that would be a very stupid fifteen-year-old. But Palin talks like that and she's in her FORTIES. Explain how a fortysomething can say that and not be even more of a moron. And don't just assert your opinion; give reasons for it. If the conservative case for her intelligence can be made, then make it already.

Your inability to explain any of your premises reminds me of what Oliver Wendell Holmes said about a colleague for whose intellect Holmes had very little regard: "His major premises was G-d damn it." That's you. You don't explain, you just assert, because you're so passionately convinced that your position must be true, even though you can't articulate REASONS for what seems so darn obvious to you.

By the way, asdf, I marvel at your accusation that I'm being dishonest in presenting myself as a conservative, after you flat-out made up the "fact" (which you said I was "disingenuous" to ignore) that Palin opposed the bailout but pretended to support it because she had to toe the line. You made something up out of thin air, and then accuse ME of making stuff up. What a hypocrite you are.

Ok. Maybe she really does believe in the Bail Out(s,s,s,s,s). But, we won't really know unless she makes a direct statement about it at some point now that she's not on the Ticket and in the fold. But, use your head, is the VP candidate NOT going to take the party line for the Presidential candidate? Explain to me if you can when that has ever happened.

Considering that she has fought budget wars and kept Alaska in the black since she's been the Governor might be a pretty good sign that she's a fiscal conservative and would not be in line with overwhelming confiscatory Government welfare.

But unless she makes a statement to that effect on her own or goes to Congress and her voting tells the tale, we won't know for sure.

Yes, I do expect her to toe the line. (Which is one of the many reasons why I initially argued against her before I came to the conclusion that she's stupid--the reason that becoming McCain's running mate would make her turn left, thereby ruining her only serious virtue: her conservatism.) But that's beside the point, and it's dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. Obviously, the fact that she's giving us the party line doesn't mean that she secretly disagrees with that line. (Were it otherwise, then on your horrendous logic, you might as well say that because Palin is toeing the line on tax cuts, that means Palin secretly opposes tax cuts. Not very impressive reasoning, is that?)

You disingenuously said, without ANY evidence, that she gave such a horrible answer to the bailout question because she was merely toeing the line--she didn't really support the bailout and her handlers didn't prepare her to defend the bailout, so that's why she wasn't in a position to give a good answer to the question. (Which is a doubly disingenuous defense of her, because if she were well-informed and articulate, she'd be able to defend the bailout on her own without having handlers make up an answer for her.) I didn't deny that a VP nominee will inevitably support the POTUS nominee on some issues (though Palin is a weird choice of running mate to make that point--see next paragraph); I said that you had no basis for saying that she was MERELY toeing the party line and didn't really believe what she was saying.

And as for your challenge to me to name one instance where a VP didn't toe the line--how about when Palin noted her continuing disagreement with her running mate re: drilling in Alaska? Oh, and you already knew about that one. So you were being disingenuous again. What a surprise!

As for her "accomplishment" of keeping Alaska in the black, what kind of accomplishment is that? It would be pretty difficult to put Alaska in the red, considering how rich that state is. As I've said before, name one other state that periodically sends money to its citizens. No one accepted my challenge before; I doubt you will now.

"Considering that she has fought budget wars and kept Alaska in the black since she's been the Governor..."

Wow, for a full two years, in the richest (per capita) state in the Union...an eight year old could do that.

For the record, Palin actually ain't much of a fiscal conservative, either: "SURPRISE: Palin's Conservative Credentials in Question!"