Five myths about Sarah Palin

[CrackRabbit]

And what defines Palin is.

What defines Palin is her ability to be outwitted by a rock.
If that is what YOU want to be running the country good luck to you.
I'll take someone with some semblance of intelligence, thank you.

 

[qliveur]

For me, the most damning evidence was the crank call from DailyKOS. The bitch is a complete ditz.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I hope Palin becomes president, i have a bridge to nowhere i want her to buy and she really really would buy it.

 

[zinfamous]

For me, the most damning evidence was the crank call from DailyKOS. The bitch is a complete ditz.

If it's any relief, it appears that her would-be son-in-law, come play girl model, come would-be mayor, is astonishingly less-informed than Palin.

 

[PJABBER]

What defines Palin is her ability to be outwitted by a rock.
If that is what YOU want to be running the country good luck to you.
I'll take someone with some semblance of intelligence, thank you.

You and your love of "intelligence!" What is intelligence in this case?

Degrees, experience in reading a teleprompter?

Sure, we want national leaders with some sense. But does a law degree or a professorship or even thirty years in Washington as a legislator provide some kind of real advantage?

Has his native "intelligence" helped Obama face other national leaders around the world? They think he is a dipshit, barely worth paying attention to.

I'd rather have a pragmatist with a vision of a strong America in office than an ideologue. If I have to have an ideologue in office I'd rather have a Palin than an Obama.

Come November we will see what the country is looking for. In two more years we will have another clear choice, be it Sarah, or someone with her ideology, and good ol' Barry and his cronies.

If the pros are worrying, why aren't you?

Me? I'm considering the possibilities of a Palin/Christie ticket rocking my world.

 

[zinfamous]

You and your love of "intelligence!" What is intelligence in this case?

Degrees, experience in reading a teleprompter?

Sure, we want national leaders with some sense. But does a law degree or a professorship or even thirty years in Washington as a legislator provide some kind of real advantage?

Has his native "intelligence" helped Obama face other national leaders around the world? They think he is a dipshit, barely worth paying attention to.

I'd rather have a pragmatist with a vision of a strong America in office than an ideologue. If I have to have an ideologue in office I'd rather have a Palin than an Obama.

Come November we will see what the country is looking for. In two more years we will have another clear choice, be it Sarah, or someone with her ideology, and good ol' Barry and his cronies.

If the pros are worrying, why aren't you?

Me? I'm considering the possibilities of a Palin/Christie ticket rocking my world.

it doesn't take paid or sanctioned education for one to become intelligent.

But it clear to the vast majority of those with media access that both institutions have escaped Palin.

 

[werepossum]

I still like Palin, but face facts. She was unprepared for competition at the top. Yes, Obama was even more so, but Obama had the love of the media. Palin is probably better versed in presidential politics now, but quitting as governor, whether or not it helped her agenda, ended her political job experience.

If America decides Obama has been a failure, then we're hardly likely to elect someone with even less actual experience leading (since Obama will have four years of the hardest job in the country under his belt.) And no one short of Rush could possibly make the media forget the Messiah's failures and go into full attack mode so quickly. Lack of experience and a very hostile media are not a successful combination - ever. She has no chance in 2012. Your friend is merely living out her worse nightmares - a non-member of the elite sitting in the White House.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I still like Palin, but face facts. She was unprepared for competition at the top. Yes, Obama was even more so, but Obama had the love of the media. Palin is probably better versed in presidential politics now, but quitting as governor, whether or not it helped her agenda, ended her political job experience.

If America decides Obama has been a failure, then we're hardly likely to elect someone with even less actual experience leading (since Obama will have four years of the hardest job in the country under his belt.) And no one short of Rush could possibly make the media forget the Messiah's failures and go into full attack mode so quickly. Lack of experience and a very hostile media are not a successful combination - ever. She has no chance in 2012. Your friend is merely living out her worse nightmares - a non-member of the elite sitting in the White House.

Ok... let me ask you this one thing then, WHAT do you like about Sarah Palin? Her tits?

 

[CrackRabbit]

You and your love of "intelligence!" What is intelligence in this case?

Degrees, experience in reading a teleprompter?

Sure, we want national leaders with some sense. But does a law degree or a professorship or even thirty years in Washington as a legislator provide some kind of real advantage?

Has his native "intelligence" helped Obama face other national leaders around the world? They think he is a dipshit, barely worth paying attention to.

I'd rather have a pragmatist with a vision of a strong America in office than an ideologue. If I have to have an ideologue in office I'd rather have a Palin than an Obama.

Come November we will see what the country is looking for. In two more years we will have another clear choice, be it Sarah, or someone with her ideology, and good ol' Barry and his cronies.

If the pros are worrying, why aren't you?

Me? I'm considering the possibilities of a Palin/Christie ticket rocking my world.

🙄
And that is the only retort you deserve.
I'll stop feeding the troll now.

 

[zinfamous]

and where did you get this idea that world leaders think of Obama being a dipshit?

lol, are you for real? 😀

You know who doesn't like Obama? Amahdeneighjad. Dear Leader. Chavez. You know who they also didn't like? Bush 2. Clinton. Bush 1. Reagan.

etc.


sigh...what's the point of arguing someone who's spoon-fed a pack of lies and willingly slurps it up?

 

[Red Dawn]

Lol Sarah Payoff, the definition of a Political Whore.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let's go with things which aren't myths. She's demonstrated herself to be ignorant of many issues. The way she handled herself on TV during the election was an embarrassment.

She is unelectable. Many republicans may vote for her, almost no Dems, but as an independent I see no redeeming values. She's an intellectual turnip who has no basic understanding of the world outside her ideology.

It ain't happening. I'll vote for Obama first.

 

[werepossum]

Ok... let me ask you this one thing then, WHAT do you like about Sarah Palin? Her tits?

Those too. However I like the way she came in and cleaned up Alaska, where a very corrupt Stevens-Murkowski Republican machine partners with the Democrats to line their pockets and those of their corporate buddies, basically allowing the oil industry to write government contracts that allowed them to decide with no oversight how much of their profit was to be shared with the state and how much was to be kept for future investment. Palin came in and forced a competitive bid on those contracts. In fact, until she was tapped to be Veep wannabee she was considered by the Dems to be one of the good Republicans.

McCain at that point still didn't understand that although he was the media's darling, that only lasted while he was attacking Republicans. As soon as he threatened to deny power to a Democrat - ANY Democrat - then regrettably we wasn't the better candidate, although by golly feel free to come on by and attack Republicans afterward. The same held true with Palin - when she was attacking Republicans she was respected by the media and the Dems, but as soon as she signed on to be a threat to their power she had to be destroyed.

None of that changes the fact that I would not vote for her again. I'll go back to voting Libertarian - at least I know they won't get elected and screw things up. Hell, maybe I'll just write in "Satan" - I'm tired of voting for the lesser evil.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Those too. However I like the way she came in and cleaned up Alaska, where a very corrupt Stevens-Murkowski Republican machine partners with the Democrats to line their pockets and those of their corporate buddies, basically allowing the oil industry to write government contracts that allowed them to decide with no oversight how much of their profit was to be shared with the state and how much was to be kept for future investment. Palin came in and forced a competitive bid on those contracts. In fact, until she was tapped to be Veep wannabee she was considered by the Dems to be one of the good Republicans.

McCain at that point still didn't understand that although he was the media's darling, that only lasted while he was attacking Republicans. As soon as he threatened to deny power to a Democrat - ANY Democrat - then regrettably we wasn't the better candidate, although by golly feel free to come on by and attack Republicans afterward. The same held true with Palin - when she was attacking Republicans she was respected by the media and the Dems, but as soon as she signed on to be a threat to their power she had to be destroyed.

None of that changes the fact that I would not vote for her again. I'll go back to voting Libertarian - at least I know they won't get elected and screw things up. Hell, maybe I'll just write in "Satan" - I'm tired of voting for the lesser evil.

You do realise that she had nothing to do with any of that and that it was her team of advisors that fixed all of it?

On the issues where she DID have any personal responsibility, well those are all questionable, aren't they?

 

[werepossum]

You do realise that she had nothing to do with any of that and that it was her team of advisors that fixed all of it?

On the issues where she DID have any personal responsibility, well those are all questionable, aren't they?

Umm - okay. That would be like Bush spent us into a hole but Obama's much higher spending is all Bush's fault.

Nothing like creative writing, huh?

 

[SP33Demon]

Me? I'm considering the possibilities of a Palin/Christie ticket rocking my world.

I needed an awesome laugh today, thanks PJ. But you should have said Palin/O'Donnell, it would have been more believable coming from a post of yours.

Christie? He's not even Tea Party. If you're going to make a prediction, at least aim for the whole trailer park with a Palin/O'Donnell ticket that represents your true beliefs that the Tea Party is the best this country has to offer. 😉

 

[RedChief]

I think that may be the most wrong list ever published.
1. Palin certainly cost my vote as I was on the fence at the time.
2. Her resignation as Governor of Alaska showed she has no fortitude to take the heat of political office.
3. Her support of "Tea Party" candidates who have been proven over and over to be complete lunatics shows she has little care for the GOP in its current form. She wishes to remake it in her own money grabbing, insane image.
4. Extreme herself, maybe. Dumber than a pile of rocks, most certainly. Again her support of "Tea Party" candidates in the primaries shows she is more than willing to support extremism even if she herself doesn't espouse it.
5. The three things each of the people listed there had going for them, they were all very skilled political operatives. Mrs. Palin is not. Folksy charm and outrage will only get you so far.

1 - Your like Colin Powell in that you wouldn't have voted for McCain anyways. You can consider your self one of the millions who Obama suckered/conned/mesmerized into believing he was some post-partisan moderate.

2 - What would you do if you had accumulated $500k in legal bills because under Alaska state law, any ethics complaints to the executive branch members are considered "personal". And anyone can file a complaint. Add in members of her admin were facing similar issues.

3 - Your reference to tea party members being lunatics shows just how little you know. There are more tea party supporters/sympathizers in this country then there are members of the Dem or Rep parties.

4 - Dumb how? Because many statements being attributed to her actually didn't come from her (think seeing russia from her house)? Sounds like your the dumb one for believing them. How about backing up this.

5 - This is one place you are almost correct. Nixon and HRC were very skilled political operatives. They both are very ruthless and maintained enemies lists. But Palin did beat a sitting governor and went up against the Rep party machine to do it. She does have some instincts. We just don't know how good they are (and as has been documented, she had no control over how the McCain campaign handled her).

 

[RedChief]

I needed an awesome laugh today, thanks PJ. But you should have said Palin/O'Donnell, it would have been more believable coming from a post of yours.

Christie? He's not even Tea Party. If you're going to make a prediction, at least aim for the whole trailer park with a Palin/O'Donnell ticket that represents your true beliefs that the Tea Party is the best this country has to offer. 😉

"We understand that Chris Christie doesn't need to court us. His actions are proving to us that if he's trying to cut the state budget and if he's taking on the special interests head-on and trying to fix the problem, he doesn't have to come and give us a dog-and-pony show" -- Tim Adriance, executive member of the New Jersey Tea Party Coalition, quoted in CongressDaily on why New Jersey's governor is racking up strong showings in Tea Party presidential straw polls around the country despite making no effort to cozy up to Tea Party organizations.

 

[RedChief]

You do realise that she had nothing to do with any of that and that it was her team of advisors that fixed all of it?

So her running on a plank of cleaning up the ethics mess and bringing in a team to help her on it had nothing to do with any of it?

On the issues where she DID have any personal responsibility, well those are all questionable, aren't they?

Such as? Innuendo and a few bucks will get you some Starbucks coffee. But innuendo is worth crap.

 

[Lanyap]

Like honey on fly paper.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Another thread in which PJABBER finds some shit to throw. For those of you who have turned Sarah Palin into a turd rather than just another person with a point of view that isn't very developed, here's shit in the eye. Enjoy and make PJABBER's day. He loves creating the kind of stink that idiots react to.

PJ posts and a noxious smell comes from your pants...Pavlov would be proud.

 

[K1052]

Me? I'm considering the possibilities of a Palin/Christie ticket rocking my world.

So the executive branch can be both stupid and fat at the same time?

 

[theeedude]

She sounds like a real winner, GOP should run her as their 2012 nominee.

 

[Lanyap]

The dems are really sweating this one.

Politics trumps loyalty in Democratic House effort

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer
1 hr 11 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Grasping to keep control of Congress, Democratic leaders are turning their backs on some of their staunchest supporters in the House and propping up stronger candidates who have routinely defied them on health care, climate change and other major issues.

Raw politics — the drive to win a House-majority 218 seats, no matter how — is increasingly trumping policy and loyalty in these decisions, as Democrats shift money and attention in the closing days of the campaign toward races they can win and pull back from those seemingly lost.

The Democrats are shelling out $40 million in 59 congressional districts in the last three weeks of the campaign for TV advertising. Republicans, boosted by well-funded outside groups, are working to expand the political battleground by pouring money into 82 races next week alone.

Feelings are being hurt along the way.

In a fundraising video in Ohio this week, Rep. Steve Driehaus lashed out at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for "walking away" from his race after he "had the guts" to cast tough votes for key measures.

The House campaign arm has in recent days canceled millions of dollars worth of advertising it had planned for Driehaus and other endangered Democrats including his fellow Ohioan Mary Jo Kilroy, Suzanne Kosmas in Florida, Betsy Markey in Colorado and Steve Kagen in Wisconsin. All of them voted for President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and for legislation to curb carbon emissions — only to be savaged by Republicans on the campaign trail for doing so.

The list of Democratic candidates being lavished with national party help in the final days of the race includes many of the defectors on those marquee votes: Reps. Michael Arcuri in New York, Bobby Bright in Alabama, Travis Childers in Mississippi, Larry Kissell in North Carolina, Jim Marshall in Georgia and Glenn Nye in Virginia, among others.

Bright and Marshall have even said they wouldn't vote to keep House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in her post. National Democrats are also spending freely to defend Rep. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, who opposed the climate bill and has run TV ads calling it "Nancy Pelosi's energy tax."

The situation is similar for Rep. Frank Kratovil in Maryland, Zack Space in Ohio and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in South Dakota, all of whom voted "no" on the health care law and are receiving TV ad dollars from the Democrats' campaign committee in the critical final days.

They're all in tight contests that Democrats believe they must win to hold Republicans back from the 40-seat gain that would hand the GOP House control.

Party leaders deny they're abandoning any Democrats at this critical stage in the campaign and argue they're maintaining the flexibility to help all of their candidates.

Recipients include some who enthusiastically supported the party line, such as Rep. Raul Grijalva in Arizona — who's facing an unexpectedly tough race — and some who did not, like Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, locked in a close battle for an 11th term.

"What we're doing is focusing on races across the country to make sure that there's that majority so that we can move forward on an agenda that serves working families and taxpayers," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the DCCC chairman. "We're strongly supporting all our members in a variety of ways."

Democratic strategists acknowledge the tough decisions are based on harsh reality: If the party loses the House, all of its plans and Obama's would face major GOP roadblocks, so right now it's about scoring as many wins around the country as possible — whether that benefits friends or foes of core party principles.

"They have to make very cold-blooded decisions. They have to .... be involved in the races that they still think are close and, in a few cases, pull out of races where the candidate is too far gone," said former Rep. Martin Frost of Texas, who held Van Hollen's job in the 1990s.

"The important thing is to hold onto as many seats as you can. It doesn't have anything to do with how they voted — this is pure politics, and both parties play it exactly the same way," Frost said.

At the heart of Democrats' strategy is hard arithmetic. There are only about 170 congressional districts across the nation that will routinely elect liberals, and in the rest, Democrats must field more centrist — and in some cases downright conservative — candidates to win.

The party excelled at recruiting such contenders in 2006 and 2008, when it added 55 House members. Pelosi nicknamed them her "majority makers." But the blessing was mixed. Democrats knew from the moment these new moderates arrived in Washington that they would have to maneuver carefully to avoid alienating their constituents. In general, they've been given a wide berth to buck the party position when necessary to safeguard their political chances, immensely complicating Democrats' task in pushing through major legislation.

Some, like Rep. Tom Perriello of Virginia, have unapologetically sided with Democrats on virtually all major issues, and are campaigning on their records, arguing they've done what's right even when it wasn't popular. The DCCC is still spending money in Perriello's highly competitive race against Republican state Sen. Robert Hurt.

Other newcomers, such as Nye, have broken with Democrats on virtually all the significant agenda items and have worked to distance themselves from the party. Nye, too, is getting substantial help from the party in his close race against Republican businessman Scott Riggell.

Party leaders may not be the only ones focusing on candidates who can demonstrate a reasonable path to victory.

Driehaus took to the liberal fundraising website ActBlue this week with his video message asking for donations to reward the difficult stances he took on key issues.

"I've taken those votes because it was the right thing to do for the American people. Now the DCCC is walking away. Let's send a message to the DCCC. Let them know that you support candidates who stand up for your principles."

As of Friday evening, the appeal had raised a grand total of about $4,300.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_el_ge/us_democrats_trumping_loyalty

 

[Greenman]

I like Palin. I like the fear she inspires in the left, I like that all of our progressive clear thinking friends can come up with nothing better than "I hate that stupid bitch", I like the shit storm that follows mention of her name.
Keep up the good work Sara.