Remember when Joe Biden told America, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed." Forgeting that Herbert Hoover, not Roosevelt, was president when the market crashed in 1929, and weirdly suggesting Roosevelt's use of the television--an invention not used commercially in any significant sense until after Roosevelt had died--Biden had amazingly crammed several examples of his own ignorance into a single sentence. And who could forget when he implored a disabled Missouri state senator to stand up and be recognized at a rally? Or when he not only plagiarized a speech by Neil Kinnock, but also strangely incorporated elements of the British Labour Party leader's biography into his own story?

Why are we discussing the stupidity of the losing vice presidential candidate? Does Joe Biden not offer an overflowing cornucopia of idiocy? Joe Biden gets a pass because Democrats can't be stupid. They share a party affiliation with the vast majority of the media, so this makes them smart, you see. Really it does. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is a Republican. Not only that, she comes from Alaska. Case closed. What further proof do you need that she dwells on the left end of the bell curve?

Whereas the media ignore Biden's doltish utterances, and certainly don't jump to the conclusion that taken together they make him dim, any gaffe by Sarah Palin, even ones made behind closed doors and alleged by anonymous sources uncorroborated by anyone, get endless play on the cable networks. They are proof that she is a bumpkin unfit to serve. Why the double standard? The assumption by journalists is that all Republicans are stupid. And if they can't be so easily dismissed as stupid, then they're evil. This thesis was famously aired by Ann Coulter in her bestselling book, Slander. It gets tedious. Ike, Ford, Reagan, Quayle, W, Palin--stupid! Goldwater, Nixon, Gingrich--evil!

"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments," Coulter pointed out. "To be sure, they would still have 'racist,' 'fascist,' 'homophobe,' 'ugly,' and a few other highly nuanced arguments in the quiver. But the loss of 'dumb' would nearly cripple them. Like clockwork, every consequential Republican to come down the pike is instantly, invariably, always, without exception called 'dumb.'"

I caught Sarah Palin, not Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin, but the genuine article last night on Greta van Susteren's Fox News Channel program. Palin came across as affable and folksy. "Dummy" is not an adjective I would use to describe the woman I saw on television stuffing--What the Fairbanks were those inedible edibles?--what looked like cheese into what looked like oversized hotdogs. If she were merely a dullard, do you think the media would be trashing her so viciously? No, she would be getting the Lloyd Bentsen, the Jack Kemp, the Sargent Shriver treatment. She would be exhiled into Irrelevanceville, the anti-Naval Observatory where failed VP candidates are relegated. She is deemed a dummy because she is understood as a threat in 2012. The truly sick attacks on her family and the lies, such as the canard that as mayor she banned books and issued a politicized firing of a librarian, didn't derail her. So now liberals are reverting to their default attack plan: You're stupid!

When the coach is stuck on the same page of playbook, the play tends not to work as well as it did the first time. This is especially true when the play is as crudely constructed as the "you're stupid" line of reasoning. People are not as stupid as this "you're stupid" argument. Recycled against Republicans in every election cycle, it's tired and stale. As Coulter rightly notes, "This is how six-year-olds argue: They call everything 'stupid.'"

When Al Gore exhuberantly asked, "Who are these guys?," when confronted with busts of Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson, he's not stupid. When Ted Kennedy could barely complete a single coherent sentence speaking to Roger Mudd, don't dare call him stupid. When Barack Obama refers to America's "57" states, he is so not stupid. But what if it were Sarah Palin, or better yet, any Republican, getting similarly tripped up? Would they be so not stupid, too?

Who knows? Perhaps Palin is a dummy. But can you understand why I am not taking the media's word for it?

All partisans paint with broad strokes, but I am afraid the case of Sarah Palin's ignorance cannot reasonably be construed as a liberal invention.

Her words and interviews are a matter of public record. Personally, I was very impressed with her convention speech only to be shocked at subsequent interviews. And the post-election ramblings about her intelligence come to us via Fox News and the McCain campaign, not from some liberal soapbox.

You can't believe that any thinking liberal would suppose her a threat in 2012 against an incumbent Obama.

I would be very intrigued if you thought that. I was surprised when I watched O'Reilly tonight state his belief that McCain lost because he didn't attack Obama enough, didn't display enough anger about the financial crisis, and didn't capitalize on Palin's star power.

So anything is possible. Once a party has disavowed rationality and embraced ignorance, I suppose Palin could be a kind of heroic figure.

How very 1984 of you, Dan. Now, tell me the truth. Was your blog meant to be ironic? Or is ideology trumping objectivity, making your blog a microcosm what happened to conservatives in the election, "done in by them darn facts."

I mean, at some point we have to make an objective call, right? Either Palin is very intelligent and your blog make a good point -- we are cherry picking our gaffes, or...

Or, as Colin Powell indicated, she was "not ready to lead." Everything else is rhetoric.

But your blog is insanely interesting to me, or I would not take such time to respond, because I find it fascinating when two people can look at the same facts and draw different conclusions.

So much for reason being a candle in a demon haunted world.

Yes, Palin in 2012! And I love Big Brother!

James,

The interviews were edited, of course, and by the very people whom Dan has offered much reason to distrust. The words she has spoken have not outshone in inanity those of many others that no one calls stupid. Ergo Dan is skeptical though admitting Palin may be stupid.

"Thinking liberal," that would be someone not bowled over by the "Yes we can" chanting. A thinking liberal would certainly know that Obama's success relies on performance in office, and he may very well do poorly. In that case any Republican with a chance at nomination may be a threat. We elected Bush not once, but twice. And you seriously think Palin is off the table?

Is it simply that Biden, Gore, Kennedy, Obama, et alii are all stupid too, or is media bias a good reason for maintaining skepticism? Skepticism is healthy.

I am not sure if they called Reagan stupid...but senile wa mentioned frequently.

Be well,

Sponge

Hi James,

Palin did indeed perform poorly in the Couric interview. This could be the result of a bad day because of rigors of the campaign trail, creative editing from CBS producers, or perhaps because Palin just isn't ready for prime time. If Barack Obama didn't falter with the press in the final month or so of the campaign, part of reason has to do that he stopped holding press conferences and did few interviews. The fact is that when Biden or Obama flub an interview, it's automatically viewed as the result of fatigue or just the simple fact that people who talk all day are bound to run through a stretch where they misspeak. When it's Palin, the press--and even some GOP detractors--aren't so gracious in giving her the benefit of the doubt.

You write: "Either Palin is very intelligent and your blog make a good point -- we are cherry picking our gaffes, or... Or, as Colin Powell indicated, she was 'not ready to lead.'" A few points: many great leaders were not "very intelligent." Other traits matter, too. I am perplexed why you conflate intelligence with leadership. There are many other leadership traits, some far more important than intelligence. She's not running for professor in chief.

More importantly, yours is a strawman argument. Either this, or that--no, there are other possibilities. Maybe she is intelligent but is inexperienced in interviews. Maybe she just performed poorly with Couric (her van Susteren appearance lends credence to this belief). Maybe she isn't supersmart but is a great leader anyway. Should she run, I'd like to see how she performs in debates with some sharp minds--Mitt Romney seems a guy who performs well in that format. I'll make my call then. Other than her platitude-filled closing statement in the VP debate, I think she performed well against Biden.

I am not going to make my mind up on Sarah Palin based on what the media tells me to think--especially after they lied to me about her supposed membership in the Alaska independence party, that she supported a neo-Nazi for president who turned out to be not a neo-Nazi (Pat Buchanan) and not Palin's candidate (Forbes), that she banned Harry Potter as Wasilla mayor when the book hadn't even been released, and that she billed rape victims for the cost of their exams.

There has been no other candidate for high office in recent history that has been savaged and scrutinized more than Palin. And it’s not my opinion but fact to anybody who is paying attention.

McCain had one taste of a false press moment when (on the front page of course) the N.Y. Times reported an affair with a lobbyist. Wasn’t true. And much in the same way that CBS had egg on their faces with the Bush National Guard flap, it didn’t matter to them that they had lied and made it public “news”.

From the minute Palin came on the scene, she was probed and investigated more than any other candidate. She was insulted and consistently lied about, and she came through as clean as could be. Meanwhile, the man who would be President was handled like toxic waste by the press and his weak opponents to the point where we hear those two “giants” in the “news” industry Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw three days before the election talking about not really knowing who Obama is or what his world views are. Huh?

I had a debate on this site a few months ago with someone who was more interested in Palin’s daughters out of wedlock pregnancy than the ample baggage carried by the Democratic frontrunner for the Presidency. There was somehow a moral equivalence that made this a huge scandal. Exsqueeze me?! My contention was and is that we were about to elect a low caliber radical Marxist fraud with questionable formative influences who maintained terrorist anti-Semitic relations and who hailed from the corrupt Chicago political machine. But that didn’t matter. It was more important to question Palin’s character and judgment than it was to be concerned about serious questions regarding an improperly vetted candidate for the Presidency.

This is a good example of why I think going forward we are in trouble. The media picks and chooses their battles and the prevailing tabloid mentality waits to be spoon-fed.

James: I think if you look at the facts and then look at Dan's post, you can't accuse him of ideological blinders. The only real evidence for her not being smart is (1) a terrible performance with Couric, and (2) not talking stylistically like a "smart" person. I think the jury is out.

As for your Big Brother joke, I wonder if you are wearing ideological blinders. Why would someone who believes in smaller government be accused of supporting Big Brother, while someone who believes in much larger government earns your vote?

Hey al, where you at? i want yer 5 page report on how sarrahs dumb.

BTW - To all Veterans - Thank you.

o yea,the libbiequeers are skeerd to death of this woman. thats why they attack her. stand tall young lady and aim that black rifle! sqweeeze!

Also, I've skimmed through the debates here on this subject and I think there is a serious conflation of terms under the broad "stupid." But there is "lack of intelligence" stupid and there is "ignorant" or "uninformed" or "unprepared" stupid. Though I for one define "stupid" only in the first sense.

To me, Palin is clearly intelligent, though not necessarily the brightest pol. As has been said, "the jury is still out." (Though the Couric interview was so embarrassingly bad, that no amount of "editing" can plausibly be blamed for how she came off; nor could it have helped in a positive direction, for that matter). What she also clearly is/was is uninformed by a whole lot of issues that we generally expect our pols to have some fundamental grasp of.

In other words, I agree with Colin Powell's assessment that she was "not ready to lead." And that does not mean that he or I consider Palin to be unintelligent or a "moron," as some have charged.

I’m not sure I would be using Colin Powell’s opinion on anything by way of gleaning insight or as a bellwether. He’s pretty weak and has demonstrated no conviction or backbone when the going's gotten tough. But, it makes sense. A political empty suit, endorsing an empty suit who is commenting on someone who has more real world practical political experience than he could ever hope to have. With all due respect to his service.

Powell is not my barometer. I simply agreed with his statement. He doesn't need backbone or conviction to make an accurate observation, nor does ad hominem invalidate the veracity of a man's utterance.

If that's what you think, that's what you think. But if you're looking for validation, always consider the source Eric.

The media, and some conservatives, are discussing Palin's intelligence for the same reason: to kneecap her so that she won't be a formidable challenge to Obama in 2012. The media want Obama to continue being president. Conservatives who dislike Palin want Obama to lose but don't think that Palin can or should be the one to beat him, because they don't see Palin as the one who can explain conservative principles in a way that will pick up any voters who aren't already committed to the Republican candidate come what may. A whole lot of people who aren't anywhere near liberal are very much persuaded that Palin is an idiot, and were terrified that McCain would die in office, leaving Palin to assume the most important job in the world.

Of course, liberals love to paint Republicans as stupid (and/or sick in the head), because liberals think that their ideas are so self-evidently true that there must be something wrong with you if you don't share those ideas. That's why we see lots of elections in which the media try to portray the Republican as stupid. It's also why we keep seeing methodologically mendacious "studies" that purport to prove that conservatives are seriously deficient in important mental and emotional qualities. But just because the Left has horrible reasons for always attacking conservatives doesn't mean that the Left is always wrong. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day. With Palin, the Left has got it right: there's no matter behind her manner.

I don't take the media's word for anything. But I defer in (nearly) all things to Heather Mac Donald. And, like, man, she totally dishes it to Palin for being an adult who talks like a stupid teenager. Except that, unlike me, Mac Donald doesn't go from there to the conclusion that Palin is stupid. But the evidence is all there. http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon1013hm.html

I really don't understand why I'm seeing one of the most intelligent and scrupulous intellectuals mount this defense of Palin that maybe she performed poorly because of a rough day campaigning. She didn't look tired or frustrated at all to me in the Couric interview. And that wasn't the only time when Palin's brain ran off the rails. Far, far from it. What about the debate? What about that time she said that because you can see Russia from Alaska, that gives some help in understanding the Russia-Georgia fracas? Is anyone ever going to defend that? Was that just the result of another bad day of campaigning?

I don't think you can pin her horrible answers on a lack of experience being interviewed, either. First of all, she's had lots of interviews. She didn't begin her political life in 2008. She began it in, what, 1992? She's been interviewed countless times, and some of the pre-2008 interviews are on YouTube. Now, maybe 2008 was the first time she had an interviewer who actually asked her tough questions, but if so, I'd still like to think that even an inexperienced interviewee would be be well-informed enough and articulate enough not to give SO MANY bad answers. Can you be a smart person who's running for vice president and yet who doesn't bother to prepare herself to answer a question about the Supreme Court? I really don't think so.

I think that Biden is a moron and that Obama is not smart but not stupid either. But Obama and Biden don't talk like a stupid teenager. Palin does. To suggest that this doesn't speak to her intelligence is risible. If a fifteen-year-old spoke the way Palin speaks, I'd call that teenager a moron, and pay the kid's parents to get sterilized lest they continue swamping this country with morons. When you're in your forties and you still talk like that, and you're running for vice president of the United States, all I can say is, pray for the Republic.

Actually, ASDF, one would be better served considering the object of the claim. But no need to rehash the Alan v. ASDF squabble.

I understand and largely concur with the point you are making here Alan, namely that Palin's manner of speaking is not the way an intellectual speaks. The "you betchas" are charming; the "ya knows" are annoying. There are a few ways of ridding yourself, largely, of these filler words--ah, like, you know, etc. 1. Have someone turn the lights off and on whenever she utters one; 2. Carry around a roll of quarters and drop a quarter into a can each time she says "you know" or "like"--with the proceeds of the can going to her least favorite charity--Planned Parenthood perhaps. That's a way of breaking this habit--and it's important to remember that a verbal habit isn't necessarily a sign of low intelligence.

I agree very much with Dan here. Mannerisms and irritating ways of talking do not necessarily indicate the intelligence of the person doing them (though they certainly don't help with disarming blood-thirsty opposition).

But I also agree with Alan that the asinine answers she repeatedly gave and never backed down from - such as those related to geographic proximity bequething some foriegn policy expertise via osmosis.

And, incidentally, I think Obama and Biden are very smart -- just also very wrong.

There is a double-standard re: gaffs, as Dan explained very well in his post. Gaffs happen to everyone. Some come through an immoral intent to deceive, some from a moment of unguarded honesty, and others from simple slips of the tongue.

But in Palin's case -- especially her atrocious Couric interview, but other times as well (including, btw, the van Susteran interview last night, that I found underwhelming) -- it goes well beyond the occasional gaff. Again, this doesn't mean that she is unintelligent. But it does indicate a lack of wisdom, perhaps, preparation, certainly, and an unreadiness to lead this country, or even the conservative movement.

I don't mind filler words, or crutches. I don't mind "ah" or "you know." It's misuse of the words "like" and "goes" that drive me to distraction. That's what reminds me of the dumb teenagers. And I don't consider myself a particularly smart person, but it's a point of pride for me that I don't misuse "like" and "goes."

I think we have our fair share of politicians and business people in this country who on paper are highly qualified and talk a great game but couldn't pour urine out of rubber footwear.

We have a great example of one who is currently chomping at the bit to take his seat in the White House.

I'll take content over style any day of the week.

I often listen to radio show out of a station in Anchorage. The sponsor, commentators and callers all talk about Palin in glowing terms. Most of them say they are glad to have her back. No wonder she has an 80% approval rating.

Are many of us here in the lower 48 missing something?

Being able to lead means being able to communicate effectively. She was unable to do so on too many occasions. Our country gave W. a pass for too long and now it is coming back to bite. We need people who can speak with our enemies and allies, which is a role that Obama has demonstrated efficacy.

I like that the Australian PM said that O. made it cool to be an american again. As well as the fact that that sentiment is felt by the majority of nations around the world. All because he is an effective communicator.

Yeah, cool, heh heh. Those Australians are cool too, heh heh.

Come on Horsesass, admit it. You have a tingle going up your leg don't you.

Look at the source,who is passing judgement on other individuals intellegence or lack thereof.
I wouldn't exactly call Katie Couric, Matt Lauer,Keith Olbermann, Meredith Veira, Rosie (mouth like a trucker) O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, or those morons at the NYT's brilliant maybe average intellegence. They would like you to think they are the sharpest knives in the kitchen based soley on being liked in DC, NY,and especially Europe. I hate to break the news to those airheads,but just because you sip champagne with some euro-socialists, from "has been" countries doesn't make you wordly or brillant.

Just look at the Columbia journalism department that has produced more Marxists in the last 15 years than all of eastern Europe. You have those sharp tools, who write for the Nation and are still in denial over the deaths caused by their Marxists role models. Those are the same losers who were duped and labeled as "useful idiots" by third world communist.

Look at the decline in the quality of the American system of higher learning, stemmed mostly by these left over losers from the 1960's, who have managed to avoid reality,by permanently planting themselves in college classrooms. They don't have the necessary mastery to teach any of the hard sciences, so they migrate like rats, to the soft sciences, where they can indoctrinate young minds,much like their 60's era role models,Ho Chi Mihn or Chairman Mao.
These people are life's losers, who have never sacrificed, never learned about the real world,and never grew up.

This is the exact thing we see from today's MSM.
They are more interested in grabbing invitations to the DC cocktail party circuit than doing the hard investigative work and then reporting facts.
Most of these people are like the cowards planted in college classrooms, they are lazy,weak,and afraid to find out the truth. Afterall, much like college professors, their lives and self esteem has based on nothing more than inmature fantasies and lies.

I gloat when bad people like baby Pinch and his 3rd rate fishwrap fail. That piece of garbage is circling the drain and it's all due to those "brilliant" reporters and op-ed columnists, who baby Pinch has actively recruited.
I also gloat over the fact that the stock price of the NYT's, since baby Pinch, has assumed control is down over 80%,which is still higher than his IQ.

All of those mentioned ,above aren't sharp knives,but they do closely resemble a soup spoon.

Those people are in dire need of professional help, they haven't been the same since their motherland (old USSR) went down the drain.

Look at the source,who is passing judgement on other individuals intellegence or lack thereof.
I wouldn't exactly call Katie Couric, Matt Lauer,Keith Olbermann, Meredith Veira, Rosie (mouth like a trucker) O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, or those morons at the NYT's brilliant maybe average intellegence. They would like you to think they are the sharpest knives in the kitchen based soley on being liked in DC, NY,and especially Europe. I hate to break the news to those airheads,but just because you sip champagne with some euro-socialists, from "has been" countries doesn't make you wordly or brillant.

Just look at the Columbia journalism department that has produced more Marxists in the last 15 years than all of eastern Europe. You have those sharp tools, who write for the Nation and are still in denial over the deaths caused by their Marxists role models. Those are the same losers who were duped and labeled as "useful idiots" by third world communist.

Look at the decline in the quality of the American system of higher learning, stemmed mostly by these left over losers from the 1960's, who have managed to avoid reality,by permanently planting themselves in college classrooms. They don't have the necessary mastery to teach any of the hard sciences, so they migrate like rats, to the soft sciences, where they can indoctrinate young minds,much like their 60's era role models,Ho Chi Mihn or Chairman Mao.
These people are life's losers, who have never sacrificed, never learned about the real world,and never grew up.

This is the exact thing we see from today's MSM.
They are more interested in grabbing invitations to the DC cocktail party circuit than doing the hard investigative work and then reporting facts.
Most of these people are like the cowards planted in college classrooms, they are lazy,weak,and afraid to find out the truth. Afterall, much like college professors, their lives and self esteem has based on nothing more than inmature fantasies and lies.

I gloat when bad people like baby Pinch and his 3rd rate fishwrap fail. That piece of garbage is circling the drain and it's all due to those "brilliant" reporters and op-ed columnists, who baby Pinch has actively recruited.
I also gloat over the fact that the stock price of the NYT's, since baby Pinch, has assumed control is down over 80%,which is still higher than his IQ.

All of those mentioned ,above aren't sharp knives,but they do closely resemble a soup spoon.

Those people are in dire need of professional help, they haven't been the same since their motherland (old USSR) went down the drain.

You are the exact reason that so many people in the world hate us, you don't care what Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka think of us because you believe you are above them. News flash, you're an idiot and they are our brothers. You caused 9/11 with your ignorant attitude, you who laughs every time you hear the words Peace Corps or diplomacy. Bullets will not win the retarded GWOT. Victory is in the mutual desire for peace, and will come in the form of moral equality. You can't kill hatred with bombs, likewise they can never terrorize the storge and agape out of us.

If speech is a relevant indicator of intelligence, that must mean that Barney Frank is an idiot. Right?

TEM, well said. and horsehead, i could care less what people in africa or were ever think of the USofa. tell them to worry about there own country and not mine.

Hey Horsehead, I don't need any advice from inmature people like you. You have no idea what the real world is all about.
Work for the military, like I did for 7 years in intelligence,spend a couple of years in Beruit,Nicaragua,Columbia,Northern Ireland (in the late 1980's), when you are walking the streets and listening in on terrorists who wish you harm. Try living everyday when your life is in danger 24/7, then come back and call me ignorant.

Since you are a UN worshipper, you have to be for the war in Iraq,since Iraq had broken 17 UN security resolutions and those weak euro-socialists were too afraid and incapable of enforcing them. I wish the US and UK wouldn't have enforced international law, then it would make that useless and corrupt UN completely irrelevant.

Grow up, face down some danger, sacrifice, then come back and talk to me. You sound just like those limp wristed sissy men, who believe their good intentions are a substitute for actual results.

After reading your semi-literate post, I am sure you still believe in the in Santa Claus,the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy,and we can make everyone in the world like us, if we are nice.

I would love to see you venturing across the green line into the Muslim controlled part of the city and made an attempt to survive by giving hugs and being nice to those animals.

The difference in the two of us is quite simply this, I have experienced the real world along with it's inherit dangers, you have experienced the real world in the comfort of your home or college classroom, reading proganda written by men who haven't a clue as to what kind of bad people are walking around in 3rd world hell holes, then again if you are weak and cowardly then that is a world you want no part of.

Come back and talk to me when you grow up and stop your childish beliefs in the UN, Santa Claus, college professors are all intelligent, the Easter Bunny, and the US can make the whole world like us by becoming a weak country as well as being nice.
Those thoughts are as ridiculous as some lightweight such as yourself telling me I am ignorant about the real world.
Why don't you sign on with the CIA, in their clandestine division, even though they aren't the bravest folks around, it would still put you on a path to reality and maturity.

People who think the way you do are the reason the terrorist felt brave enough to attack the homeland. You and your kind did nothing but perpetuate the myth of American weakness, especially after the cruise missles fired into empty buildings, tents,and aspirin factories, then running like whipped dogs out of Somalia.
Your kind couldn't even muster a weak response to the bombing of the USS Cole, even though 17 navy crewmen lost their lives.

Now it's time to go back to reading , your fairy tales,about how the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980's. caused the USSR to surrender.

Being weak and "caring" does nothing but encourage your enemies,but what do I know, I was only involved in servie work for 6 years while you were getting a real world experience by reading your books of fiction.
Your kind are like a lone sheep in the midst of a pack of hungry wolves.

P.S. Horse head, moral equivalency are usually reserved for those weak minds who don't know the difference between right and wrong. You have no moral compass or anything other than good intentions to define your life.
If you had an IQ in double digits, you would know why AQ attacked the US, they believed the uS was too weak and lacked the will to fight them on the battlefield.
You have to be one of those worthless peace studies, who is intellectually lazy and do nothing but live out your fantasies and lies by intimidating and indoctrinating 18 year olds.
I don't know how you live with youself, knowing full well that you are stealing money from your students,because you sure as hell aren't preparing them for the reall world,since you have never experienced that world yourself.

I bet in your own very small mind, you think you could talk Iran and the nut job clerics, right out of building nuclear weapons.
I do care about Africa and I have spoken with my US congressman and senators about the UN hiring Dynacorp,Hart,and Triple Canopy to stop the barbaric Arab sudanese from slaughtering the black Christians in the southern part of the country. What in the hell have you done? The same thing the irrelevant UN has done, nothing,except wring your hands.

Why should I waste my time caring about Sri Lanka and other 3rd world countries when I have a real job and family to provide for, I can't set around all day dreaming foolish dreams, I don't have the luxury of wasting time on that nonsense you posted. You apparently don't or you would be worried about taking care of your family instead of all those touchy,feely things that give leftists the warm fuzzies.

"Who knows? Perhaps Palin is a dummy. But can you understand why I am not taking the media's word for it?"

What would you take as proof of her intelligence if not her speaking spontaneously on a range of issues with Greta Van Sustern. Her expertise on THE crucial issue of energy is something I ardently wish the incoming administration would take note of. Somehow, I doubt it. Although if they listened and implemented her ideas, energy would be a non-issue in four years. If the Democrats do little or nothing about bringing about energy independence, the issue will defeat them four years from now.

I know Palin is an admirer of Ronald Reagan and I know she supported Steve Forbes when he ran for President on the idea of the flat tax.

That's enough for me to judge that she has the precise kind of intelligence needed to become an outstanding President.

I admire Bobby Jindal, a policy wonk who also seems an effective Governor, but beyond those two I see no one else on the horizon who could get elected. Mitt Romney conveys guardedness, distrust of the public and something hidden. He cannot possibly be elected or even nominated when up against a super star like Governor Palin.

Obama could not have been clearer about what his intentions and those of his party are with regard to energy: no new exploration; no drilling; explore “alternative” energies and wait for them to be viable, no matter how long it takes; cap and trade (let’s shut down our coal industry, etc..); preferences for “Global Warming” initiatives.

It doesn’t matter that as a consequence of having the biggest and most powerful economy in the world, we use more than most. This is a guy who believes that less consumption is good for the Earth, will force us into developing alternative energy faster and that we already consume more resources than the world would like for us to consume.

If anybody has any questions, consider that during the “oil crisis”, he said that he thought it would be good if gas went up to $7.00 a gallon and once said (in May 08): “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK”

Think he’s kidding?

TEM, you kicked that horse in the arse! lol

The investment casting from wisconsin precision casting corporation reduce the high cost of your machined investment casting parts, the lost wax casting,learn about lost wax casting, sheet metal fabrication.

Sometimes you have to compare apples to apples. This canard about Americans not caring about what the world thinks is putting on airs, ignores the fact that we have a separate country and a separate political system, and their opinion is no where considered in the political decisions of this country.

How much did Russia or the other countries violating the terms of the Oil-for-Food treaty care about the world opinion. The idea that we are some sort of singular nation, the only one that takes actions in self-interest skips over a lot of things.

It's funny watching the major countries in the EU trying to turn it into a sort of hegemony in their favor. The skepticism that Britain shows against "The Continent" should also give us a point of reference. France hopes to regain it's diplomatic prominence.

I know that this is somewhat conspiracy theory stuff and I don’t usually like to go there, but last night I watched a short on the New World Order.

They talked about the formation of the European Union, how NAFTA and CAFTA were the beginnings a North American Union (Canada,U.S.,Mexico) and how a key to the powers that be retaining power will be to keep populations down.

What I found mildly interesting was that they mentioned the Global Warming hoax as being a way to convince people in Western cultures that we need to conserve and reduce our carbon footprints for the good of the planet. Which means keeping people consciously aware that less or no children are better for the survival of the planet. The added extra bonus to this is that, with the help of GW charlatans in government and beyond, people will more accept greater taxation to ‘save the Planet’ thus creating another fund for the Globalists to put their theories into practice.