The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Dan Balz's Take

GOP Fundraiser Offered Dinner and a Circus

An earlier version of The Take contained a garbled quote from Fox News's transcript of Sean Hannity's interview with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

By Dan Balz
It's a measure of the Republican Party's problems that its members managed to turn their biggest fundraising event this year into a circus highlighting their own differences. The question of whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would show up eclipsed virtually anything said about President Obama or the party's future vision.

Message Management 101 would suggest there are more effective ways for the party to deal with its problems. But on a night when the spotlight was on the Republicans, rather than the president, the GOP allowed low-brow chatter about Palin's attendance rather than something more substantive to dominate the day.

Palin bears considerable responsibility for what transpired. She was initially announced by the host committees as the keynoter for the evening, only to have her staff declare that the committees' announcement was premature. Her initial handling of the dinner invitation left party leaders and GOP operatives with the impression that, however popular she may be with the conservative base, she wasn't particularly reliable as a party leader.

In frustration, party officials then turned to former House speaker Newt Gingrich to deliver the keynote address. Palin would not be attending. That's where things stood until the last few days. What transpired then was farce -- an on-again, off-again, would-she-or-wouldn't-she charade that ultimately resulted in her attending the dinner but not speaking. She became both a center of attention and a significant distraction. Party officials bear as much responsibility as Palin for that.

Palin wasn't shut out entirely. Republicans watching from home were able to catch Palin chatting amiably on tape with Sean Hannity of Fox News as the GOP contributors were finishing their dinner at the Washington Convention Center.

Palin claimed America is heading toward socialism under Obama, talked about her fight with the Alaska legislature over whether to reject some of the federal stimulus money and declined to say what her plans might be about running for reelection in 2010 or president in 2012. Her conclusion about the 2008 campaign: "We told ya so."

"Is this even more than you thought was going to be in terms of where the president would take the economy?" Hannity asked.

"A lot of this is wrapped in good rhetoric," Palin said, "but we're not seeing those actions, and this many months into the new administration, quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government. Instead, Sean, it's the complete opposite. It's expanding at such a large degree that if Americans are paying attention, unfortunately, our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize, certainly that is so far from what the founders of our countries had in mind for us."

Palin's cameo on Fox was long completed by the time Gingrich began his keynote address at the party dinner. By the time he finished, it's doubtful many who weren't in the room were still watching on C-SPAN. They missed a classic Gingrich performance.

Gingrich spoke from notes, not a text, and his speech lasted nearly an hour. The speech was a meaty defense of conservative principles and a sharply etched attack on the policies of the new administration, a "World According to Gingrich" that was part history lesson, part polemic and part pragmatic political appeal to his party.

He began by trying to bridge the differences between those Republicans who prefer a smaller, purer, more conservative party and those who say the party's only hope is to expand its appeal and attract moderates and independents.

Gingrich called both an adherence to conservative values and for the party to be inclusive, saying that any party that aspires to be a majority party should expect vigorous debate and disagreement. "I am happy that Dick Cheney is a Republican," he said. "I am also happy that Colin Powell is a Republican."

He mocked Obama, saying that the president's economic policies were "already a failure" and that his approach to foreign policy was misguided. He attacked Obama for a line from Obama's speech in Berlin in July 2008, when Obama told the audience he spoke to them as "a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world."

"Let me be clear. I am not a citizen of the world!" Gingrich said. "I think the entire concept is intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous."

He went on to attack Obama's plan to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and to defend Cheney's critiques of the administration's policies. He called Obama's decision to schedule a foreign policy speech opposite Cheney's address the administration's biggest tactical mistake to date.

Like Palin, Gingrich has shown his own limitations. When others in the party ran away from him, he was forced to take back his charge that Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Sonya Sotamayor, was a racist. His language, as Monday's speech illustrated, remains bombastic and highly polarizing. He is not every Republican's cup of tea.

"Newt is a wonderful, fabulous dinner speaker, full of ideas and entertainment, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said on ABC's "Good Morning America" Tuesday. "But Newt is not going to be the next nominee of the Republican Party.... The Republican future cannot be back to the future. It needs to be a new future."

All that may be true. But in the head-to-head comparison that unfolded during the Republican Party's fundraising dinner, Gingrich demonstrated the value of being comfortable with ideas, issues and history. It was a potentially valuable lesson for Palin, as she sat in the audience, listening and pondering her own future.

Posted at 1:20 PM ET on Jun 9, 2009  | Category:  Dan Balz's Take
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Senate Sets Sotomayor Hearing Date | Next: Obama Announces Push for PAYGO


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



LOL! :-D

The Media has managed to play some people so well!

The collection of RepubliCans, who are united in the National Council for a New America, are coalescing the Talents and Minds of People like Sarah.

I can only hope that Newt can find time, and is invited by Senator Cornyn, Rep. Sessions, Senator McCain, along with other NCNA Members to Join.

The Speech delivered by Newt at the Assembly;

was like what Mitt Romney (Another leading Member of NCNA) is able to do, that Sarah would need a truly gifted Team to try to mimic.

It does not mean she does not have a place, or a Role. It simply means that the RepubliCan Capitalist Party needs to prevent the Media from using "Popularity" SCAMS, to determine WHO is in charge!

That sort of IDIOCY is fine for Elitist Dimocrat Socialists. Idiots deserve Idiocy!

Unfortunately, this Country deserved BETTER!

Mitt Romney, in hindsight, is quite OBVIOUSLY the Man who SHOULD be our Executive!

"Popularity" Games...

Well...

What we got was an O'Bomba-Nation! :-(

Posted by: SAINT---The | June 10, 2009 7:46 PM

Newt Gingrich is truly not a citizen of the world. Newt lives in his own univeres, let's call it Newtonia, where everyone is rich, white and reads the Bible every day even if they don't practice what it teaches/preaches.

Newt is so irrelevant to our world today but his ego and the void in real Republican leadership allow him to claim center stage with his attempts to undermine whatever Obama tries to do. Notice no other potential candidate for the GOP in 2012, like Romney, Jeb, Tim or Bobby got up and attacked the President. At the least, they understand that attack dog style is out of favor and more apt to turn off potential swing voters than Newt's brand of hate speech disguised as thoughtful rumination on the course of conservatism, particularly when you agree with Rush that national failure in the name of idealogical purity is superior to averting the pain and suffering of a recession on millions of American families.

I don't agree with much of what Obama is doing and I believe the jury is still out on whether or not all this money and stirring the fiscal pot is going to work but it is likely to take a while to determine exactly what the outcome will be. Until then, smarter and wiser heads are not declaring Obama a failure and his agenda DOA. Who knows some of it might work and then what is your tactic going to be?

Posted by: bobfbell | June 10, 2009 5:12 PM


foutsc...

Thanks for the compliment. I can't wait to hit it.

Posted by: danw1 | June 10, 2009 12:09 PM

Better debt than a Depression

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 10, 2009 11:55 AM

How does Obama get by with spending $4,000,000,000,000 (double Bush) and then demanding fiscal restraint from Congress?

Easy, the press is busy with meaningless crap like this.

The GOP is lost in the wilderness, that's news? Meanwhile, we sink deeper in debt and face some real challenges in this country, but that's too boring, back to the tabloid stuff...

Good job Dan! You're a real news hound!


http://warskill.blogspot.com/
-- Nietzsche is Dead

Posted by: foutsc | June 10, 2009 8:23 AM

Kathleen Parker's article on Palin is much more to the point than Dana Milbank's.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 10, 2009 12:38 AM

I don't think ""circular firing squad" works. The GOP is acting more like successful revolutionaries (which they're not, the revolution failed). But like the French or Bolshevik revolutionaries, having attained power they are turning on each other, factionalizing and purging. Anyone not willing to speak the big lies with a straight face goes to the guillotine.

Believe in global warming? Won't agree that cutting taxes increases revenue? Don't agree that Palin is some sort of genius?

Off with his head!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 10, 2009 12:29 AM

Looks like the Supreme Court has cleared "pResident" Obama's "Socialist" plan for Chrysler

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 10, 2009 12:23 AM

Chris, I'm sure Jake's utterly orgasmic over so much attention. Let's cut him off now, OK?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 10, 2009 12:20 AM

Happy. Jake? It's all about you!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 10, 2009 12:14 AM

Chris, I believe the au courant expression is "circular firing-squad."

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 10, 2009 12:13 AM

Dude, consider the article at the top of this page. The right needs no help looking bad. They've turned into a suicide cult

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 10, 2009 12:10 AM

Maybe Jake's actually a leftwing troll, trying to make the right look bad with his posts.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 10, 2009 12:08 AM

boscobobb
I also find it difficult to believe JakeD ever studied law or attempted a bar exam (as he claims).

It seemed passing strange that a supposed lawyer had to ask me what the 3-prong test was. Heck, I'm not a lawyer (don't play one on TV or in the blogosphere, either), yet even I knew this most basic info as part of my common knowledge.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 10, 2009 12:04 AM

Jake also thinks there's something shameful about being gay, and about being an atheist. That could be an indication of coming from the postwar generation, or it could indicate a garden-variety jerk. I'm betting on the latter. Jake does not write like someone in his 70s.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 10, 2009 12:04 AM

@boscobobb: I have a lot of experience with right-wing trolls like Jake. A few things you can absolutely put in the bank:

(1) they lie constantly, about their own lives most of all

(2) they post under multiple monikers and support their alter-egos

(3) they canNOT debate; any extended piece of writing can almost always be traced to another source (I caught Jake doing this a few weeks ago, he got furious and called me a male prostitute).

(4) they have no shame. Caught lying, caught repeating disproven points, back at it the next day

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 10, 2009 12:01 AM

boscobobb, Fresno in high summer is its own punishment!

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 11:59 PM

Chris, then you'd also recall that the American Independent Party, to which Jake claims he and his wife belong, was founded in the wake of the Democratic Party flap in '64 over the attempt by black Mississippians to have their freedom delegation recognized at the Democratic national convention instead of the traditional lily-white segregationist one, not to mention the federal Civil Rights legislation enacted in '64 and '65. The American Independent Party was the states' rights segregationist party, that couldn't stomach the moderateness of the Nixon and Rockefeller wings of the GOP (or even Goldwater's libertarian streak).

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 11:56 PM

@Nosy: I'm glad the GOP is keeping her in the limelight instead of telling her to wait outside. She's pure poison, the reaction of decent people to her is a visceral recoil, she will not only repel a majority of voters but will convince many hanger-on Republicans that their party has lost its way and isn't ever coming back. And they're right.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 11:55 PM

chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 11:35 PM,

Good points all. He claims to live in California. Some areas of the Central Valley, e.g. Fresno, are where dixie license plates are a common sight and FreeRepublic (sic) is headquartered. McCain and Palin had several campaign events there, if memory serves.

I also find it difficult to believe JakeD ever studied law or attempted a bar exam (as he claims).

Posted by: boscobobb | June 9, 2009 11:55 PM

Also, Chris, if Palin can't even control her own staff (ostensibly her strongest loyalists) WRT her dinner appearance, how on Earth could she possibly expect to manage a Cabinet and a White House staff? The mind boggles even further.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 11:50 PM

Nosy: I'm 55, I lived in the south growing up, I saw the signs in Mississippi outside housing developments, the ones that began with "Ni66er:" I remember bathrooms unapologetically labeled "White Only." I remember even getting a domestic airplane ticket was an arduous task and a financial hardship.

None of this will stop that Jake nitwit from starting all over with this canard tomorrow, pretending he has a real point, that there's real doubt of Obama's eligibility. Jake lies all the time and he loves the attention it brings him, and he loves disrupting these comments by turning the topic to himself.

He manages to do it just about every day, clearly having no real life at all.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 11:49 PM

Chris, speaking of reneging, don't overlook Palin's diva-ness WRT appearing and/or making a speech at the dinner; on again, off again, on again, etc. Can you imagine the leader of the free world treating other world leaders like that? Oh wait, she could just flirt with the straight male ones, the way she did over the phone with the fake Sarkozy. The mind utterly boggles.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 11:48 PM

Palin is an idiot. She says Obama renegged on a pledge to cut spending. He made no such pledge, it was that goofy fool McCain who jerked the "small government" knee. Obama is doing what it takes to keep a recession from deepening; borrowing money to stimulate the economy. McCain would have cut taxes and spending and plunged us into a second Great Depression with Phil Gramm egging him on.

Stupid nasty woman.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 11:43 PM

Chris, I was the one who commented on the rigors of international travel to 3rd World countries 48 years ago. Talk to an oldster to find out how hard it could be back then. No reasonable way could a woman on the verge of labor could have made such a long, arduous trip, then returned home immediately after giving birth. And yes, a white woman would have been extremely conspicuous in the company of a black man back then.

Back to the topic of Sarah Palin, if you haven't already done so, be sure to read Dana Milbank's insightful description of the GOP dinner.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 11:42 PM

If Jake really is as old as he claims then he's the strangest septuagenarian alive. I've never met anyone over 50 who used emoticons, who shows no antiquated constructions in writing, who seems to have no cultural context of the 50s or 60s.

Someone mentioned the absurdity of Obama's mother traveling abroad while near labot. I don't think Jake has any sense (I could stop there) of the delicacy of interracial relationships a few decades ago.

Jake claims to be retired to justify all the time he spends here trolling; I think the explanation lies instead in the disjointed style of his posts, reflecting a disordered mind compromised by emotional delicacy. The childish and petulant asides about people who won't respond to him in no way sounds like a man in his 70s nearing the end of life, it sounds just like a typical 20- or 30-something collecting psychiatric SSI.


Besides, why would anyone over 50 be such a right-wing tool unless he was a rural southerner? It don't gel and it .ain't aspic.

See? That's something only a man over 50 would say

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 11:35 PM

Oh, Jake, you know this one:

1. Complainant makes allegation.
2. Burden shifts to Respondent to proffer a response.
3. Burden shifts back to Complainant to disprove Respondent's response.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 11:33 PM

What 3-part test?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 11:02 PM

OK, now that we've disposed of the Obama birthplace conspiracy theory, let's return to Sarah Palin. Not only did she refuse to name any of the newspapers she allegedly read, and was unable to name any Supreme Court decision besides Roe v. Wade with which she disagress, don't forget her phone call from the Canadian radio personality purporting to be Nicolas Sarkozy. The very thought that a candidate who sought to be just one heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world (second in line to an elderly cancer survivor) would speak so flirtatiously and foolishly on the phone with someone she genuinely believed to be the President of France is appalling beyond belief, and should disqualify her permanently from running for President or VP.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 9:48 PM

comapny = company. I can spell, but like almost everyone, occasionally my typing leaves something to be desired ;-)

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 9:10 PM

Ack, should read, "baby's health"

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 9:08 PM

jake
One last comment re: Obama -- if he released his LONG FORM birth certificate, I wouldn't ask for anything else

If you were really a lawyer, you'd know that after Obama asserts being a natural-born American in response to the initial accusation, the 3-part test places the burden of proof on his accusers to prove by a preponderance of the evidence otherwise. The burden of proof is not on Obama here, despite your repeated assertions to the contrary.

If (hypothetically) Obama's mother had gone to Kenya to give birth to him, what would have been her motivation, especially given the potential perils to and the baby's bealth? Where are the travel records, the visas, the passport records? Where are the eyewitnesses who would have been with her on the plane or boat or other forms of transportation? Surely someone would have noticed a heavily-pregnant young white woman in the comapny of a young black man, particularly back in an era when interracial marriuage was still illegal in parts of the US. Where are the records showing how the trip was financed (since young Mr. and Mrs. Obama likely could not have afforded such a trip themselves, being mere college students)? Conspiracy theorists have produced not one shred of reliable tangible evidence of Obama's mother having made the trip they allege. And since you're old enough to remember, describe what international travel was like to 3rd World countries back in 1961. Wouldn't it have been prohibitively arduous for a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy to travel such a long distance? Oh, and how was it even physically possible for her to have made it back to Honolulu so quickly after the ordeal of labor and delivering a baby, in order to register his birth in Hawaii so soon? Even Phileas Fogg would have been impressed with such putative alacrity! I gather that international travel was much, much slower in those days. So the conspiracy theory just doesn't pass the smell test. Why else do you think ALL the courts that have faced such lawsuits have refused to consider them?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 9:07 PM

@thinman - Sorry for the delayed response. Was driving through a monsoon in NoVa this afternoon. I expect that the primary motivation of a few voters is negative. However, I believe that voters who dislike one candidate and are not enthused by the other are most likely to stay home.

The presidential race last year was a good illustration of this. Hillary's voters during the primary (I was one of them) largely moved to Obama. Those who were completely disgusted by the nomination process mostly stayed home. Anyone who supported Hillary for other than sentimental reasons wasn't going to be reached by Palin. A serious miscalculation by McCain, though a good gamble.

Getting back to my playful suggestion. I doubt you'd get more than about 10% negative votes if that were an option. Fun to think about, though.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 9, 2009 8:57 PM

Jake D...

I'm knockin' up Willow next time I go bear hunting up there...and I think like Larry Flynt, not like some punk from Playboy.

Posted by: danw1 | June 9, 2009 8:57 PM

Sorry to hear about your Kia, jakeleg. But next time, buy American.

Posted by: mattintx | June 9, 2009 7:59 PM

CORRECTION:

I didn't "block out" anything that torro67 posted and answered every question he had. As long as he returns and continues to answer my questions to him in a civil manner, I will return the same common courtesy.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 7:23 PM

Why are you blocking out the reality of Obama's eligibility with this infantile BS about a birth certificate?

Anyone can see you're not playing with a full deck

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 7:20 PM

torro67:

I didn't "block out" anything, and I answered every question you asked. Maybe you are thinking about someone else you are debating? Because that ain't me.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 7:08 PM

JakeD - One last post.
I addressed it w/ at least 2 examples.
dude, seriously. you have something deeply wrong w/ your brain.
I am guessing a delusional problem of some type.

So you are stupid. And, you block out any example you can't deal with.

Get a shrink dude.

Posted by: torro67 | June 9, 2009 7:00 PM

For the record, I have never misstated any fact here.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:57 PM

P.S. -- I don't care about correct spelling either

==

You don't care about getting your facts straight either

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 6:55 PM

Anyone else, then, who knows that addressing the 'merits' of any argument takes more than: "It was ridiculous and stupid"?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:55 PM

For the record, a dead dog lying in the middle of the road would not qualify under the Constitution to be President of the United States (regardless of what the "infallible" Supreme Court said -- again, please see my comments re: Dred Scott, below).

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:54 PM

JakeD - I did address the 'merits' of your comment.
It was ridiculous and stupid.
And, you never defended it. (Maybe I missed it.)

So what a suprise. Another stupid JakeD comment.
Sorry I have no time for this idiocy.
Gotta go

Posted by: torro67 | June 9, 2009 6:53 PM

P.S. -- I don't care about correct spelling either -- I simply like the irony of those who actually misspell their criticsms of Palin's intelligence.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:52 PM

Even if a 3yr old Chimp could speak, he / she would not qualify under the Constitution to be President of the United States.

==

You gooper morons would vote for a dead dog lying in the middle of the road if the GOP ran it as their candidate.

Better still if it had been "pro-life" before gettting run over

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 6:52 PM

JakeD - The Constitution allows anything the Supremes decide.
What makes you think Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy ect. wouldn't vote to allow a bible thumping chimp into office.
They did it in 2000

Posted by: torro67 | June 9, 2009 6:51 PM

torro67:

Even if I were, in fact, "stupid" it is indeed a "personal attack" to bring that up instead of addressing the merits of my argument. OTOH I am ready, willing and able to defend any position I've taken with facts and logic alone.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:50 PM

JakeD - If you don't want to be called "stupid" then quit making so many factually, analytically absurd comments.
And, yes I know about the typo.
(This is where you question my smarts cuz I don't care about correct spelling)

Posted by: torro67 | June 9, 2009 6:48 PM

JakeD - Calling you "stupid" is not a "personal attack".

It is a fact based on a statement you made that was so incredibly nonsensical that you didn't even try to defend it.

And, I don't care what you say about me.
At least I know the diff between a documented fact and a personal insult.

By your own absurd 'example' Obama's position on abortion must be the smarter position.

Which gets me back to saying that you are clearly not very smart. sorry if the truth hurts so much.

Posted by: torro67 | June 9, 2009 6:44 PM

Even if a 3yr old Chimp could speak, he / she would not qualify under the Constitution to be President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:41 PM

torro67:

Really, and I don't want the "smarter" person in office in said person is pro-choice. Keep in mind that I will never resort to personal attacks against you : )

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:40 PM

If a 3yr old Chimp could say "drill baby drill" and "I oppose abortion" the GOP would put it up for election.

And, it would get at least 44% of the vote.

Posted by: torro67 | June 9, 2009 6:39 PM

Sarah Palin continues to be a humorous person. John McCain found out, when she was his choice for VP, that if he wanted her opinion on anything then he had to give it to her first.

Even now, she opens her mouth and a couple of things happen. Firstly, people are confused because she makes very little sense. Secondly, we laugh at the State of Alaska because they had no one capable of defeating her in the governor's race.

As for Newt, I lived in Georgia for long enough to realize that it would be a major dive down the evolutionary ladder to allow him to obtain the power of POTUS.

Posted by: MET9 | June 9, 2009 6:39 PM

What a joke. Anyone who can't see the serious deficiencies in the republican party and the mental processes of those who support them has a problem.
A big problem.
Like that moron on YouTube with the stuffed monkey toy that he was using to represent Obama.
That's one reason I always say that poor schools and education cuts (like in South Carolina) are a republican survival strategy.

Posted by: Tomcat3 | June 9, 2009 6:39 PM

Nosy_Parker:

See my posts to Bondosan re: Quo Warranto (below). Also, I do know that Obama-Biden got more votes than McCain-Palin (or we wouldn't even be having this conversation). If Arnold Schwarzenegger had been on the ballot instead of McCain and received more votes than Obama, he couldn't be President either. At least I'm consistent. All that being said, I never have said that anyone who voted for Obama "needs to see a psychiatrist" though (torro67 did). See the difference?

BTW: Bush didn't "lose" the election (even if Gore "won" Florida, the Supreme Court declared Bush the winner). So, the rest of your questions are irrelevant. Now, if it was proven that Bush was not a "natural born" citizen, that would indeed be grounds for invalidating any law or Executive Order he signed. Nothing will bring back KIA.

One last comment re: Obama -- if he released his LONG FORM birth certificate, I wouldn't ask for anything else -- I promise : )

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:37 PM

You forgot "bless his heart."

Posted by: mattintx | June 9, 2009 6:37 PM

Jake is just revelling in all the attention. Doesn't matter if it's good attention or bad, he's just as happy to have people calling him an idiot as to have people agreeing with him. It's getting the attention that matters.

Good example for you parents out there, how you don't want your kids to turn out. Make sure they get socialized, otherwise they may end up like Jake, sitting in his mom's basement and trolling for 18 hour a day

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 6:35 PM

JakeD - Really? 60 million americans voted for them.
Wow! I had no idea that a nation of dumb @$$s that fell for the WMD BS would be so stupid.

Oh wait, most Americans would vote for a 3 yr old chimp if 'their' party put it up for election.

Wow. You actually think Palin is smart cuz people voted for her.
By your rational, Obama must be even smarter than Sarah cuz more people voted for him. So don't you want the smarter person in office?

Jeez what a stupid person you are.

Posted by: torro67 | June 9, 2009 6:33 PM

jaked
You are aware that almost 60 million people voted for McCain-PALIN, right?

Jake, you are aware that MORE people voted for Obama-Biden, right?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 6:30 PM

It's like the GOP only wants dumb people to vote for them.

Seriously. Sarah P.'s level of 'intelligence' is so far below any other politician I have ever seen that I can't even believe that this hasn't all just been some nightmare I had after too many beers.

Posted by: torro67 | June 9, 2009 6:30 PM

Jake, Obama has provided the same level of proof as all other candidates. Absent any compelling tangible proof to the contrary, which you concede does not exist, that is legally sufficient. You should know this from your legal training re burden of proofs; at this point it's on his accusers, not on him, but his accusers can't come up with anything of sufficient credibility to perpetuate this anti-Obama farce. So give it up now and move on, just as Gore had to in Dec. 2008.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 6:29 PM

“No, I'm not answering YOUR questions because you refuse to return the same common courtesy. Ignoring you is more of a "time management" thing.Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:36 PM “

The usual jaked cop-out.

Posted by: knjincvc | June 9, 2009 6:27 PM

Conserve electrons, then.

Posted by: mattintx | June 9, 2009 6:27 PM

torro67:

You are aware that almost 60 million people voted for McCain-PALIN, right?

If not, please see FEC.gov link (below).

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:27 PM

Hey Jake in some states a birth certificate is an informal affair, it can even be issued by a church. You can buy the forms in most Christian bookstores.

Obama has satisfied the requirements long ago. This is just a stupid dodge you trot out to get attention in comment sections that you can't get in person. Are you a shut-in? Are you bedbound?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 6:27 PM

alexjp46:

11.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:24 PM

Sarah Palin is a big distraction for the Republican Party. The country was blessed when John McCain did not win the election. Afterall his pick of people to pall around with has unleashed a level of politics on the country from which we may not soon recover. Of course I am speaking about Palin and Joe the Plumber.

Sarah Palin can be understood better in light of her connection with the anti-USA party in Alaska. Sarah is playing the GOP as if she is in another beauty contest. Good luck GOP. You have played the fool again.

Posted by: EarlC | June 9, 2009 6:24 PM

Twenty-seven Supreme Court Justices and three personal assistants each... to cover all 'three shifts' 24 / 7 and voila, thats ninety-nine 'new' jobs right there! .... Yeah!!! Now that's what I'm talkin' about!!

Posted by: deepthroat21 | June 9, 2009 6:23 PM

Nosy_Parker:

Oh, so now you want TANGIBLE evidence. I will agree with you that no such unrefutable evidence has come to light (yet). For instance, pResident Obama won't even release his LONG FORM birth certificate. That would be TANGIBLE evidence of which doctor in Honolulu signed the certificate.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:23 PM

“I believe that Joe Scarborough is entertaining his considerable ego with thoughts of running in 2012.”

There is no way any T.V. or radio personality is going to head up either of the parties ticket. Newt has made himself a T.V. persona with his constant chatter and now twitter. Say goodbye to Huckabee too.

Posted by: knjincvc | June 9, 2009 6:23 PM

Anyone who supports this woman needs to see a psychiatrist.

Posted by: torro67 | June 9, 2009 6:22 PM

Jake, what if Bush were proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have lost the election in Nov. 2000? Would you support rolling back all legislation he signed? Would it bring back all the casualties (deaths, injuries) of the Iraq War? Didn't think so.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 6:21 PM

JakeD:

Last comment for the day, then I'm off to vote.

Scale of 0-10, 0 very liberal, 10 very conservative, 4-6 moderate range, where would you rank yourself?

Posted by: alexjp46 | June 9, 2009 6:21 PM

Fate1:

Have you ever read any book about John Adams as Vice President.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:19 PM

Jake
so if he was indeed born in Kenya

Not a shred of reliable TANGIBLE evidence has ever been produced indicating that Obama's mother traveled to Kenya around the time of his birth: no travel (e.g., airline or ship) records, no passport or visa records, no unretouched photos, nada, zip, zilch. All you have is just a mistranslated claim quickly corrected by an elderly step-relative who initially misunderstood the query, which is the flimsiest of foundations on which to state a claim. It's no accident that not one of our courts will dignify the born-in-Kenya claims with a hearing. Jake, you claim to have been a lawyer, so you of all people should recognize the futility of this quixotic pursuit; there is no windmill there, only a political mirage.

Just reiterating your same canard endlessly only proves that you've taken the Nazi propaganda rules to heart (i.e., repeat something enough times, no matter how implausible, and eventually some gullible folks will start to believe it; it clearly worked with you).

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 6:19 PM

Has anyone contemplated the consequences if Obama is found to be ineligible? Setting aside the potential for blackmail, what if that is made public now? Why wouldn't HE want this resolved sooner rather than later?

Posted by: JakeD

==

The matter is settled to the satisfaction of anyone with responsibility. It's only unsettled in the minds of a few sore-loser nutbars such as yourself.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 6:18 PM

Palin is governor of a state that hands checks to its citizens annually based on oil income, yet she claims America is heading toward socialism under Obama. This is a woman who did not even know the duties of the job she was running for, saying as President of the senate she would make policy. And this is the future of the GOP?

And Gingrich? Well, all I need to know about him is how he divorced his ailing wife and how his "contract with America" was an Indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract.

All that the GOP has is entertainers with a following of the 25% of America that simply does not think, question or analyze. Unless they get another Nixon they will never gain power. Oh there will the those reminding us of Reagan, but he was just another entertainer. The GOP message cannot be delivered without entertainment quality delivery. I'm waiting for special effects to creep into GOP propaganda. But Americans have been stung by the GOP and it will be a long time for them to forget it. In the meantime the democrats need to work and not rely on the GOP implosion. That is the toughest work I see ahead since we know there is 25% of America that will vote based on entertainment and not substance.

Posted by: Fate1 | June 9, 2009 6:17 PM

All I'm wonderin' is..... why do We only have nine Supreme Court Justices? .... In a country that has such a 'richness of diversity'. Why don't We have .... say about..... twenty-seven Judges?.... Really... I'm serious.

Posted by: deepthroat21 | June 9, 2009 6:16 PM

alexjp46:

If you have any more questions about my political affiliation (or even the thread topic about the GOP Fundraiser) let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:13 PM

Nosy-Parker:

I never said she wasn't 18, but I do agree that we need to still sort out whether she was legally married. Has anyone contemplated the consequences if Obama is found to be ineligible? Setting aside the potential for blackmail, what if that is made public now? Why wouldn't HE want this resolved sooner rather than later?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:12 PM

"Independent" means "not aligned with any one party."

You're not an Independent, Jake.

You're a member of the AIP, which includes the word Independent in its name, probably to attract the rubes. But as you are affiliated with a party, you are not an Independent.

You are however dumb as a bag of hair

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 6:10 PM

That's a big if, park.

Posted by: mattintx | June 9, 2009 6:09 PM

Jake
She was underaged at the time, so if he was indeed born in Kenya, he is not Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.

She was 18 AND married.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 6:07 PM

alexjp46:

I have never hidden my very conservative viewpoint, yet I am registered with the American INDEPENDENT Party. I, therefore, consider myself an Independent and will not stop posting as such. BOTH major parties are seeking "Independent" voters, whether conservative or liberal.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:06 PM

alexjp: Jake swears allegiance to the American Independent Party, a nutbar organization with about a quarter million voters nationwide, most of whom believe they are registered as party-independent.

Take a look at their web site if you want to see some redneck slime.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 6:04 PM

knjincvc:

Bill Clinton never received a majority of the popular vote either (the Electoral College vote is the only thing that counts anyway). Was Bill Clinton not a legitimate President?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 6:03 PM

JakeD:

I was a late comer to the Sarah Palin Fix thread yesterday, and saw your link to continue discussion here.

I have an honest question for you: you often refer to yourself as Independent ("My wife and I are registered Independents, and we would gladly vote for Palin over Obama."), and while not a member of the GOP, are clearly a conservative ("I don't support the GOP (they are too liberal for me).").

Question is, on a liberal-moderate-conservative scale, do you self-identify as conservative or moderate?

If you identify as conservative, please stop citing yourself as an independent when the discussion is about appealing to independent voters - in this situation, independent means moderate, not independent of a party.

Posted by: alexjp46 | June 9, 2009 6:02 PM

Ever heard Bush speak without one? Or Reagan?

Bush off the cuff: "Iz'r'l hazzarat to deFENN isself!"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 6:01 PM

“Based on the comments by Gingrich and Palin, I am not surprised that this is now the party of the also-rans.”

Actually the GOP has been leaderless since GHW Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.
GWB was neo-con Trojan horse candidate to get cheney on the ticket. GWB could never have been elected on his own. Corporate (conservatives) republicans will vote the ticket no matter what so neo-cons had to brand GWB as a compassionate conservative to get 30% of republicans who are moderate and the Christian wing of the party. As it was cheney/bush received less than 50% of the popular vote and just 51% IN 2004 EVEN AFTER BRANDING HIMSELF “a WAR PRESIDENT”. Easy to do when you start the war.
If it hadn’t been for the SCOTUS cheney/bush would be foot notes in election history, and invading Iraq would not have happened.
So as Ari Fleischer said on ABC's "Good Morning America" Tuesday. "But Newt is not going to be the next nominee of the Republican Party....”
And there is no way corporate (conservatives) republicans will put the governor of the country’s largest welfare state on the head of the ticket!
SOOOO who's the leader of the corporate (conservatives) republican party????

Posted by: knjincvc | June 9, 2009 6:00 PM

Why don't you get one fact straight just once in your useless unemployable life, Jake, before you go after someone else's spelling?

You might start with the fact of Obama's eligibility to be president instead of carping on some nonexistent impropriety with his birth certificate.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 6:00 PM

knjincvc:

Have you heard pResident Obama speak without a teleprompter?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:58 PM

Citi_Street:

You mean Tina FEY? At least try to spell correctly if you are going to make fun of Gov. Palin.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:54 PM

Palin reminds me of the Summer Wheatley, the girl running for class president in Napoleon Dynamite. "Who wants chimichangas next year?"

That paragraph about China is a nonsensical collage of stuff she's been fed, stuff she's read that's been "put in front of her" as she says, and clips from talking heads.

Posted by: catmink | June 9, 2009 5:54 PM

danw1:

As I already said, you and Lou Mohn over at Playboy think alike (just like the typical Democrat).

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:52 PM

Bondosan:

I am not inciting any violence in simply talking about the Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments. You and scrivener50 need to lighten up.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:51 PM

Bristol's a hot little piece. Forget that abstinence, I hear she's porn nasty.

Posted by: danw1 | June 9, 2009 5:50 PM

For the record, only the slaves IN THE CONFEDERATE STATES were freed by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. The Civil War may not have started over slavery, but it ended over slavery and, after claiming its last casualty, the 13th - 15th Amendments legally brought slavery to an end.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:50 PM

JakeD:

You're talking about violent insurrection.

Please post your personal contact information, so the Secret Service can pay you a visit.

Don't worry, they're nice guys. They just want to have a little chat with you.

Posted by: Bondosan | June 9, 2009 5:48 PM

"A lot of this is wrapped in good rhetoric," she said, "but we're not seeing those actions, and this many months into the new administration, quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government. Instead, China's the complete opposite. It's expanding at such a large degree that if Americans are paying attention, unfortunately, our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize, certainly that is so far from what the founders of our countries had in mind for us."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe Tina Faye of SNL could translate for the rest of us! Tina will at least give us a good laugh from this word salad by this “air-head”…

Posted by: Citi_Street | June 9, 2009 5:47 PM

Actually Jake, the slaves were freed by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

The Civil War was fought over the Confederate secession, not about slavery.

You really are an ignorant idiot, which is why nobody here believes you have a degree, not in law, not in anything.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:47 PM

bigbrother1:

I would rather have ANY of them as President instead of Obama the Usurper.

Bondosan:

The Supreme Court has not ruled "on the merits" (look it up) of any Quo Warranto action. After the Dred Scott decision, they had no interest in disallowing slavery either. So, that took us a Civil War to correct.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:45 PM

It's hard to see ANY future for the GOP as long as they cling to Newt, Sarah and Rush

==

... and "Mitt."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:44 PM

I certainly have no idea why you keep asking me questions, that's for sure.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:42 PM

It's hard to see ANY future for the GOP as long as they cling to Newt, Sarah and Rush. They're entertaining, sure, but not the sort of people you want having any sort of power.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | June 9, 2009 5:41 PM

Actually, Jake:

You're appealing decisions that have already been made.

Obama has no further burden unless you can either prove that errors were made in declaring him eligible, or you have recently discovered some new, overwhelmingly compelling evidence that was not previously available despite your best efforts to locate it.

And as the Supreme Court has shown no interest in allowing this nonsense to proceed any further, you're pretty much out of luck.

Posted by: Bondosan | June 9, 2009 5:40 PM

Why would I ask you any questions, Jake? You're an idiot.

I am curious if you're a cross-dresser, though, you have the same self-fascination I've seen in transvestites and in nobody else

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:40 PM

All this talk of Palin and Gingrich is just foolish noise from the GOP past. I believe that Joe Scarborough is entertaining his considerable ego with thoughts of running in 2012. He's been tuning up his stump speach each morning for the last two months . It was obvious during the election last year that he became convinced that he would make a better candidate than what he saw in the GOP field. He wears it on his sleave. His book was just released today "The Last Great Hope" with his picture on the front cover. He's not the worst the GOP has to offer.

Posted by: johnnyboy4 | June 9, 2009 5:39 PM

No true Scotsman believes in "The Average Reasonable Man" standard.

Posted by: mattintx | June 9, 2009 5:37 PM

chrisfox8:

No, I'm not answering YOUR questions because you refuse to return the same common courtesy. Ignoring you is more of a "time management" thing.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:36 PM

P.S. she didn't even open her mouth at this dinner (expect to eat, I guess ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:34 PM

I thought you were "getting off" on this floor?

Posted by JakeD

==

I thought you were "ignoring" me because I don't answer your "questions" in a "civil manner?"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:34 PM

knjincvc:

We'll have to agree to disagree on that then.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:33 PM

chrisfox8:

I thought you were "getting off" on this floor?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:32 PM

“Since Iraq was OUR country "until Obama gave it back" that makes perfect sense.”

As most of us said from the beginning, invading Iraq was a land grab to get oil. Nothing to do with WMD, democracy, peace in the ME or any other bull spit.

“So, everyone is attacking her because there's no chance she will be the 2012 GOP nominee? That's an interesting spin.”

No everyone, GOP included, attacks her because she keeps opening her mouth and nonsense comes out. I blame MSM for giving her the time to make herself sound ridiculous.

Posted by: knjincvc | June 9, 2009 5:32 PM

Bondosan:

You are not using "burden of proof" correctly. Look up "Quo Warranto" and you will easily see that the burden of proof is on the person claiming the right to hold said office.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:30 PM

No, I believe such a statement meets The Average Reasonable Man ("TARM") standard as well.

Posted by: JakeD

==

You don't make that grade, you're a damned idiot

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:30 PM

We don't think too much of Ronald Reagan around here either, Jake.

But at least Reagan could read and write.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:27 PM

mattintx:

No, I believe such a statement meets The Average Reasonable Man ("TARM") standard as well.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:27 PM

No, Jake:

The burden of proof has been settled. President Obama is a natural born citizen, born in the state of Hawaii to a mother who was also a U.S. citizen.

If you disagree, or have doubts, then the burden of proof now rests with you and your fellow conspiracy-theorists, to prove otherwise.

Good luck with that. I hope you and all your fellow-travelers spend a great deal of time and money on this over the next seven years.

Posted by: Bondosan | June 9, 2009 5:26 PM

Lincoln was an autodidact, Palin can't even name a single newspaper she claims to read.

If Lincoln were alive today he'd have two PhDs. Palin has a BA in some useless field, she may as well have majored in Home Ec.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:25 PM

MOswingvoter:

Ronald Reagan "to finally managed" degree from EUREKA College! Can you imagine how lowly they think that was?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:25 PM

Make that reasonable to you, jakeleg.

Posted by: mattintx | June 9, 2009 5:25 PM

Well, one reasonable doubt would be Obama's paternal grandmother's statement that she was present (in what is now Kenya) for his birth.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:23 PM

As I recall, she did not come from money and had to work to afford college. It took her a while to graduate because she kept stopping to work. In fact, that was the only reason she competed in beauty pageants, was for the scholarship money. And by your logic, doesn't it reflect badly on Obama that he started college at Occidental but finished it at Columbia? Two colleges, that means he's dumber than people who only wrent to one (Bush), right?

Posted by: MOswingvoter | June 9, 2009 5:23 PM

"Abe Lincoln never even 'to finally managed'

Get some rest, jakeleg.

Posted by: mattintx | June 9, 2009 5:22 PM

Hahahahaha like Obama's eligibility is in any doubt.

Jake, do you have ANY IDEA how STUPID you sound with that birth certificate crap?!?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:21 PM

Bondosan:

The law in effect when Obama was born was different than two years ago -- also, I never said that I have evidence that Bush was born in Connecticut -- I said that there never was any question raised. Unlike with Obama vis a vis President. The burden of proof is on the CURRENT occupant of said office.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:20 PM

What can you expect from a person to took SIX years to finally managed to get a BA after shunting through FIVE different colleges?

==

Yeah a BA in sports journalism.

That's got to be a really demanding curriculum ...

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:19 PM

dunnhaupt:

Yes, what indeed can you expect from a person to took SIX years to finally managed [SIC] to get a BA? Abe Lincoln never even "to finally managed" ONE degree.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:17 PM

She effectively uses that 80% of communication that is nonverbal.

==

Gotcha. She'll wink her way to a peace deal between Israel and Palestine.

Excuse me I think this is my floor

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:17 PM

JakeD:

Age has nothing to do with it. My daughter is a U.S. citizen, and she's only two.

Bush was born in Connecticut? Where's the evidence?

Posted by: Bondosan | June 9, 2009 5:16 PM

MOswingvoter:

Thank you.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:15 PM

@ kevrobb:
I opt for your third possibility: a semi-literate bimbo.

What can you expect from a person to took SIX years to finally managed to get a BA after shunting through FIVE different colleges?

Posted by: dunnhaupt | June 9, 2009 5:15 PM

motorfriend:

"Socializing" with friends is quite different than "socialism" (as I defined below). So, to answer your question, no.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:14 PM

HEY JAKE

IF HE'S INELIGIBLE, WHY IS HE PRESIDENT WHILE YOU'RE JUST AN UNEMPLOYABLE LOSER?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:13 PM

I always understand Sarah Palin perfectly. Her words look like nonsense on paper but it always makes sense when spoken. She effectively uses that 80% of communication that is nonverbal. TOTUS is boring, she's not. Face it.

Posted by: MOswingvoter | June 9, 2009 5:13 PM

"Palin is an average person just like you and me"

Speak for yourself, also too.

Posted by: mattintx | June 9, 2009 5:13 PM

P.S. there was never any question about George W. Bush being born in New Haven, Connecticut. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:13 PM


Isn't it a bit hypocritical to come out against socialism while socializing?

Posted by: motorfriend | June 9, 2009 5:12 PM

Or, # 4. Palin is an average person just like you and me, and sometimes doesn't express herself perfectly

==

Not perfectly?

Try "she speaks bloody gibberish"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:12 PM

Bondosan:

That's not true (even putting aside how she got to the moon and back before the Apollo fights). She was underaged at the time, so if he was indeed born in Kenya, he is not Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:11 PM

Most frightening though of the day: 'Palin and Leader' in the same sentence.
Or would that just be a sad commentary on republicans?

Ok, that's not the most frightening. The fact that Failin Palin even gets in the news - that's frightening!

Hey bubba, lets use the state helicopter and fly out to slaughter some wolves.

Posted by: stodayxx | June 9, 2009 5:11 PM

dunnhapt: Palin didn't cost McCain the election, McCain cost McCain the election. One stupid impulsive stunt after another, his daffy preoccupation with earmarks, his endless invocation of the bridge to nowhere.

Palin gave him a boost for being female, then she opened her mouth.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:10 PM

kevrobb:

Or, # 4. Palin is an average person just like you and me, and sometimes doesn't express herself perfectly, especially in front of millions of people on TV -- but she has solid, middle American values -- I am her humble servant, correcting the record where I can.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:08 PM

It wouldn't matter if Obama had been born on the Moon. His mother was a U.S. citizen, so, at the time of his birth, he was also a U.S. citizen: hence, "natural-born citizen."

Come to think of it, I never did see George Bush's long-form birth certificate....

Posted by: Bondosan | June 9, 2009 5:07 PM

It is sad to see that the GOP still doesn't get it: Palin did cost McCain the election. McCain seems to be the only one who knows that.
Only if they totally distance themselves from the likes of Limbaugh and Palin can they ever recover some of the prestige they once enjoyed.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | June 9, 2009 5:07 PM

JakeD writes:

"I assume yuo are referring the the PFD"

Assume less.

According to the Tax Foundation, Alaska receives $1.87 in federal benefit for every $1 paid in federal taxes.

It's a welfare state.

Posted by: mattintx | June 9, 2009 5:05 PM

I'm an Independent voter turned Democrat, and dozens of my friends are Independent voters turned Democrat.

As for you 19% defenders of Palin.
Honestly, do you even know what she's saying, or trying to say? Here's a clue,
she DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE when she speaks.

I read her last 'statement' to my
7th grader and he laughed out loud.

If Palin, Gingrich, Limbaugh
are the future of the Republican party.
Goodbye GOP.....and good riddance.


Posted by: ethereal_reality | June 9, 2009 5:05 PM

I'll manage, Jake. But I'm too disciplined in my time management to ever bother with your "questions"

Are you a transvestite, Jake?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:04 PM

JakeD, it's a fact that most people, even many Republicans, say they can't make head or tail out of Palin's various comments. You may wriggle, you may be disingenuous (for example by glossing over the fact that Palin - not Fey - did say that Russia's proximity to Alaska was one of her foreign policy qualifications).
But you cannot deny that a lot of people have difficulty picking up the logical thread in her pronouncements.

So that really leaves three possibilities:

1. Palin is a genius, far beyond the understanding of most Americans, even educated professionals, and you, Jake, are one of the few smart enough to decipher her meaning for the rest of us, or

2. Palin is some kind of Oracle, whose predictions, while accurate, tend to be mysterious, convoluted and seemingly irrational, like those of the ancient Greek oracles. Fortunately JakeD, the High Priest of Palin, can understand them and render them into language mortals understand, or

3. Palin is a semi-literate bimbo, and JakeD is a mindless internet blowhard - with no job - who doesn't understand her any better than the next guy, but likes her because she shares his prejudices and hatreds.

Posted by: kevrobb | June 9, 2009 5:03 PM

chrisfox8:

Too bad you refused to answer my previous questions to you, or I would have gladly answered your current questions to me.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:02 PM

No, but Obama isn't writing his teleprompter speeches either.

Posted by: JakeD

==

Obama wrote two very good books. Palin will never write a book, unless it's "with" some writer.

If she tries REALLY hard though she might manage to READ one.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 5:01 PM

You do realize that it was TINA FEY, not Gov. Palin, who said "I can see Russia from my house", right?

Posted by: JakeD

==

And Palin's "from an island in Alaska" is somehow less idiotic than "from my house?"

How you figure?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:59 PM

kevrobb:

No, but Obama isn't writing his teleprompter speeches either.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:59 PM

"are new yorkers happy that terrorists are being imported from gitmo and more are yet to come...
New York is a big city and hopefully the terrorists already living there don't try to punish the city for trying their brothers..."

Hey dwight, I thought cheney kept us safe" Except for the first 231 days of course.
How can there be terrorists already living in NYC?

Posted by: knjincvc | June 9, 2009 4:59 PM

knjincvc:

She ran a city, then a State (whether you want to dismiss Alaska as the biggest welfare State -- I assume yuo are referring the the PFD -- at least she runs it good, compared to Arnold here in California who has proposed cutting all welfare because of over-spending taking up to the brink of BK), which qualifies more than any "community organizer". She may not be a LATINA woman, but I think that Palin's richness of background, being a pro-life woman, would be good for the White House. That really was the deciding factor in my mind.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:58 PM

She's the Republicans' Brett Favre. Good luck, OP.

Posted by: mattintx | June 9, 2009 4:54 PM

"kevrobb: Did you read the accompanying press release?"

Yes I did, but the press release wasn't written by Sarah Palin.

It was written by someone with a basic grasp of the English language, in a post-hoc effort to attach some basic meaning to her verbal ramblings.

Are you telling me that Palin is OK because her nonsensical word-streams can later be corrected with press releases written by paid flunkeys?

Why wouldn't voters opt instead for a politician capable of expressing ideas? Isn't that rather an essential qualification for a politician?

Posted by: kevrobb | June 9, 2009 4:53 PM

htimothyjones:

You do realize that it was TINA FEY, not Gov. Palin, who said "I can see Russia from my house", right?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:53 PM

"I also have some interest in seeing and supporting her for another run at a national ofice. She had more relevant "background, experience, and temperment" to be President than Obama did."

HUH!! Palin is the governor of the biggest welfare state in the Union.

Go ahead and detail her relevant "background, experience, and temperment" compared to Obama.

Posted by: knjincvc | June 9, 2009 4:53 PM

danw1:

You and Lou Mohn over at Playboy think alike.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:52 PM

Now Palin can see China from her house, too.
Oh, and BTW, like it really needed to be pointed that Newt wasn't a citizen of the world. Good luck with that inclusiveness, Mr. Grinch.

Posted by: htimothyjones | June 9, 2009 4:50 PM

Oh the Republican choices for 2012, Windbag or Airhead?

Posted by: laurelphoto | June 9, 2009 4:47 PM

I like women who can't speak proper English. Sarah could be a mail order bride with that gibberish. I'd like to rupture her uterus.

Posted by: danw1 | June 9, 2009 4:47 PM

Nosy_Parker:

Per the Constitution, Joseph ROBINETTE Biden is and has been Acting President of the United States since noon on January 20, 2009. If the White House wanted to cover their bases, he would at least be co-signing everything Obama does.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:47 PM

knjincvc:

So, everyone is attacking her because there's no chance she will be the 2012 GOP nominee? That's an interesting spin.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:45 PM

JakeD
Obama has not released his LONG FORM birth certificate to prove those votes were cast for a "natural born" citizen.

This can reasonably be construed as compelling evidence that JakeD actually wants to see Joe Biden become President. Now the truth is out!

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 4:44 PM

theobserver4:

I never posted that "I'm retarded". I'm glad you got a laugh over that though.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:42 PM

"You can tell that the MSM is scared of Palin because they know that no other Republican draws the numbers she does (20,000 in Auburn NY over the weekend!)."

On the contrary, the MSM loves Gov. Palin, she's cute, kind of spunky and the darnedest things come out of her mouth.
She's a money draw for conservative republicans but she will never lead the ticket in 2012.
The event in Auburn wasn't for Palin, but she did get to ride in a red Cadillac.

Posted by: knjincvc | June 9, 2009 4:42 PM

Sarah Plagerism Palin, Dick Bunkerbaby Cheney, Rush Damouth Linbaug, & Free Publicity Sanford. Hey Captain, do you need a muleskinner, I can skin them jackasses, down on your Crawford run.

Posted by: laurelphoto | June 9, 2009 4:41 PM

Has McCain "released his LONG FORM birth certificate to prove those votes were cast for a "natural born" citizen"? Didn't think so.

The only so-called evidence against Obama are virulent gossip without basis, and a garbled conversation with a Kenyan relative of his, which was later demonstrated to have gotten "lost in translation." Obama has provided as much evidence as any other Presidential candidate.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 4:41 PM

Yeah, well, if that was your "point" (considering you haven't even posted on this thread yet) I can't wait to hear what you thought about that "makeover" for the Britain's Got Talent lady who sold out her soul (I guess, according to your "logic"). As usual, I am always right.

Posted by: JakeD

I'm retarded, with plenty of other peoples' time to waste here. Thanks for your concern though.

Posted by: JakeD

*********************************************************************

Which is it? I'm laughing so hard on this blog I had to close it and get a drink of water.

Posted by: theobserver4 | June 9, 2009 4:40 PM

Hahahahaha like Obama's eligibility is in any doubt.

Jake, do you have ANY IDEA how STUPID you sound with that birth certificate crap?!?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:39 PM

Nosy_Parker:

Fact -- Obama has not released his LONG FORM birth certificate to prove those votes were cast for a "natural born" citizen.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:37 PM

If China has gone "free market" then we're in big trouble because their collapse is really going to put a crimp in our exports and in WalMart's imports.

Free markets don't work.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:36 PM

adrienne_najjar
Palin: probably gives good head - not much else.

Nope, she only believes in "pull & pray."

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 4:35 PM

At least "she" is registered to vote.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:34 PM

Dan Balz, how about doing a column on where are the adult leaders in the Republican party. I would really like to know what Susan Collins, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Jeb Hensarling, and other thinking, articulate Republicans think about the likes of Sarah Palin getting all the attention for 2012. They must be embarrased to tears.

Posted by: gjhinnova | June 9, 2009 4:33 PM

Fact: More voters voted for Obama/Biden than for McCain/Palin in Nov. 2008.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 4:33 PM

Lavinsr4207:

My wife and I would gladly vote for her against Obama

==

Jake, your "wife" arrived in the mail in a plain paper carton and you have to inflate her with a bike pump before you have your little dalliance

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:32 PM

No, kevrobb, the point is that COMMUNIST China is embracing free market capitalism more than the (de facto) President of the United States! Just wait until China wakes up and stops buying all of Barry's funny money.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:32 PM

The likes of Newt and other GOP folks should be cautious in trying to identify themselves as Reagan Republicans, and that they would follow the Reagan path in leading the country.

The national debt shy-rocketed during Reagan's eight years in office (and yes I remember that the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats).

There were two major recessions during Reagan's tenure as well with rising unemployment.

While President Reagan is given credit for the fall of the Soviet empire, it was George Kennan (in 1949) who suggested that the USSR would eventually implode due to its own incompetence.

President Reagan successfully pushed for a reduction of the income tax rates, rates that had been hideously high since WW II.

And Newt should be cautious as well in discussing the role of lobbyists, etc. He was in the back pocket of lobbyists during his brief tenure as Speaker of the House.

Don't forget that it was Newt who pushed for those C-130s even when the military said that didn't want any more.

Posted by: retiree11 | June 9, 2009 4:30 PM

Palin: probably gives good head - not much else.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | June 9, 2009 4:30 PM

Lavinsr4207:

My wife and I would gladly vote for her against Obama. You are aware that almost 60 million votes were cast for McCain and her, right? (notwithstanding semantic games by "thinman1")

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:30 PM

"Instead, China's the complete opposite. It's expanding at such a large degree that if Americans are paying attention, unfortunately, our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize..."

Two major problems here: First, she says Obama's not reining in spending or shrinking govt, then says China's the complete opposite. So she believes China is reining in spending and shrinking govt? Really? China has its own large stimulus package, and I've never heard anyone, whether friend or foe of Beijing, claim that China's rulers are out to rein in big govt. Is Palin really saying here that Obama's approach is all wrong and the US should instead copy China?

"Instead, China's the complete opposite. It's expanding at such a large degree that if Americans are paying attention, unfortunately, our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize..."

What? China is expanding so fast that Americans won't recognise their own country? Or the Chinese govt is expanding so fast that Americans won't recognise their own country? Is she saying that Chinese govt expansion will leave America trailing and marginalised? But hang on, isn't her whole credo based on a belief that govt expansion weakens a nation? So why would it strengthen China relative to the US?

Personally, I fail to understand why any expansion of anything in China should prevent Americans from recognising their own country. In fact, I can't find any way to stick together Palin's rambling ideas in an order that will make any logical sense whatsoever.

My diagnosis? Chronic verbal diarrhea.

Posted by: kevrobb | June 9, 2009 4:28 PM

BigTunaTim:

There's plenty I disgaree with the GOP on -- I've posted that many times -- where I agree with them, however, I'm not bashful to say so too.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:28 PM

Sarah Palin enjoys the attention that she has gotten since the McCain campaign decided to roll the dice and bet the future on an unknown. Unfortunately, they picked the wrong person. She loves the limelight and will continue to speak her gibberish until there are no more microphones thrust in her face. Sadly, she daily proves that she is a minor league personality every time that she speaks. No one is going to vote for her as a candidate for election at this point. She deserves her own show on Comedy Central since she has proven to not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to be a viable candidate in the 21st century.

Posted by: Lavinsr4207 | June 9, 2009 4:28 PM

Hey repugnicans! Is this what you want? To be the laughingstock of politics? What A bunch of idiots.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | June 9, 2009 4:27 PM

VirginiaConservative:

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:26 PM

Hey Jake: free market capitalism doesn't work. Markets aren't conscious, you know, and money is just paper, it doesn't think. Sorry.

You have a lot to unlearn.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:26 PM

It's funny to me that people who think they're smart still defend every little action the GOP takes. This isn't an ideological left/right thing, it's having enough self-respect to recognized when you're being used as a pawn in a game of lies and obfuscation.

Posted by: BigTunaTim | June 9, 2009 4:25 PM

Hey Jake .. you seem to think every comment section is your personal playground. I've known people in person who were as self-absorbed in person as you are in here ... they were all transvestites.

Are you a cross-dresser, Jake?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:24 PM

kevrobb:

Did you read the accompanying press release? Obama tries to use "good rhetoric" about free market capitalism and not wanting to run car companies -- that's the BS that Gov. Palin is pointing out -- 'Change' in this administration has meant rapid movement toward massive government growth, huge tax burdens on future generations, and an unprecedented reliance upon foreign countries.

Are you also saying that the left is NOT upset with Obama about failed promises? What about the decision to NOT prosecute CIA agents / doctors for "torture"?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:24 PM

The GOP apparently now consigns Sarah Palin to just a little "fancy pageant walkin'" at their major party events (suggesting that they know something bad re her that they don't want the public to find out, beyond what we already have).

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 4:22 PM

Hahahaha Jake the Retard is back at the "birth certificate" dodge.

Election's over, child, and your side lost everything.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:21 PM

Are we fortunate, or what? We could have had that idiot Plain as VP and instead, we have this guy whose IQ is just off the charts, Joe Biden!

Why he has even come up with a plan to turn an AMTRAK tunnel into an automobile route to ease traffic!

This man is a genius. He complements obama's preternatural economic second sight amazingly well.

We are sooooo lucky to have this dynamic duo in charge of, like, EVERYTHING!!!!!!

Posted by: VirginiaConservative | June 9, 2009 4:21 PM

Yes, please, PLEASE keep underestimating the GOP.

Posted by: JakeD

==

At this point that's not even possible. There are no negative numbers in politics, zero is as low as it goes

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:20 PM

At least Bush was LEGALLY President (being a "natural born" citizen and all).

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:19 PM

Palin: "A lot of this is wrapped in good rhetoric, but we're not seeing those actions, and this many months into the new administration, quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government. Instead, China's the complete opposite. It's expanding at such a large degree that if Americans are paying attention, unfortunately, our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize, certainly that is so far from what the founders of our countries had in mind for us."

JakeD translation:
"Obama is full of hot air, all style and no substance; he is leading our country down the path to socialism which (as she said) is far from what the founders of our countries had in mind for us."

Sorry, that won't wash. She says (some unspecified person) is "quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government", implying that Obama isn't living up to his "good rhetoric". But when did Obama promise to rein in spending or government? That was McCain's platform, not Obama's. Obama made it clear that only spending would drag the US out of recession, and that further govt intervention in the financial crisis was a certainty if he became Prez.

Posted by: kevrobb | June 9, 2009 4:19 PM

@JakeD: while I can understand why you thought I was referring to you, since after all this thread is about you, I was actually referring to the lemming parade that is the GOP in general.

Much as one can hear the gorillas from anywhere in the zoo, the cries of "socialism" ring out in the distance the moment a web browser is opened. At least the gorillas have an excuse.

Posted by: BigTunaTim | June 9, 2009 4:19 PM

Lets get down to the bolts and nuts of it - the numbers don't add up for the GOP.

Economists call it the abuse of the commons(that which is common) - in the GOP's case raiding the national treasury year in and year out to get elected.

And now to the GOP's horror the democrats are doing the same thing to keep the economy from collapsing, a collapse the GOP began by their own fiscal voodoo economics.

Posted by: agapn9 | June 9, 2009 4:18 PM

dem4life1:

Yes, please, PLEASE keep underestimating the GOP.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:18 PM

Well I'm sure your mom wishes she'd aborted YOU, Jake, "retiring" to her basement with her PC and bothering smarter people than you all day. I bet she's passed out upstairs on the couch trying to forget about her loser son and given up on trying to get you to GET A JOB

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:18 PM

Hey jake, time for a pampers change. BTW, bush was APPOINTED once and INFLICTED by brain dead zombies like your parents the second time....not that you matter.

Posted by: dem4life1 | June 9, 2009 4:17 PM

Hahahaha Romney and Palin, two losers without a snowball's chance in hell.

Hahahahah look at what kind of trash support them, lying trolls who need to wing it just like Palin.

What's Romney going to run on? "I'm a .. a .. BUSINESSMAN! Lookit my shiny suit an' an' an' my TIE! Ronald Reagan! Ronald Reagan! Ronald Reagan!"

Hahahaha

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:15 PM

I was trapped in a room this morning where the television was tubned to Faux news. That murder-inciting imbecile sean hannity was interviewing the black hole that is sarah palin. My god, that woman is a absolute IDIOT. Please, please, please keep her front and center for the next 3 and a half years. President Obama could club baby seals live on television and still beat that bimbo by 20 points.

Posted by: dem4life1 | June 9, 2009 4:15 PM

Since "chrisfox8" thinks that all "retarded" people should be aborted, it's no surprised he's going after "retired" people too.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:15 PM

dem4life1:

I actually think that Romney will get the GOP nomination next time around. Please, keep underestimating the GOP, just like you did when Bush was elected twice.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:13 PM

I'm retarded, with plenty of other peoples' time to waste here. Thanks for your concern though.

Posted by: JakeD

==

Like I figured

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:13 PM

Nosy_Parker:

I asked Mr. Balz the same question.

ged (at least you can say you "graduated" high school) 0386:

I'm retired, with plenty of time to waste here. Thanks for your concern though.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:11 PM

How can you not LOVE the incompetence of the modern day republican party. Top tier consisting of Palin (Moe) Gingrich (Larry) and Romney (Curley) can't help bit instill GLEE in the hearts of Democrats everywhere. GOP, what a bunch of MAROOOONS.

Posted by: dem4life1 | June 9, 2009 4:11 PM

This woman is the poster-child for all that is wrong with our party. Does no one read her quotes? It's nothing but regurgitated blather, devoid of any meaningful idea!

We MUST discredit her and move on to a more competent thinker if we are to regain credibility with voters.

Posted by: thecheddar | June 9, 2009 4:10 PM

We educated people know exactly what we're hearing when Palin speaks: someone who doesn't know anything and is trying to wing it.

Like one of those guys in the office trying to talk science, saying "hyp'thetic'ly speakin'" followed by gibberish.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:10 PM

They were able to shine the spotlight on Palin for a few second, right in between the part on the schedule where they gave the Nazi salute to an American flag and then lynched a couple of coloreds in effigy. Palin then led the group in a rousing rendition of The Battle Hymn of the Republic along with a cross burning to close out the ceremonies.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | June 9, 2009 4:09 PM

BubbaRight

You can always read the WSJ or the Washington times. One had to be bought and the other has always been down the tubes.

Posted by: ged0386 | June 9, 2009 4:09 PM

“I told the Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that Bridge to Nowhere.” –Sarah Palin, who was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 4:09 PM

BigTunaTim:

I am only referring to "socialism" as the state and/or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and therefore a society characterized by a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the product of the laborer, rather than a free market (even though highly-regulated) capitalistic system.

thinman1:

That may be the current "convention". However, read a biography about the power exerted by our very first Vice-President John Adams "if they want to". Everything she said was completely true (albeit in a simplified format for the THIRD GRADER who asked the question). Are you finished with your other homework assignments first?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:09 PM

Balz
[Sarah] Palin bears considerable responsibility for what transpired. She was initially announced by the host committees as the keynoter for the evening, only to have her staff declare that the committees' announcement was premature.

WHY??? Has anyone ever offered a logical explanation? Is Palin's staff in disarray, or do they know something re her that most folks don't? It was telling that McCain's people muzzled her at his Election Night concession party.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | June 9, 2009 4:08 PM

JakeD

Please go back to work. There is a republicans butt somewhere thats not being properly sniffed.

Posted by: ged0386 | June 9, 2009 4:07 PM

“As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?” –Sarah Palin, interview with CNBC’s “Kudlow & Co,” July 31, 2008

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 4:07 PM

Come on Jake nobody believes you have a law degree, or any kind of degree. You're an idiot and you don't even know the VP's role in the Senate.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:07 PM

“Well, let’s see. There’s — of course — in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings.” –Sarah Palin, unable to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe vs. Wade, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 4:06 PM

Their insistence on labeling everything they disagree with as "socialist" has resulted in... higher favorability ratings for socialism!

==

And that just might make people read about Socialism, the real thing rather than the GOP fear-caricature, and observe that "that sounds like a good idea to me. Why don't we do that here?"

The idea of getting to see a doctor WHEN YOU'RE SICK and not have to wait three hours past your appointment time .. why, that could catch on!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:05 PM

mzbond:

As I pointed out, you are hardly one to make fun of Gov. Palin.

thinman1:

1) Sept. 24, 2008 (I'm sure I missed at least a few questions on my bar exam, but I still passed, so?)

2) Oct. 1, 2008 (She answered the question asked, which was not "Name a single newspaper you read?")

3) Oct. 2, 2008 (I can think of at least one other politician who went over the heads of COngress and media to talk straight to the American people).

Next?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 4:03 PM

Former Mayor of a town of single-wide trailers, then governor of a state with fewer people than Seattle. Ready to lead the country?

(*guffaw*)

Just look at the intellectual quality of her defenders.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:03 PM

That Sarah Palin is a powerful force in today's GOP is the strongest indicator yet that the party is on the verge of total failure. Even the once-formidable messaging machine is just adorable now. Their insistence on labeling everything they disagree with as "socialist" has resulted in... higher favorability ratings for socialism! If Republicans really want to lower taxes they should come out in favor of raising them.

Posted by: BigTunaTim | June 9, 2009 4:02 PM

"...difficult to parse." How about totally unintelligible. I thought she would get better but there is no excuse for this trainwreck in front of a friendly Rethuglican interviewer. Maybe she can buy a dacha in Russia since it looks like a short drive away from the Alaskan governmental mansion.

Posted by: bgreston | June 9, 2009 4:01 PM

"[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008

As President of the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 4), the Vice President oversees procedural matters and may cast a tie-breaking vote. There is a strong convention within the U.S. Senate that the Vice President not use their position as President of the Senate to influence the passage of legislation or act in a partisan manner, except in the case of breaking tie votes.

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 4:01 PM

Hey Jake. The VP gets to cast a tie-breaking vote and that's it, you moron.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 4:00 PM

No I can't imagine Palin as president, not in a million years. Look what happened when she was on the McCain ticket. A brief uh surge on the T&A factor and then a steady drop, steeper every time she opened her stupid mouth.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 3:59 PM

thinman1:

Google "President of the Senate". Next?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:59 PM

Can you imagine Palin, as the president, saying "yes" to a nuclear arms ban treaty, then saying no, I have to think about it. Not a leader I want in my country.

Posted by: mzbond | June 9, 2009 3:57 PM

"I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you." --Sarah Palin, asked by Katie Couric to cite specific examples of how John McCain has pushed for more regulation in his 26 years in the Senate, CBS News interview, Sept. 24, 2008

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:56 PM

thinman1:

Google "Alaska Permanent Fund". Next?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:56 PM

Good thing they didn't call McCain to the podium, he would have forgotten the campaign is over and started rambling about "earmarks" and "the .. the bridge to nowhere ..."

Palin would have gone in Rapture mode and started gibbering in tongues and looking around for a rattlesnake to fondle.

Gingrich is gross enough. Ugh. What an ugly bunch.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 3:56 PM

"All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:56 PM

Some seem to forget that Palin owns the board that cleared her of violations,bet ever Governor wishes he had a board li8ke hers to clear her name because she can fire at will. LOL and you really think these were not real and decent complaints,remember a board consisting of both republicans and democrat's said she abused the ethics of the state of Alaska than she had the boards she owns say the opposite .Is that justice may be in the old west but not now.

Posted by: bennie1 | June 9, 2009 3:56 PM

"I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also." --Sarah Palin, on not answering the questions in the vice presidential debate, St. Louis, Missouri, Oct. 2, 2008

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:55 PM

Yes, Sarah Palin continues to demonstrate why the party's choice for V-P last November was absurd. But more than that, as time goes on, she will be best associated with the word "pathos". She will be the Tanya Harding of this decade.

Posted by: wbpa | June 9, 2009 3:54 PM

"[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:54 PM

thinman1:

Since Iraq was OUR country "until Obama gave it back" that makes perfect sense. Next?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:54 PM

"And Alaska -- we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. ... It's to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans." --Sarah Palin, explaining the windfall profits tax that she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska as a mechanism for ensuring that Alaskans "share in the wealth" generated by oil companies, New Yorker interview, Sept. 2008

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:54 PM

Like the GOP Readers Who Comment, Palin is far too narcissistic to know when to fold'em and STFU. She'll keep shooting off her stupid mouth just because the cameras are aimed her way, and every time she speaks she (1) energizes the 19-percenters and (2) repels everyone else.

The gift that keeps giving .. to the Democrats.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 3:54 PM

"That was fun!" --Sarah Palin, conducting an interview after pardoning a turkey for Thanksgiving while other turkeys were slaughtered in the background, Nov. 20, 2008

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:53 PM

"They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan." --Sarah Palin, speaking at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Oct. 5, 2008

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:52 PM

Oh, great, now this thread is going to pot ...

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:50 PM

McCain? Economic recovery? That daffy old fool would be cutting earmarks and cutting taxes and wondering why it wasn't working. If he knew at all that it wasn't working.

You guys crack me up.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 9, 2009 3:49 PM

Farlington: this is a takeoff on the "I can see Russia . . ." Tina Fey comedy skit. Sarah Palin may be a lovely housewife and mother in some dark universe where people don't speak English in ordinary syntax (SVO) and are not required to make sense in their public pronouncements. For the life of me, I can't imagine why she insists on prolonging her public self-humiliation other than to conclude that she's so completely dense that seeing the moon from her back yard might make her think she's an astronaut. Poor girl. Stay home. Make moose stew or something. Out another helpless daughter on a national stage, alienate another potential son-in-law. But please PLEASE leave the rest of us alone by staying home in far-off Alaska and keeping your dim comments to yourself.

Posted by: sailmaker1943 | June 9, 2009 3:48 PM

Republicans: Thoughtless, racist, out of any ideas, bombastic liars, and if we're luck, they'll become The Wig Party, "Non-exsiting"

Posted by: raca1234 | June 9, 2009 3:47 PM

sonny_sky:

Amen!

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:47 PM

It was a bit of a fiasco, it seemed.

For all you political-junkies, I've been writing a series of funny letters to President Obama. I'm doing about one a day. They're apolitical and wacky. See them here: www.knockoutlit.org/brett.html

Posted by: Brett | June 9, 2009 3:45 PM

Typical liberal media slop. We would have been much better with McCain leading recovery, and Palin would have been a change for the better in Washington, not the crap the liberals are trying to pass off as the change this country needs. I'm from the government, and I'm here to run your company.

Posted by: sonny_sky | June 9, 2009 3:45 PM

mzbond:

"I'll betcha she would either one." Neither of your "sentences" are complete, yet you are making fun of Gov. Palin?!

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:43 PM

Sorry, esespinoza43, but those like me and "IPACiswar" are more than willing to get Sarah Palin back on a national ticket : )

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:41 PM

If asked to Palin "if a plane crashes on the boarder of Canada and United States, which country do they bury the survivors in"? I'll betcha she would either one.

Posted by: mzbond | June 9, 2009 3:41 PM

Based on the comments by Gingrich and Palin, I am not surprised that this is now the party of the also-rans. For the Republicans, it does indeed need to be "a new future"; fortunately for the electorate, these two are no longer viable candidates: Too much old garbage being carried around.

Posted by: epespinoza43 | June 9, 2009 3:38 PM

billy8:

Did you read my posts "translating" it?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:37 PM

sailmaker1943:

Please provide a link to Gov. Palin saying "I can see the moon from my back yard and that makes me an Astronaut!" Thanks in advance.

FairlingtonBlade:

There's no use getting through to that one.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:36 PM

"A lot of this is wrapped in good rhetoric," she said, "but we're not seeing those actions, and this many months into the new administration, quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government. Instead, China's the complete opposite. It's expanding at such a large degree that if Americans are paying attention, unfortunately, our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize, certainly that is so far from what the founders of our countries had in mind for us."
-------------------------------------------

She still doesn't make any sense...

Posted by: billy8 | June 9, 2009 3:36 PM

@Fairlington Blade
So you completely reject the idea that in casting ballot people are making a positive assertion in favor of a candidate and not making the least bad choice?

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:36 PM

Why is the media giving Gingrich any news time? Isn't this the same guy that brought down the Republicans in 1998? 45% approval rating & he caused them 5 seats during midterm election in 1998. Is this the best that the Republicans have to offer? Keep it up and they'll be a new party to challenge the Dems.
Ref.Gallup Poll 1998 & http://www.jstor.org/pss/3792068

Posted by: leetn | June 9, 2009 3:35 PM

vigor:

The U.S. Government owns or controls Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, half a dozen banks, AIG, Chrysler and GM -- Obama wants to take-over the health care industry next -- if that's not a path to socialism, I'm not quite sure what is.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:34 PM

Scraping the bottom of the political barrel for news, are we? Newt is new news? Sarah(I can see the moon from my back yard and that makes me an Astronaut!) Palin, still jockeying for national attention and hoping she's the 2012 hope of the party (Yes, Please God, let her run!)? To me the real news is that Jon Voight has an opinion on any subject worthy of being printed. And true to form, he's shilling furiously to a receptive audience of rolly-polly pearly women and old white men sporting three double chins at the back of their necks (apology, Dylan Thomas!) with his vituperous attack on Obama. Well, he's certainly a creditable source of information and opinion, and at least a change on the political menu from Rush Limburger. If anybody in the free world wants to know why the Rethuglican party is tottering on its last legs, all it need do is read this Post story. It's plain, clear, self-explanatory, and doesn't have too many big words, either. Hoo, boy! Newt, Sarah and Jon. Now there's a political news story for you.

Posted by: sailmaker1943 | June 9, 2009 3:34 PM

@thinman - My ballot only allowed me to vote for Obama/Biden, McCain/Palin, and a few others. Technically, one cannot vote against a candidate.

It would make things interesting, though, if that were an option. The vote total of any candidate or ticket would be the sum of votes for minus the sum of votes against. Make it a rule that any candidate has to have a positive total to win a race.

Heck, it might be fun. Consider all those folks who stay at home, because they don't like any of the candidates. Now they can vote against the candidate they dislike most. That might get the voting rates up by quite a bit!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 9, 2009 3:33 PM

@JakeD
Here's what you wrote:
60 million vote for McCain AND Palin -- they were both on the same ticket, so a vote for one was a vote for the other -- technically "electors pledged to vote for them" but I think you know what I mean.


So yeah, you rejected the assertion that there was no-lesser-of-two-evils.

Now back it up.

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:32 PM

mshaw1:

See my posts below ("translating", as requested) -- I understood her attack on Obama just fine -- let me know if you still have questions.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:32 PM

A Palin quote:

"A lot of this is wrapped in good rhetoric," she said, "but we're not seeing those actions, and this many months into the new administration, quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government. Instead, China's the complete opposite. It's expanding at such a large degree that if Americans are paying attention, unfortunately, our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize, certainly that is so far from what the founders of our countries had in mind for us."

She IS the gift that keeps on giving to the Democrats!!

Posted by: mshaw1 | June 9, 2009 3:29 PM

First of all, Mr. Obama is not leading the nation on a path toward Socialism.

and second, the Republican Party led the nation on a path to bankruptcy and foolish wars.

We will not forget that.

Posted by: vigor | June 9, 2009 3:28 PM

thinman1:

No, I specifically cited my evidence (FEC.gov) that 60 million voted for them and "barring other evidence you may like to present" (clue: YOUR burden of proof) that's the state of the record on this thread.

vigor:

See my posts below ("translating", as requested) -- I understood her attack on Obama just fine -- let me know if you still have questions.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:26 PM

"A lot of this is wrapped in good rhetoric," she said, "but we're not seeing those actions, and this many months into the new administration, quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government. Instead, China's the complete opposite. It's expanding at such a large degree that if Americans are paying attention, unfortunately, our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize, certainly that is so far from what the founders of our countries had in mind for us."
--------------------------
I know this is English, but it's nonsense.
These are not complete thoughts or sentences.

for example:
"Instead, China's the complete opposite. It's expanding at such a large degree that if Americans are paying attention, unfortunately, our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize..."

what?

and this is your pick to be President in 2012?

oh we're paying attention, Sarah...
and you won't like what we see.

Posted by: vigor | June 9, 2009 3:25 PM

@JakeD

You specifically rejected my assertion that all 60 million votes were FOR McCain/Palin and not indicative of votes doubting Obama or merely for the lesser of two evils.

But now you refuse to defend it. Why are you waffling?

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:21 PM

AIPACiswar:

Thanks for helping to get one of them onto the GOP ticket at least : )

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:21 PM

The GOP has to understand it is more than fixing the brand that is needed. The GOP had control of all branches of government and increased spending, increased government size and increased involvement in foreign wars, everything they in the past had been against. They created the problems and now cannot just go back to being against the things that they themselves did in power. They have lost credibility and they have no one to lead because they were all cheering on the Republicans when in power and are to some degree responsible for the mess they find their party in.

Posted by: info4 | June 9, 2009 3:18 PM

I'm a registered NH independent, and I'll vote Gingrich Palin in any primary just to get them on the ticket!

Then of course I'm voting Obama in the election.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | June 9, 2009 3:18 PM

(Here it is anyway):

Statement from Governor Sarah Palin

The transition from Candidate Obama to President Obama has been as predictable as Alaska's winter snow.

We are now witnessing actions that will lead to a monumental shift away from free market capitalism and the strong work ethic that built this great country. 'Change' in this administration has meant rapid movement toward massive government growth, huge tax burdens on future generations, and an unprecedented reliance upon foreign countries.

Today, we learned that Obama’s decisions continue to impact Alaskans; while we as taxpayers now own General Motors, Obama closes another dealership – this time in Soldotna as more of Alaskans’ hard-earned money and jobs are lost to big government. Government should not be in the auto industry business. In Alaska, we have also seen a shift in federal priorities that threaten the loss of subsidized village health care services under the same candidate who led you to believe he'd insure all Americans. The inconsistent messages and actions are unsettling.

But we have another voice in Washington, DC – a man who understands what Alaskans believe: less centralized government control, restrained budgets, more opportunity for development, and fewer taxes. Today, we have a friend in RNC Chairman Michael Steele and his bold and courageous speech defines his leadership goals that will guide us all through this most difficult time for our nation.”

http://www.sarahpac.com/news/news28.aspx

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:17 PM

thinman1:

I just gave you the final FEC election results showing that 60 million votes were, in fact, cast for McCain and Palin. Let me know what you don't understand, and perhaps I can help you.

kevrobb:

Sure. Obama is full of hot air, all style and no substance; he is leading our country down the path to socialism which (as she said) is far from what the founders of our countries had in mind for us. There's a press release she released that spells it out in much more detail, if you want a link to that.

Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:16 PM

abby0802-
"All the GOP offers is the same, old failed ideas and rhetoric and blame. Rather than try to help America get back on its feet the party members like sheep line up and bleet out the same refrain -- democrats bad -- republicans good."

You mean as opposed to your more worldly, even-handed "Republicans bad - democrats good" refrain? Is it more informed to spout hackneyed generalizations about an entire party (which you did so eloquently in your post), as long as you are a Democrat? I get it now.

Posted by: Tinman1188 | June 9, 2009 3:14 PM

So true. Because Palin can see Russia from her backyard. Now THAT's foreign policy experience!

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:14 PM

why does wapo care...
it's not that the dems are any better...
every dem is freaking out because in 2010 the house might get replaced...
so they need to produce results and all that money obama held back for his reelection must now be spent saving the seats for the house dems and any house senators...
are new yorkers happy that terrorists are being imported from gitmo and more are yet to come...
New York is a big city and hopefully the terrorists already living there don't try to punish the city for trying their brothers...

Posted by: DwightCollins | June 9, 2009 3:12 PM

surfer-joe:

As I already posted, 20,000 in Auburn NY over the weekend were at least a little bit interested in her appearing there. I also have some interest in seeing and supporting her for another run at a national ofice. She had more relevant "background, experience, and temperment" to be President than Obama did. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:11 PM

Nope. You actually defending your assertion that:
60 million vote for McCain AND Palin -- they were both on the same ticket, so a vote for one was a vote for the other -- technically "electors pledged to vote for them" but I think you know what I mean.


would be just fine.

We're waiting.

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:10 PM

JakeD - Please explain/decipher this Palin statement:

"A lot of this is wrapped in good rhetoric, but we're not seeing those actions, and this many months into the new administration, quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government. Instead, China's the complete opposite. It's expanding at such a large degree that if Americans are paying attention, unfortunately, our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize, certainly that is so far from what the founders of our countries had in mind for us."

Even GW Bush would find that incoherent. My Golden retriever makes more sense.

Posted by: kevrobb | June 9, 2009 3:10 PM

Any other assertion of mine that you want "defend[ed]"?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:07 PM


Palin is truly a has-been! No one I know is the least bit interested in her appearing anywhere, and furthermore, there is absolutely no interest by anyone in seeing or supporting her for another run at a national ofice.

She does just not have the background, experience, or temperment to be considered.

Posted by: surfer-joe | June 9, 2009 3:07 PM

@JakeD
Here's what you wrote:
60 million vote for McCain AND Palin -- they were both on the same ticket, so a vote for one was a vote for the other -- technically "electors pledged to vote for them" but I think you know what I mean.

Seems pretty clear to me that you were saying that no one cast a ballot in protest against Obama or held one's nose and picked the lesser of two evils.

But please, explain to me in the above quote what indicates that.

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:07 PM

Here in California, BOTH the Republican and the Democratic Parties are LOSING members:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-stwdsp-09/ror-050409.htm

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:06 PM

Palin represents the worst of any political party: me, myself and I egotism; a lack of intelligence and a dearth of information but lots of rhetoric that makes absolutely no sense to a rational person.

This (along with many other reasons) is why the GOP is politically and morally bankrupt.

For too long the GOP has relied on extremism; wrapping itself in the flag while whittling away at our Constitution and rule of law; accusing everyone who doesn't agree with the GOP as being "unpatriotic," etc.

Palin like the rest of the Republicans have shown themselves to be self-indulgent and unconcerned about everyone but the "righteous right" and big business regardless of all the GOP's talk about their concern for "average" person.

The only ones the GOP cares about are big business and the rich and themselves. Their laissez faire economics has done nothing for the average American but has made the corporations and the wealthy richer than ever while shipping jobs overseas, cutting benefits to those who still have jobs, and paying as little in taxes as possible.

All the GOP offers is the same, old failed ideas and rhetoric and blame. Rather than try to help America get back on its feet the party members like sheep line up and bleet out the same refrain -- democrats bad -- republicans good.

The Republicans should listen carefully to this old Texas saying before they open their mouths with all their same old heifer dust:

that dog don't hunt.

As for the Palin and her fellow nut-case Republicans (Limbaugh, Gingrich, Romney, etc.) here's a simple message:

Go away. Do not come back.

Posted by: abby0802 | June 9, 2009 3:06 PM

I never said they unequivically supported McCain-Palin -- or that they weren't casting votes according to the "lesser of two evils" -- what I said was there were 60 million votes cast for McCain-Palin:

59,948,240 to be exact.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:05 PM

@JakeD,
I'm not the one who made the assertion that 60 million people voted for McCain and Palin. You did. Now defend it. Further, your response ulitizes both popular vote and electoral vote, which is akin to apples and oranges.

But the statement also asserts that the only reason people vote for a candidate is that they unequivically support that candidate, and any student of American politics knows that votes are cast just as often in the "lesser of two evils" mode that I mentioned in my first posting.

So to repeat:
I'm not the one who made the assertion that 60 million people voted for McCain and Palin and not against Obama or for what they viewed as the lesser of two evils. You did. Now defend it.

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 3:00 PM

thinman1:

I'm registered Independent, but yes (barring other evidence you may like to present) 60 million vote for McCain AND Palin -- they were both on the same ticket, so a vote for one was a vote for the other -- technically "electors pledged to vote for them" but I think you know what I mean.

JohnDinHouston:

Yeah, well, if that was your "point" (considering you haven't even posted on this thread yet) I can't wait to hear what you thought about that "makeover" for the Britain's Got Talent lady who sold out her soul (I guess, according to your "logic"). As usual, I am always right.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 2:56 PM

Morning in America
Interview with Joe Scarborough
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/magazine/07wwln-q4-t.html

Q: As the host of the television news show “Morning Joe,” you are known as a token conservative at MSNBC. But your new book, “The Last Best Hope,” is a critique of Bush-style conservatism and suggests that the Republican Party has basically gone off the deep end.

A: I’m serious about this. The Republican Party needs to reform or die. President Bush did three things. He destroyed the Republican majority, he crippled the American conservative movement and he weakened the country. That’s a hell of a trifecta.

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 2:51 PM

As per usual, you all miss the point on Ms. Palin's clothes - heck, who cares who was supposed to pay for them? The issue is, here is this self proclaimed "hockey mom" going out and spending tens of thousands of dollars on clothes for herself and her family, while presenting her "just folks" image to gullible folks such as yourselves.

C'mon, I appreciate rational conservative viewpoints, but if you think that this lulu is fit for anything but the "So You Want to be a Governor?" reality show, you are letting your politics get in the way of your common sense.

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | June 9, 2009 2:50 PM

Hannity: "Is this even more than you thought was going to be in terms of where the president would take the economy?"

Palin: "A lot of this is wrapped in good rhetoric, but we're not seeing those actions, and this many months into the new administration, quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government. Instead, China's the complete opposite. It's expanding at such a large degree that if Americans are paying attention, unfortunately, our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize, certainly that is so far from what the founders of our countries had in mind for us."

Palin lovers! Please explain/correct/defend this statement!

Are you actually claiming that Palin's thinking/speaking is lucid and logical?

Or do you admit that it isn't, but simply don't care? Which is it?

Posted by: kevrobb | June 9, 2009 2:48 PM

Really? 60 million people voted FOR McCain and not just against Obama, or picked the lesser of two evils?

If the GOP is doing so well, why has their track record in 2006 and 2008 been so lousy? You have no GOP members of the House from New England. You're losing ground in the Rocky Mountain states and in the Southwest. Basically yo're a Southern party. There's no place for moderates in your party, only hypocritical evangelicals who preach small government except when it comes to social issues and then they want to be able to tell people what they can do (see Shiavo, Terry). Yeah, the GOP is poised for a national takeover. I can feel it.

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 2:47 PM

'"Let me be clear. I am not a citizen of the world!" Gingrich said.'

You have to give him credit for summing up the Republican mentality quite superbly in a single line.

Posted by: kevrobb | June 9, 2009 2:45 PM

60 million votes last time around is hardly "on the verge of extinction" LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 2:43 PM

It's pretty pathetic when the GOP has to pin their fundraising on a fraud like Palin.

I would venture to guess that she accepted the invite and then hedged when there were lots of stories about how disorganized her leadership PAC was, her national campaign planning for 2012, etc. But when Newt shot his mouth off, they had to try and get her back. If they'd had any guts at all, they would have kept Newt and pushed Palin to the side.

Their flip-flopping back and forth was downright Clintonian. No wonder the GOP is on the verge of extinction.

Posted by: thinman1 | June 9, 2009 2:41 PM

P.S. to yard80197:

You are aware that the FEC cleared the campaign of any allegation re: her clothes, right? When people start asking details about the personal effects of other candidates, then maybe the double standard will be eliminated.

http://www.sarahpac.com/news/news27.aspx

Every single ethics complaint against her is being dismissed as frivolous.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 2:35 PM

thebobbob:

Too bad you can't prove any of that (we only get to deal with reality and 10% unemployment pretty soon).

BubbaRight:

Exactly. How, exactly, does Gov. Palin "bear[] considerable responsibility for what transpired" if the host committees' announcement was in fact premature? They are just making things up now. You can tell that the MSM is scared of Palin because they know that no other Republican draws the numbers she does (20,000 in Auburn NY over the weekend!).

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 2:31 PM

Palin is a Has-Been. Even the GOP should recognize that she was responsible for McCain's loss. Many of us moderates would have voted for McCain, had it not been for Palyn.

With McCain paylin in power, we would have had huge spending on clothes, shipped to Alaska. No wait a minute, that's what actually happened. She needs to put her mouth where her family is. Her ill-guided daughter needs a mother. Daughter's boyfriend with the potty mouth needs a bar of soap.

Posted by: yard80197 | June 9, 2009 2:22 PM

Nice unbiased story from the Post. No wonder it's down the tubes.

Posted by: BubbaRight | June 9, 2009 2:17 PM

Can you imagine if McCain and Palin were in charge when all the banks and Insurance companies and security companies were collapsing? They would have called for no government intervention, no government support for laid off workers, no interference in 'the market' and millions would have been thrown out of work. Instead of 9% unemployment and the start of a recovery, there would be 20% unemployment and a complete collapse of the financial markets. Palin would be leading the nation in prayers to stop the rioting in the streets.

Republican policies lead to the mess we're in Obama has been brilliant at mitigating those problems and leading America back to some semblance of reality.

The 22% of the fairy-tale believers will always insist that if you just let evangelical white Christians run the world, it would be a better place. Been there, done that, it failed.

Posted by: thebobbob | June 9, 2009 1:57 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company