Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:52 PM ET, 12/31/2010

Is Sarah Palin toast?

By Jonathan Bernstein

Thanks, again, to Greg for inviting me and to everyone for reading -- and Happy New Year to all.

Before I go, I'll just do a bit of blogging on everyone's favorite subject, the Sage of Wasilla. Nate Silver had an interesting aside in a recent post that's stuck with me over the last few days:


However likely Ms. Palin is to win the Republican nomination -- and I can't help but think that, if her numbers remain this poor, it will eventually become less likely -- this essentially represents pure upside for Mr. Obama: what poker players would term a freeroll.

I've consistently held a middle position on Palin's chances for the nomination, rejecting both the idea that she had no chance and the argument that she was a strong frontrunner.  I suppose that's still how I feel. 

But looking back at 2010, I'm mostly thinking that she had a very bad year.

(That is, a bad year as a politician.  I can't really judge her year as a celebrity, and her year as a money-making machine was evidently extremely successful).

Palin exited the 2008 campaign with two terrific assets -- the intense support of a large number of Republicans and a press corps fascinated with her -- and a lot of liabilities.  Among the latter were her broad unpopularity, the widespread belief among both elites and the voting public that she was underprepared for the presidency, and extremely low levels of trust from leading Republicans.  She also had yet to demonstrate a willingness to follow the basic rules of politics that are necessary for winning presidential nominations and seemed to display an unusual amount of petty Nixonian vindictiveness. 

Most of those liabilities, I think, were fixable -- as similar problems were for Richard Nixon.  Working to win the trust of GOP politicians and other leaders is fairly basic politics.  Proving some policy expertise, or at least competence, is surprisingly easy for anyone who can afford to buy the best ghost writers and policy specialists and then manage to master a few sets of talking points.  There are hundreds of politicians who can demonstrate that they can handle tough questions from reporters; it's a basic skill, one that is not especially difficult to learn.  As for popularity, my guess is that plenty of Republicans were more than willing to give her a second chance, even those who really soured on her during the 2008 campaign. 

And yet...has she made any progress at all?  Yes, she did give at least a couple of Serious Policy Speeches, but I don't get the sense that they got any traction at all, not with all of the tweets and the reality shows and the books stuff with platitudes.  Her fans, of course, never needed convincing, but for the rest -- and, here, I'm really focused on Republicans -- is there anyone who wrote her off as a lightweight who is now giving her a new look because of her speech on the Fed?  I very much doubt it.  As for proving herself trustworthy to interest group leaders and Republican politicians, well, I haven't seen any reporting that even hinted at that.  She had some notable good calls in the 2010 contest, such as in the South Carolina gubernatorial race, but just as many bad, or just odd, endorsements. I can't imagine that the Joe Miller fiasco helped, either. 

Mostly, she's giving every indication that if she formally enters the race, she intends to run as a factional candidate by mobilizing her personal loyalists.  That was a viable strategy in the 1970s, perhaps, at least on the Democratic side, but it's highly unlikely that a factional candidate can win now in a coalition-style nominating process. 

It's not too late for her, but it's getting closer, I think.

Jonathan Bernstein writes about American politics, political institutions and democracy at A Plain Blog About Politics, and you can follow him on Twitter here.

By Jonathan Bernstein  | December 31, 2010; 3:52 PM ET
Categories:  2012  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Here comes filibuster reform
Next: Sunday Open Thread

Comments

We will see how your New Years prediction holds in 2012. If she runs, she will win.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 31, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

"the widespread belief among both elites and the voting public that she was underprepared for the presidency"

Now that Barry has redefined "unprepared," and made us realize that the disaster of the Carter administration has now become a "best case" scenario, don't you have to rethink the importance of unpreparedness?  That question has now become irrelevant as anybody will have more experience, more preparedness, than Barry, even four years in. Likability, popularly, agreement with stated policies will be more determinative than "preparedness" now that we've survived 2 years of this trainwreck.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 31, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton had higher negatives than Sarah Palin at this point before the 2008 race, but she still ran. No Journ-O-List cited to that as a liability.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 31, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

JB (the other JB):

Your analysis depends upon two assumptions that don't hold up under reasonable analysis.

You assume that Rank and File republicans have any real say in who gets nominated, and that the republicans who DO have a say want candidates with the bona fides to actually function as POTUS. Ronald Reagan is proof positive that the second assumption is wrong and GWB is proof that both are invalid.

When the Goldwater wing of the republican Conservative movement got tired of the Party nominating losers like Dewey or Winners who refused to play by their riles like Eisenhower, the rebuilt the nominating machinery to work the way the Conservatives knew it ought to work.

Winner take all primaries, scheduled so that most electoral votes are awarded while there are lots of candidates with delusions of national status still in the race mean that just a quarter of the Republicans who deign to vote in the Primaries get to nominate whoever they can agree on. If that priviledged elite feel Sarah meets their requirements for Candidate, she is the Dame.

And the Conservatives whom must be deferred to NEVER want a President competent enough to successfully buck the handlers who end up stationed in the west wing to keep their boy under control. Reagan got to act like a President in the Movies, including retakes when he botched his lines or failed to hit his marks. GWB was owned lock stock and barrel by the Conservatives and carefully watched by his Duenna, Darth Cheney.


Sarah would make a dandy successor to that dynamic duo.

Watching the public personna of Republican Papabilli as futile, it is the College of Cardinals that you must look to to discern who gets the R nod in two years.

And from our experience with R's since Goldwater, Sarah is as likely a candidate as currently running. When the Teasers get their men past the next conclave, as they certainly will, SP's chances improve dramatically.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 31, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"If she runs, she will win."

Wanna bet? $1000 to the charity of your choice. Put it up claw, $1000 is nothing to you if she becomes Your President. I'll bet $200 she won't run. Your charity versus my charity, no one loses, just for fun.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

.

Moron of the Year


Goes to Ezra Klein

.....for his comments about the Constitution.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 31, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Blog Moderation FRAUD of the Year

goes to Greg Sargent


For his complete lack of evenhandedness in Moderation.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 31, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse


.


.

Blog Liar of the Year


.... goes to Greg Sargent

For his unending disregard for the TRUTH all year round.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 31, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin will do whatever she thinks will allow her the longest run on the gravy train she's riding. Beyond that there's absolutely no there there.

She's Elmer Gantry in a bra.

Posted by: akaoddjob | December 31, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

She's Elmer Gantry in a bra.
----------------------------------------------
Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great Gantry line: As long as I got a foot, I'll kick booze. And, as long as I got a fist, I'll punch it. And, as long as I got a tooth, I'll bite it. And, when I'm old and gray and toothless and bootless, I'll gum it till I go to heaven and booze goes to hell.

Everyone who votes in 2012 (if she runs) has to watch Elmer Gantry even once. The similarity is remarkable.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 31, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Gnat of the Year

............ goes to 12BarBlues

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 31, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, I just said that I don't know IF she will even run, so "no" to your $200 wager. If she does run, however, I will have a much more important cause to donate my money to.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 31, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Refugee Camp of the Year

goes to ......... Chris Cillizza


...for destroying his own blog which ended up sending everyone over here, making the natives restless, and accomplishing absolutely nothing.

.... meanwhile Cillizza also gets


..... Goofy Pundit of the Year


.... for ignoring all Blog moderation and instead trying to become a tv pundit, coming off as nothing but goofy the whole way through.


Perhaps, Cillizza has a future as a muppet, that's about it.

.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 31, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

pansy

Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

"She's Elmer Gantry in a bra.

I've been trying to figure out a succinct way to characterize her and that's it exactly! Thanks!

Posted by: schrodingerscat | December 31, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

money talks, bs walks.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 31, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

"But looking back at 2010, I'm mostly thinking that she had a very bad year."

You must be joking.

Palin began 2010 being written off by most political pundits after resigning from her governor post. She had successfully led the Tea Party Movement to direct the GOP tp win the mid-term 2010 election. She had elevated from a regional leader to become an influential national leader.

After so much smearing and slandering by the American lamestream media, Palin continues to be a top leader in American politics.

After beginning the year 2010 as an has-been, Palin has ended the year as the most successful Republican of the year. This is especially so when one look at Palin's opponents in the GOP Presidential race like Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, etc...all of whom have a bad year in 2010.

Posted by: skponggol | December 31, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

In fact, Barack Obama has a very bad year in 2010.

He began the year with a super-majority Congress and a filibuster-proof Senate. Then he lost the impregnable Democrat Senate seat in Massachussetts. By year end, Obama suffered one of the worst mid-term election in American history.

Then there is gulf oil spill. And then WikiLeaks. There will most certainly be more spills and leaks in 2011 and beyond as American lamestream media stubbornly refuse to criticise and rectify his faults, thereby encouraging to commit even greater blunders.

The war in Afghanistan is going badly as Obama changed the military commander there after the latter openly criticised his administration.

Posted by: skponggol | December 31, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

The myth:

After beginning the year 2010 as an has-been, Palin has ended the year as the most successful Republican of the year.

The facts:

Mrs. Palin's unfavorable level January 2010
is 47%.

Her unfavorable level December 2010
is 52%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/fav-palin_n_725513.html

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 31, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

The myth: Palin's opponents in the GOP Presidential race like Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, etc...all of whom have a bad year in 2010.

The facts:
Romney started 2010 with an unfavorable rating of 32% and ended the year with unfavorable rating of 31%.

Huckabee started 2010 with an unfavorable rating of 30% and ended the year with unfavorable rating of 28%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fav-romney_n_725770.html

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 31, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

OK, the next kid who says "lamestream media" has to stand in the corner and wear a dunce cap that says: "Sarah Palin is smrter than me." (T-bags ... uuuggghhh!)

Posted by: reallyrogue | December 31, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Mz. P***n did have a notable year in her relentless pursuit of freedom of screech.

Posted by: wendyf | December 31, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

WHAT did WGE Sarah Palin DO or accomplish in 2010...Hmm... Lets see?

Here is a recap of "WHAT".. she did. In case anybody forgot.

http://palingates.blogspot.com/2010/12/palingates-in-2010-year-in-review.html

Posted by: honestyinGov | December 31, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

She was toast when the November election showed Republicans how dangerous she was. They knew she was compromised and stupid, but that doesn't matter. But losing elections that should be a walk, that is not what Republican money wants.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Palin will announced that she ready to run late into the Republicans Primaries. Palin will not take a chance with the debates. If the Republicans don't endorse her as their candidate she will go third party. She won't do it like Perot, she will not participate in any debates or serious interviews. She will not use her funds to get on the state ballots. She won't have a platform. Her loyal fans will get her on the ballots in as many states as they can.
I perdict it's going to be great TV.

Posted by: cjackman | December 31, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Palin will announced that she is ready to run late into the Republicans Primaries. Palin will not take a chance with the debates. If the Republicans don't endorse her as their candidate she will go third party. She won't do it like Perot, she will not participate in any debates or serious interviews. She will not use her funds to get on the state ballots. She won't have a platform. Her loyal fans will get her on the ballots in as many states as they can.
I perdict it's going to be great TV.

Posted by: cjackman | December 31, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Liberals:


Obama did have a horrible year


It is correct, Obama started with a filibuster-proof majorities and ended with nothing but a terrible bill which is not working and which the nation is determined to de-fund.


Amazingly, most of the damage has been self-inflicted, caused directly by his arrogance


It is incredible how many mistakes Obama has made.


Obama has become the poster child for the "incompetent affirmative action guy" who is so stupid, he has to go.


What is worse, the guy doesn't appear to realize he can't handle the job.


Or perhaps Obama knows he can't handle it.


Anyway, Obama is too stupid to realize that he is hurting the economy and jobs - and he really doesn't care about the economy when he starts thinking about how he will get his agenda imposed on the proletariat.

The government has been hijacked and is clearly being run against the will of the people, for the first time in American history, pretty much unprecedented.

Amazing that the kindness of affirmative action has produced such arrogance which is causing so much damage to the economy and to the nation.


Now that Obama's mistakes have resulted in an election which limits the further damage Obama can do, the next task is for the country to take back the goverment.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 31, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

"She was toast when the November election showed Republicans how dangerous she was. They knew she was compromised and stupid, but that doesn't matter. But losing elections that should be a walk, that is not what Republican money wants."

I wish I was that "stupid" and not rich. Based on your prognosis, I'll just go for the Cheney/Cheney 2012 ticket. Who else finds that arousing?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 31, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure bernie'd say he's just a cog in the great machine. Is Floyd Abrams no longer saying Liberal Things?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204527804576044020396601528.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 31, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

We did also learn something ELSE about sarah this year... as to her Mothering duties and how she has passed on those to her daughters.

Because of her phony Political ad TLC TV show.. and the daughters talking about it on Facebook.We know the kids have a poor education ( they can't spell )and they are homophobic bullies who think ONLY of themselves.(Learned from Mom )
And Bristol thinks America is #1... because she raised that #1 finger to ALL of America.Mom agreed and praised her for it too.

Posted by: honestyinGov | December 31, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

"I'll just go for the Cheney..."

Ok I'll look to see, lets look down here,,,yep that box is marked.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

I've enjoyed your posts but no time 2 comment fr Ireland really. Happy New Year all.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | December 31, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

"Ok I'll look to see, lets look down here,,,yep that box is marked."

So we're agreed, it is arousing.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 31, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

"Palin will announced"?!

We've got ourselves another stuttering genius.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 31, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Republicans know how important it is to the future of the country to get rid of Obama. There's no way we would nominate a weak candidate, however much we might like her. We learned our lesson with O'Donnell and Angle.

In the end, I think Sarah decides not to run, continues making the big bucks, and works hard to elect a Republican president. She could have a cabinet post, if she wishes, and gain experience and credibility for a future presidential campaign.

Posted by: eoniii | December 31, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans know how important it is to the future of the country to get rid of Obama."

Yeah, we get that. Republicans are about getting rid of Obama.
Check. Got it.

"There's no way we would nominate a weak candidate, however much we might like her. We learned our lesson with O'Donnell and Angle."

We'll see. Hope not.

"In the end, I think Sarah decides not to run, continues making the big bucks, and works hard to elect a Republican president."

What do you mean by works hard?

"She could have a cabinet post, if she wishes..."

This lady isn't going to be the secretary of anything that matters.

"...and gain experience and credibility for a future presidential campaign."

Sorry, the more people know about her the less they like her.

It is possible someday she could shut up and listen, she might learn to respect smart people, perhaps even those who get paid to think for a living, but I doubt it. Stupid people can't imagine what they can't imagine.

Donald Rumsfeld was not stupid, he knew that and he did not respect his own ignorance. Smart people don't work on what they know, they work on understanding the boundary between what they know and what they don't know.


Posted by: shrink2 | December 31, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

shrink,

I've asked this before of you, I think, but why do you think Palin is stupid?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 12:09 AM | Report abuse


Liberals:


Obama did have a horrible year


It is correct, Obama started with a filibuster-proof majorities and ended with nothing but a terrible bill which is not working and which the nation is determined to de-fund.


Amazingly, most of the damage has been self-inflicted, caused directly by his arrogance


It is incredible how many mistakes Obama has made.


Obama has become the poster child for the "incompetent affirmative action guy" who is so stupid, he has to go.


What is worse, the guy doesn't appear to realize he can't handle the job.


Or perhaps Obama knows he can't handle it.


Anyway, Obama is too stupid to realize that he is hurting the economy and jobs - and he really doesn't care about the economy when he starts thinking about how he will get his agenda imposed on the proletariat.

The government has been hijacked and is clearly being run against the will of the people, for the first time in American history, pretty much unprecedented.

Amazing that the kindness of affirmative action has produced such arrogance which is causing so much damage to the economy and to the nation.


Now that Obama's mistakes have resulted in an election which limits the further damage Obama can do, the next task is for the country to take back the goverment.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 1, 2011 12:16 AM | Report abuse

It is only 9:30 or so here, my wife is reading to my little guys but I want to wish you a happy next year. We just played Monopoly and I won! Go figure. Later some friends will come over but anyway, I think she is stupid for so many detailed reasons, I can't really get into it. That is why I mentioned Rumsfeld, a very smart man.

The point I was making was not about smart v stupid, it was about whether a person knows the boundary, whether they consider the limits of their skills and knowledge and understands that position.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 12:25 AM | Report abuse

XXXXXXX Cao, Do Not Read The Following Comment! It Contains Lies!! And References to Self-Actualization!!! It is Maddening!!! Will Not Be Responsible For Your Rage Should You Read it!!!!!11!!1!!ELEVENTY!!!11

shrink,

No skin off my nose. Plenty of people think, know, like they know their own touch, IYKWIMAITYD, but never provide or refer to any evidence. It's all (excluding you, of course;-)ever so... assumptive. I guess one just knows, yet my own manifest ignorance misses it. Guess that's why I'm a Conservative and yearn for "Crushing" videos, Hi-Karate Cologne and Star Trek.

In any event, Happy Knew Year! (See what I did there?)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 12:40 AM | Report abuse

"...and gain experience and credibility for a future presidential campaign."

Sorry, the more people know about her the less they like her.

It is possible someday she could shut up and listen, she might learn to respect smart people, perhaps even those who get paid to think for a living, but I doubt it. Stupid people can't imagine what they can't imagine.

==

That's a lot of clarity in just a few words.

Not only do Palin's negatives increase monotonically, but they are very strong negatives, quite unlikely to shift. A judgment of unpopularity is volatile; aq judgment of unfitness is immutable. n Palin has been judged unfit by a solid majority of voters, and a lot of that 48% who don't regard her "unfavorably" wouldn't trust her anywhere near the nuclear triggers, not this Rapture woman, NUH-uh.

Rubber, meet road: Palin's fans love her "one of us" ignorance, the carefully crafted persona of a down-to-earth small-town "common sense" (translation: uneducated) American who loves the flag and the faith and the fammully. She wears her ignorance like a badge of honor and honor it is to her fans .. a group who will never be anywhere near large enough for a national win. NUH-uh.

The Republican leadership who want(ed) her in the White House as an easy twist around the finger wanted to get her there by having her learn a bit about what matters, crack the occasional book, learn to compose a reasonably coherent sentence, maybe lay off the spitefulness or at least dog-whistle it.

They didn't get it. A literate Palin who used some big words with grammatical comprehensibililty and laid off the aggrieved victim shtick would lose the supporters who go without dinner for a week to buy one of her with-books. She's painted into a corner .. has to maintain the small-town hick act to keep the faithful, and can't expand past the faithful as long as she does.

But yeah, she really is too stupid to grasp how very much she doesn't know.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 12:58 AM | Report abuse

After so much smearing and slandering by the American lamestream media, Palin continues to be a top leader in American politics.

==

Wow, "lamestream media," that's like really clever an' stuff, can I borrow that?

Palin a top leader in American politics? How do you figure? She's not even *in* politics, she abandoned her post to cash in on her celebrity among the two-digit IQ crowd, far as I can see she's unemployed in politics.

If writer teenybopper 14-character tweets on Twitter makes one a political leader, American politics is in a lot worse shape than I thought.

Nuts, Palin is a self-impressed small-minded small-brained vicious celebrity who sees herself as a Messianic figure and if she's read a book since her sixth community college it was probably from the Left Behind series and she probably needed help with some of the big words.

Political leader, my posterior pimples.

I do hope the structural weaknesses in the GOP primary system enable her to guarantee Obama's second term.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone noticed Sarah has kind of dropped off the radar? She hasn't Tweeted or Facebooked since Christmas Eve. Figured she'd wish people a Happy New Year by now (maybe tomorrow). I was joking when I posted/wished the media would give us a Palin-free week between Christmas and New Years - they didn't, but Sarah did. Something's going on... hope she decides not to run and Republicans come up with something besides criticism, finger-pointing, and jacking with the system to line their buddy's pockets.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Maybe she's in the grips of religious mania over the tenuous connection between Jesus and Christmas.

What am I talking about? Fundamentalists have no use for Jesus, they're all about Timothy and Leviticus and the Rapture.

She probably has the flu.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 1:16 AM | Report abuse

If she runs, she will win.

==

With what votes? What demographics and what percentages?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Palin, 75 million votes (53%); Obama, 66.5 million votes (47%).

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 1:35 AM | Report abuse

XXXX Cao, Do Not Read! Apoplexy Will Follow, As Day Follows Night!!  Comment Monitored By PPSF!!! XXXX

"The point I was making was not about smart v stupid, it was about whether a person knows the boundary, whether they consider the limits of their skills and knowledge and understands that position."

And thank goodness your points are falsifiable. Otherwise their just unsubstantiated opinion. 

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 1:35 AM | Report abuse


The liberals spend BILLIONS of dollars and things are no better.


Who could have guessed this would have happened???


Obama said premiums would go down. They went up 20%

Who could have guessed this would have happened???


Obama spent Billions. Things got worse


Who could have guessed this would have happened???


Obamas stimulus 800 Billion, few jobs


Who could have guessed this would have happened???

The liberals still wont face reality


Who could have guessed this would have happened???


Obama was supposed to be smart Turns out Obama is stupid, push ahead by affirmative action program after affirmative action program.


Who could have guessed????

What a social experiment


Take an idiot off the street and try to prove he could do the same as an old WHITE MAN.


What a stupid thing to try


Who could have guessed it wouldnt work???

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 1, 2011 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton had higher negatives than Sarah Palin at this point before the 2008 race, but she still ran. No Journ-O-List cited to that as a liability.

==

HRCs neagtives were of a wholly different sort. Conservatives hate her because shes' educated, more like an Eleanor Roosevelt than a Laura Bush, and a lot of Democrats didn't like her right-wing cant on a lot of important issues.

Neither side was happy with her ideology (and her chumminess with Rove was a deal-breaker for me), but only the most troglodytic Republicans would have claimed she lacked basic credentials for the job.

Palin's negatives are based on the fact that she's basically a dumb hick who knows how to rouse the rabble and she's a millimeter deep. And only people way below average intellect and/or defiant to the point of paralysis claim she's up to the job.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 1:55 AM | Report abuse

That's nowhere near a serious answer, claw, you just made up some numbers.

Where is she going to get those 75 million votes? Nowhere near that many voters regard her as up to the job, even if every single last person who thought so made it to the polls, Obama still wins by a landslide.

You remind me an awful lot of JakeD. The unsubstantiated claims, the sneer quotes, the unadulterated love of this tramp.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 1:59 AM | Report abuse

XXXX Cao, Do Not Read! XXXX

"You remind me an awful lot of JakeD. The unsubstantiated claims, the sneer quotes, the unadulterated love of this tramp."

Yeah, there can't be any sneering in your comments, 'cause you don't use quotes.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 2:09 AM | Report abuse

What makes us think Palin is stupid?

Where would you like to start?

Intelligent people get around to demonstrating their intelligence eventually .. Stephen Hawking has written two intelligence-demonstrating books by twitching a cheek muscle several times for each letter.

Palin yaps her mouth off all the time and never sounds like anything but a complete idiot .. anyone listening can tell that when she reaches the end of a sentence she's forgotten the beginning, but she just takes a deep breath and embarks on another adventure in randomly connected strring words.

I have a cockatoo who can "speak" for hours never forming actual word (he refuses to do it), but if you heard him from far away you would swear you were hearing coherent speech, he has the rhythm and cadence of English down pat. Palin's like that, only she doesn't have the rhythm and cadence.

I mean, come on, Troll, she's a bimbo. She's had two years to start learning about the issues and still all she does is babble.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 2:16 AM | Report abuse

She will get 75 million votes from true Americans. What is a sneer quote?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 2:20 AM | Report abuse

"Intelligent people get around to demonstrating their intelligence eventually .. Stephen Hawking has written two intelligence-demonstrating books by twitching a cheek muscle several times for each letter."

So unless she's Ste

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 2:23 AM | Report abuse

"Intelligent people get around to demonstrating their intelligence eventually .. Stephen Hawking has written two intelligence-demonstrating books by twitching a cheek muscle several times for each letter."

So unless she's Steven Hawkings, she's stupid? At least your giving her a fair "comparison."

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Why don't you just claim that everyone outside NYC and San Francisco will vote for her.

You fail.

She'll take slim majorities in the states with the poorest education, nowhere else. Even the people who like her for being "down to earth" don't come anywhere near 75 million, and the people who regard her as literally up to the job probably are less than half that, and a lot of those people don't really participate in democracy.

And a Palin candidacy would motivate Democrats like Obama never could, neither in 2012 nor in 2008. There are too many responsible citizens who don't want a fundamentalist idiot in reach of nuclear weapons. Just look what happened to Joe Miller.

And pretending you don't know what a sneer quote is, really weak, dude. If you bat your eyes any harder your lids are going to fatigue.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 2:56 AM | Report abuse

This is going to be interesting. Some Republicans want to win elections and still believe in arithmetic. Then there are the crazies so convinced of the divine righteousness of their cause that they sneer at numbers. The latter are with Palin. Maybe they think God will screw with the voting machines or something .. but the bean counters like Rove know that Palin is ballot box poison and are out to stop here.

And, pass the Redenbacher, this dovetails perfectly with Palin's victim mentality and arouses her vindictiveness.

Democrats can sit on their hands and watch the two sides of the conservative schism, the Arithmetists and the Holy Warriors, tear each other apart.

But with Palin on the air a lot, you'll need to keep one finger on the Mute button. Jesus, that twang.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 3:17 AM | Report abuse

Joe Miller only lost by 10,000 votes. I predict that Sarah Palin would win by many more than that. If I knew what a sneer quote was, I would not have asked. This thread is whether she is toast. I say she's not.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 3:23 AM | Report abuse

Joe Miller lost by 10,000 votes out of HOW MANY VOTERS? How stupid do you think we are? There are fewer people in the entire state of Alaska than there are in part of Seattle. Ten thousand nationwide would be noteworrthy, ten thousand in Alaska is a chasm. Ten thousand against a write-in is a punch-line.

And he lost to a *write-in candidate*.

Your judgment is just what I would expect for someone who thinks Palin has a shot. But then you're a Keyboard Kommando, not an Arithmetist.

Sneer quote is like what you guys do when you can't bring yourselves to say gay marriage and call it "gay marriage" instead.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 3:36 AM | Report abuse

I did not sneer at numbers or quotes, so I have no idea what you are saying.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 3:36 AM | Report abuse

You have no idea what you are saying either.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 3:40 AM | Report abuse

For what it's worth, I said above that I don't even know if she's going to run. But, if she does, it's not just people with way below average intellect and/or defiant to the point of paralysis who claim she's more up to the job than Obama. You don't get to claim that experience didn't matter last time around, but now it suddenly is the most important factor in selecting a President.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 3:46 AM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut, were your quotes around the word "comparison" sneering?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 4:00 AM | Report abuse

But, if she does, it's not just people with way below average intellect and/or defiant to the point of paralysis who claim she's more up to the job than Obama.

==

You added the "more" and the "than Obama." That's a distraction and an irrelevance. To compare a woman who quit halfway through her only term as governor of a small state to someone who already has four years being president is too stupid to even take up.

It's not about comparisons with Obama, it's about whether she's up to the job, period, and unless you're really stupid and/or defiant to the point of paralysis, there's no way you can believe that.

Palin couldn't be an effective night manager at a Red Robin, she's not smart enough and she has too many issues with self-fascination.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 5:57 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin toast?

Dream-on, Lefties, and keep hitting that hookah.

The relentless flood of vitriol and venom that the Left directs to and about Palin is an eloquent testament of its visceral fear of the woman. If she were remotely as you attempt to portray her, you wouldn't talk about her, at all.

Posted by: Spamnot | January 1, 2011 6:44 AM | Report abuse

yeah the fact that a solid majority thinks she's an idiot is solid proof that she has them running scared.

you follow that piece of reasoning, champ, you stick to it like white on rice.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 6:51 AM | Report abuse

Acutally Jonathan her misses don't hurt her at all, they're pre-repudiated by the victmhood meme that's her trump card. If she missed the barn with Joe Miller it can only be because those meanies in the press and the political boy's club ganged up on her and liberal activists in Alaska stole the election.

This stuff will never stop working for her 2-digit fans but it will never start working with everyone else.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 7:07 AM | Report abuse

Palin/Jindal for 2012!
John Bolton at State
Thomas Sewell or Walter Williams at Treasury
Oliver North at Defense
Defund and shut down the rest of the nonsense. Eliminate HUD, Interior, EPA, Public Broadcasting, Education, Energy, FCC and SEC.
Tear down the buildings and salt the earth where they once stood.

Posted by: jonfraudcarry | January 1, 2011 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Wanna really save some money? Get rid of the DoD. Disband the military, close all the overseas bases.

Yeah, end American education. They must call you The Idea Man at the meat-packing plant.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Run Sarah Run.

We Democrats will turn out to help you win the Republican primaries.

We owe it to Rush, since he so graciously urged his listeners to participate in Democratic primaries in 2008.

Democratic Patriots For Palin urge you to run Sarah. We will be there for you. Don't let the old boys' network scare you out of the race. Real Americans want you to run. Yup Yup. You Betcha!

Posted by: Liam-still | January 1, 2011 8:22 AM | Report abuse

I have a better chance of being the GOP nominee in 2012 than Palin does. Do you really think the Big Money people running the GOP are that stupid? They aren't. The evisceration of Sarah Palin has already begun and if she's too stupid to get the message the Cons will destroy her. Obama will have real GOP opponent, someone who knows what's what and can follow orders, probably a gubernatorial cypher like Bush the Worst. Obama has permanently lost the Left and Independents only care about the very basics like the economy. If the economy is good Obama may win. But the economy probably won't be good and Obama will probably lose. Either way, the country will continue its decline until the American people remember that democracy is not self-executing.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 1, 2011 8:55 AM | Report abuse

But there's nobody the GOP will unify behind. They have no stellar candidates, nothing, and Palin has the viciously intense support of people too stupid to do arithmetic (see above re: 75 million votes from Shangri-La).

They're too beholden to Cray-Zee to run anyone but a Cray-Zee. It'll be Palin unless they find a way to put her out of action (and they might). The way the GOP primary system is deliberately defective will make her had to stop unless they get her out of the picture in some seriously final way.

In that case it'll be (*chortle*) Magic Undies Romney, since he's Wall Street's huggy-bunny (wouldja GET a LOAD of the SUIT!). And Romney doesn't get the Cray-Zees.

But, yeh wbgonne, America is financialized, and the only way out of that is the Bolshevik route, which America won't take. Not with the Cray-Zees ready to lay their lives down to ensure low taxes for the rich.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 9:27 AM | Report abuse

The liberals spend BILLIONS of dollars and things are no better.


Who could have guessed this would have happened???


Obama said premiums would go down. They went up 20%


Who could have guessed this would have happened???


Obama spent Billions. Things got worse

Who could have guessed this would have happened???


Obamas stimulus 800 Billion, few jobs

Who could have guessed this would have happened???


The liberals still wont face reality

Who could have guessed this would have happened???


Obama was supposed to be smart Turns out Obama is stupid, push ahead by affirmative action program after affirmative action program.


Who could have guessed????


What a social experiment


Take an idiot off the street and try to prove he could do the same as an old WHITE MAN.


What a stupid thing to try


Who could have guessed it wouldnt work???

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 1, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Jejune JournoListers on Jan. 1, 2011, are already pontificating & prognosticating about Sarah Palin. How did that Sarah-bashy thingy work for ya' in 2010? Not so well? Give it up, haters.

Posted by: bubbasouth | January 1, 2011 9:49 AM | Report abuse

"It'll be Palin unless they find a way to put her out of action (and they might)."

They will. It's already started. Palin is utterly finished with the GOP the second she loses Limbaugh or Fox. It's an understatement that there is a ton of dirt on Palin and the GOP won't hesitate to use it if she doesn't do what she's told. The Cons know they're in good shape for 2012 and they aren't going to let some Reality TV dunce screw things up.

Who will be the GOP candidate? Could be Mittens, god knows he's malleable enough but he has his baggage. I still say the GOP plays it safe by picking an unknown they can brand however they like (Compassionate Conservatism becomes Constitutional Conservatism?).

In any event, it's largely irrelevant because neither political party can or will do anything to challenge the oligarchs. The U.S. is a plutocracy and unless the American people take control of the nation away from Big Money nothing will change. Maybe as things deteriorate that will happen but the American people are frighteningly disengaged and passive so I expect us to suffer, complain and futilely vote against incumbents.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 1, 2011 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Looks to me like it worked pretty damned well. Palin endorsees lost left and right and the few who got through are going to make the GOP look pretty bad.

Who needs to bash Palin? You have Democrats everywhere aching to give her more exposure. You think her support is ever going to grow? Really? Really?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Agreed on the oligarchs and you know what I regard as the only way out.

Picture the petroleum rich laying awake night jumping at creaking wood worrying which of their bodyguards is going to take them out. And anxiously turning to good works to get a higher social score on the web and not be the next one found beheaded.

Won't happen, of course. The people who're going to be hurt the worst are their most passionate supporters.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 10:00 AM | Report abuse

" It'll be Palin unless they find a way to put her out of action (and they might)."

It is tragic.

Best wishes for the New Year. And learn to duck.

O&O.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 1, 2011 10:07 AM | Report abuse

"The people who're going to be hurt the worst are their most passionate supporters."

It is tragic.

Best wishes for the New Year. And learn to duck.

O&O.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 1, 2011 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Where I am they'd *shoot* Gordon Gekko.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Even days: Bash Republicans

Odd days: Bash Sarah Palin

(Not only a recognizable pattern but most of the basis for jounolist - So much for 2011)

Posted by: TECWRITE | January 1, 2011 10:21 AM | Report abuse

"Where I am they'd *shoot* Gordon Gekko."

Who else should be shot?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 10:43 AM | Report abuse

what is this "journolist" thing all the piston rods are on about?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 10:53 AM | Report abuse

""Where I am they'd *shoot* Gordon Gekko."

Who else should be shot?"

BeSides fictional characters.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Can't wait to see whether Jerry Brown can do a better job in Cali than Arnold. "The state faces as much as $28.1 billion in revenue shortfalls over the next 18 months and a $20 billion budget gap for each of the next five years." Whoa, those are serious numbers, though just a small fraction of money Wall Street firms are going to hand over to themselves for their 2010 performance bonus. That TARP plan sure worked, except for the fact that Americans live in States not on Wall Street.

"Despite the change in parties, few expect wholesale policy changes, since both men have fashioned themselves pragmatists. Arguably the most important cabinet position, the director of finance, is a holdover from the Schwarzenegger administration."

Jerry, c'mon man, we're all rooting for you. I'll bet Meg Whitman would have hired Arnold's director of finance too. I mean, maybe he is really smart but, what is the plan? Are you going to go Ron Johnson, Chris Cristie?

And I sure am glad I don't live in Florida. The charlatan Rick Scott is going to make things worse, no doubt about it. The real estate disaster Bush and Crist presided over is going for a double dip. Wanna buy a house? Just wait, it'll be cheaper later and everyone knows it and my friends, that is big trouble.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Who else should be shot?

==

go buy a box of legal pads and a few pints of ink, this is gonna take a while

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 10:56 AM | Report abuse

"what is this "journolist" thing all the piston rods are on about?"

You're being to kind to me with the piston rod reference, I'm more the "oil sludge" equivalent, or the gunk that cakes around "leaky" seals.

As for "journolist", think state-run media.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 11:00 AM | Report abuse

The party of white people (no Democratic candidate since LBJ has won a majority of the white vote) needs a rich candidate for POTUS, don't be boring and ask why.

This is why Palin quit her job, to make enough money to be acceptable. But no matter, she is way too prole for the Republican money managers. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make her think. So Mitt will be the candidate, magic underwear and all (he is a made man right?, so he always has to wear it so he can get the 10% of his money back that he tithed which seems strange because who needs money when you are seated at the right hand of the lord for all eternity, but that seems boring as hell, so maybe you need a little money for beer and pretzels, except that in heaven there is no beer which is why we drink it here, but I digress).

Get used to it Palin lovers, Mitt Romney for President, sure you'll get used to it. Soon you'll agree he was your choice all along.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Conservatives love how the ProgSocs (progressive socialists) continue to obsess over Palin. If they didn’t believe that what she embodies is the coming revolt of the masses in fly-over country against the ruling class elites in both political parties, they would simply ignore her. As far as 2012, if it appears that only establishment types like Romney, Huckabee, and Gingrich will likely win the nomination, then Palin will run because she will be forced to.

Posted by: Ohiolad | January 1, 2011 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I think Sarah is already gone. She imploded.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 11:40 AM | Report abuse

The liberals spend BILLIONS of dollars and things are no better.


Who could have guessed this would have happened???


Obama said premiums would go down. They went up 20%


Who could have guessed this would have happened???


Obama spent Billions. Things got worse


Who could have guessed this would have happened???


Obamas stimulus 800 Billion, few jobs


Who could have guessed this would have happened???


The liberals still wont face reality


Who could have guessed this would have happened???


Obama was supposed to be smart Turns out Obama is stupid, push ahead by affirmative action program after affirmative action program.


Who could have guessed????


What a social experiment


Take an idiot off the street and try to prove he could do the same as an old WHITE MAN.


What a stupid thing to try


Who could have guessed it wouldnt work???

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 1, 2011 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Not saying they should be president, but I've heard a couple Republicans talk about the fiscal mess - I know Mitch Daniels has done much good for Indiana (though not sure if I like his educational policies), and this guy, Tom Coburn,is talking doomsday unless we get it together.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/26/coburn-control-government-spending-face-apocalyptic-pain/#dsq-new-post

But have to wonder if such ideas would be acceptable to the GOP "machine" who is more interested in helping the cronies vacuum the economy instead of helping the US and letting money flow to the "rich" people from the majority.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 11:45 AM | Report abuse

I respectfully request that all Republicans who come across this post read this book review. Better yet, read the book.

Then come back and give us your take on what is wrong with the argument. I know you think income disparity is good or at least benign, or at worst inevitable. It is none of those. The growth in income disparity is the brutal, pernicious force that will destroy this country.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67046/robert-c-lieberman/why-the-rich-are-getting-richer

I don't want to hear about leftist Columbia Professors, I want you to tell me how America is going to survive. What are the restorative forces? Let me guess, less gubmint, no Democrats and richer rich people, am I right?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Ohiolad: "If they didn’t believe that what she [Sarah Palin] embodies is the coming revolt of the masses in fly-over country against the ruling class elites in both political parties, they would simply ignore her."

The only ones worried about Palin are Republicans, but there's no need for it if they present some viable plans to deal with major issues (so far they can't). Few others are worried about a whiney, do-nothing, anger-venting therapy group of guys dressed in tri-corner hats - if the Tea Partiers presented solutions, they might be a formidable threat, but I see no sign of it.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Palin endorsees did way better than Obama's kiss of death. Look it up, if you don't believe me. He's disappointed lots of first time voters and there are many liberals (three on this thread alone) who are promising to not vote for Obama again. That is why I think he will get fewer votes than last time around. She would get more because enough people will have realized how bad he is. Presidential re-election campaigns boil down to how well the incumbent did, not really who the challenger is. Think Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, and then Bush41 in 1988.

If you didn't want my guess to your hypothetical questions, then you shouldn't have asked. Like I said, we will see how our respective New Years predictions hold in 2012.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

shrink2: "I don't want to hear about leftist Columbia Professors, I want you to tell me how America is going to survive. What are the restorative forces? Let me guess, less gubmint, no Democrats and richer rich people, am I right?"

Good post. Perhaps the extended high-end tax cuts will help money "trickle down" into circulation, but since it hasn't so far (those cuts are saved/not spent by the "rich"), it probably won't.

Those who want "less gubment" should see how much their state receives from the federal trough - typically Blue states support the Reds.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Palin and her Facebook page do not have the political force to overcome the Republican money managers. Palin does not even have a political organization, none. There is no such thing as a Palin insider.

Besides, the Republican money managers know her fan base will vote against Obama no matter whom they decide to run. It'll be Romney, that is what the robber barons want and he is the one they will buy, I mean get.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 12:02 PM | Report abuse

chris76543, stop posting about her then, if you aren't worried.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 12:09 PM | Report abuse

So, if it's NOT Romney, then you will agree that the masses took over the GOP?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Jonathan Bernstein, another lib headed for the spin bin due to Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: illogicbuster | January 1, 2011 12:17 PM | Report abuse

The same story everywhere...

"While Oregon's economy remained in the tank throughout 2010, the state's publicly traded companies enjoyed a banner year...Overall, The Oregonian Index of the region's publicly traded companies climbed 25 percent last year -- outpacing the Nasdaq, S&P 500 and the Dow. Since 2008, the index is up 45 percent...

So why didn't their success translate into a bigger boost for the broader state economy? One factor is that big, Oregon-based companies play a relatively small role in the state's economy."
The O (Go Ducks!)

So next time Republicans complain about corporate taxes, remember, we are in a race to the bottom. Corporations know now that they can get a well trained work force and civic infrastructure for free, though actually it comes at the expense of its workers. Profits are only for the investors and owners.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"I respectfully request that all Republicans who come across this post read this book review. Better yet, read the book."

I think [that review, and object of the review] is stupid for so many detailed reasons, I can't really get into it.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I already know what you think, less gubmint, no Democrats and richer rich people. I was wondering if someone who knows Palin is stupid, quarterback for example, might want to take a stab at it.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

clawrence: "chris76543, stop posting about her then, if you aren't worried."

I don't think I'm posting much about HER. It's interesting to see rants of those trying to convince themselves/others she is more than a cheerleader.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

clawrence: "chris76543, stop posting about her then, if you aren't worried."

I don't think I'm posting much about HER. It's interesting to see rants of those trying to convince themselves/others she is anything more than a rabble-rousing cheerleader (no offense to legitimate cheerleaders...).

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 12:41 PM | Report abuse

shrink,

When you have the time will you write the reasons you think Palin is stupid?  

Also, where'd Nike fit in the "Screw Oregon" race to the bottom robber baron parade?

Finally, who ultimately pays the corporate income tax? And what should be the rate?

And, Happy Knew Year!  I'm sure your rolling in your Monopoly $500 bills today, and lighting candy cigarettes with them

BTW, what would Nanny Bloomberg deem more dangerous to children, candy cigarettes or toy guns?  Angels dancing on the head of pins argument no doubt.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 12:49 PM | Report abuse

pshrink2:"Besides, the Republican money managers know her fan base will vote against Obama no matter whom they decide to run. It'll be Romney, that is what the robber barons want and he is the one they will buy, I mean get."

Who do you think her fan base will vote for if Sarah DOESN'T run? They've been programmed against "establishment, elite, blue-blood, and RINO" Republicans - one even posted a Dem is better than a RINO (might they crossover vote to diss their own party?). I think it depends if they view Sarah as being forced aside by the GOP, if she endorses someone (though she'd have to "flip-flop" to do so), or maybe none-of-above and (longshot) she'll form a splinter party (too much work). If she doesn't run I can see many staying at home on election day - watching results, banging their highchairs and throwing cookies at the TV.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 12:52 PM | Report abuse

It's plutocrat-run media, is what it is. Only 6 men -- and it's all men -- control all the mass media in this country, because it is all vast conglomerates now. They are all Republicans.

As wbgne said,

"The U.S. is a plutocracy and unless the American people take control of the nation away from Big Money nothing will change. Maybe as things deteriorate that will happen but the American people are frighteningly disengaged and passive so I expect us to suffer, complain and futilely vote against incumbents."

Democrats are somewhat less beholden to big money so I vote for them. Republicans sold out everything long ago. Until there is campaign finance reform, and foreign corporations and sovereign wealth funds are no longer allowed to buy politicians, nothing will ever get better again for the citizens of this country, who are nothing but pawns.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 1, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"When you have the time will you write the reasons you think Palin is stupid?"

I'll add. Last incident was saying "refudiate" was a f/p typo when she was recorded saying the word a few days earlier on Hannity. She remains stupid because she doesn't like to cloud her words/opinions with facts - some of this is because people like Hannity know it's better to let her remain ignorant than to step on her ego by correcting her with facts.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

chris76543, so was that you or someone else claiming that Palin is only a rabble-rousing cheerleader?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, end American education. They must call you The Idea Man at the meat-packing plant.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011

---

That's what they call the gym where cao works out.

Posted by: Brigade | January 1, 2011 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"When you have the time will you write the reasons you think Palin is stupid?"

Maybe I'll do a Palin is stupid data point each day...

#1 Leaves teen daughter home with "study" partner Levi Johnston, is unable to anticipate exactly what is going to be studied.

The University of Nike owes all of its football success to Phil Knight's money, the stupid uniforms to boot.

What corporate income tax? Does Oregon have a corporate income tax? Just kidding. "Oregon's corporate tax structure consists of two brackets with a top rate of 7.9% kicking in $250,000. Among states levying corporate income taxes, Oregon's rate ranks 17th highest nationally." Who ultimately pays the corporate income tax? The people who buy the product the corporation sells.

This is my #1 favorite critique of Nanny Bloomberg.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/19/opinion/20101219_mccall_opart.html

If she doesn't run, as you suggest, the enthusiasm of her fan base will depend on how she was taken out. The uglier, the nastier it gets the better. I want to see a spectacle, an historical epic of catastrophic quality.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"Wanna really save some money? Get rid of the DoD. Disband the military, close all the overseas bases. Yeah, end American education. They must call you The Idea Man at the meat-packing plant. Posted by: caothien9"

Obvious sarcasm is automatically missed around here.

But the initial premise is that Sarah is Toast. In a rational electorate Sarah would never have made it to the dough stage. But we don't have a particularly rational electorate, and as I pointed out earlier, the republican nomination isn't determined by a rational electorate but by a small coterie of self interested Conservatives.

The calculation they have to make is to weigh their ability to get their girl to do their bidding with the likelihood that that girl can't get her candidate in her state enough gravitas, or momentum, or hype, to beat a write in candidate whose name is still something of a mystery to even her strongest supporters.

Sarah looks good on the small screen because her pushers can control her audiences. But the cheering on TV has the same unreality as Dean's famous scream. You only notice if you are using a highly directional mike, because when the real background noise is added back you have a whine, a whimper and a mumble against a roar of incredulity.

Sarah can talk herself into or out of the Republican nomination because the audience that matters is a very select audience.

She has long since let her ill disciplined tongue cut her political throat in any general election. She probably can't get elected to Wasilla's City Council at this point.

But the Trolls like her.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 1, 2011 1:10 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, what do you have to say about Obama's mother pregnant as a teen?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad you guys are NOT talking about her so much. Keep it up!

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"I'll add. Last incident was saying "refudiate" was a f/p typo when she was recorded saying the word a few days earlier on Hannity. She remains stupid because she doesn't like to cloud her words/opinions with facts - some of this is because people like Hannity know it's better to let her remain ignorant than to step on her ego by correcting her with facts."

Ah, Barry's "corpseman" hardest hit. Of course, when Barry does it, just a mistake. 'Cuda must be stupid. How convincing.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Gems from ceflynline:

"Obvious sarcasm is automatically missed around here."

In cao's case, it's more commonly just ignored.
-------

"But we don't have a particularly rational electorate"

And how do we know this? One piece of evidence would likely be the way voters tossed Dems to the wolves in November---just because the economy is in the toilet and the debt keeps rising. Silly fools. Vote against a Dem and you are by definition irrational.
-------

"But the Trolls like her."

You and cao have a heckuva way of showing people how much you like her.



Posted by: Brigade | January 1, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama's grandmother let his mom drop out of school, I mean, "home schooled" her daughter with a drop out red neck horn dog for a study partner? Who knew?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12: "chris76543, so was that you or someone else claiming that Palin is only a rabble-rousing cheerleader?"

I thought it was me (back to the days when she said Obama was "palling around with terrorists"), but obviously not.
Google "palin rabble-rousing cheerleader"

Just glanced at a few, but this on the 4th page - someone bumped it up a notch:
"good looking, rabble-rousing dingbat, not qualified to judge a barfing ... the sexism) being a cheerleader for a more pragmatic candidate. ..."

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"#1 Leaves teen daughter home with "study" partner Levi Johnston, is unable to anticipate exactly what is going to be studied."

First, I think Dr. Sullivan OB/GYN would undoubtedly dispute the source and it's legitamcy. (But bernie, by all means, keep using the good doctor as a reliable source. It demonstrates your Saying Liberal Things credentials, so important on the PL. Ask sbj3 what happens when you "wander" off the liberal plantation.) Secondly, obviously, Bristol was impregnated, did not abort her baby, and gave birth. Is your point that impregnated teenage daughters only happen to stupid parents, ergo Palin is stupid? You're satisfied with that?

Hey Cao, doesn't Phil Knight make his shoes in Vietnam? Is that good or bad, I forget?

The "sneer" quotes are for Cao's benefit.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 1:36 PM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut:"Ah, Barry's "corpseman" hardest hit. Of course, when Barry does it, just a mistake. 'Cuda must be stupid. How convincing."

Everyone makes mistakes/gaffes - the relevance is how they handle it (admitting error, saying they need to learn much, laughing it off with a joke about themselves, etc - Biden and Reagan have/had many incidents). Sarah lied for some reason - not sure if she knew it at the time, but she does by now. The "refudiate" "explanation" was the last time the public heard from Sarah.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Ah, Barry's "corpseman" hardest hit. Of course, when Barry does it, just a mistake. 'Cuda must be stupid. How convincing.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 1:22 PM
-------

And isn't it odd that we're never supposed to take into consideration the abysmal performance Barry has actually delivered as President? Even some of the libs here are ashamed, although they'll no doubt pull the lever for him in the end. Palin, who hasn't announced she's running for anything, is stupid even though she's grabbed a sizable share of the American dream for her and her family. And that's the story around here---day in and day out. Nothing about Gitmo being open, drones in Pakistan, or extension of the Bush tax cuts. Why? Because any Republican could have done that. 10% unemployment? A wasted stimulus? Shhhhhhhh. Heckuva job, Barry! At least he reads a teleprompter well. And if he loses in 2012, he'll have enough cash to visit those of the 57 states he's missed so far---or maybe move to Kenya or Vietnam.

And he's really raised the bar for Presidential performance. We can ignore Clinton because of NAFTA, Welfare Reform, DADT, a decent economy, etc. He had a Republican Congress and, according to libs, was nothing but a DINO anyway. So after the former Klansman, Harry Truman, that leaves LBJ, who was so popular he didn't even bother to run for re-election in '68, One-term Carter, who was a bigger screw-up and less popular within his own party than even LBJ, and now the clusterf*ck which is the Obama administration. That's it after WWII. No faces on Mt. Rushmore in that crowd.

But never fear. Sarah Palin is dumb, and whether she runs or not, that's reason enough right there to let Dumbo himself have another term.

Posted by: Brigade | January 1, 2011 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I get flustrated by people who can't distinguish between a malapropism and a typo, unless she was lying.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Google "palin rabble-rousing cheerleader"

Just glanced at a few, but this on the 4th page - someone bumped it up a notch:
"good looking, rabble-rousing dingbat, not qualified to judge a barfing ... the sexism) being a cheerleader for a more pragmatic candidate. ..."

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 1:33 PM
-------

Are you sure you weren't just looking at some old Plum Line threads. Sounds awfully familiar.

Posted by: Brigade | January 1, 2011 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"I get flustrated by people who can't distinguish between a malapropism and a typo, unless she was lying."

So bad typing makes her stupid?

And Chris, can you point me to Barry's acknowledgment a mistake? Or do we now have to say corpseman because of his genius?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"I'm glad you guys are NOT talking about her so much. Keep it up!"
Posted by: clawrence12

Your reason for non-supporters "talking about her" implied it's out of fear. The only ones exhibiting fear here are those trying to defend Sarah with emotion instead of facts.

If she's more qualified to be a leader, talk about how her solutions are better than those of others, including ideas of other Republicans - back up what you say with numbers and results (not empty rhetoric or criticism/finger-pointing).

example of logic/not emotion: Talk about how the Indiana Republican governor took the state from a $600M deficit to a $300M surplus within a year during his first term (present pros and cons of this, along with opinion on how it's going now), and how similar changes could apply to the nation. Or talk about how Sarah thinks stopping $100B of Medicare/Medicaid fraud is necessary before considering ANY national health plan, and how she plans to do it. Present facts, not emotion...

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Present facts, not emotions on why our beloved 'Cuda (no offense, my Dark Lord Cheney) is stupid?  Are all people who disagree with you, politically, stupid?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"So bad typing makes her stupid?"

'flustrated' is not bad typing and neither is 'refudiate'
A person who doesn't know that is either stupid or lying.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"If she's more qualified to be a leader, talk about how her solutions are better than those of others, including ideas of other Republicans - back up what you say with numbers and results (not empty rhetoric or criticism/finger-pointing)."

---

The numbers and results (or rather lack thereof) are all Barry's. The solution is to get him out of there. It's the "anybody but Barry" logic. He would be better served if trolls like you spent more time pointing out his, er..., "accomplishments" rather than calling someone dumb who seems to be a lot more intelligent than you.

Posted by: Brigade | January 1, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

'flustrated' is not bad typing and neither is 'refudiate'
A person who doesn't know that is either stupid or lying.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 2:06 PM
-----

or Slip Mahoney.

Posted by: Brigade | January 1, 2011 2:07 PM | Report abuse

What Obama's mom did was much worse, in that day, than Bristol Palin.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

""So bad typing makes her stupid?"

'flustrated' is not bad typing and neither is 'refudiate'
A person who doesn't know that is either stupid or lying."

So, she types "refudiate" by accident, the media deals out, she makes a joke out of it, and is therefore stupid.  Is that right?

But Barry's "57 states" just a simple misstatement.

Hokay,  that really is a low bar... For Barry, no?

What am I saying?  Everybody knows she's stupid, I mean, that's what everyone says?  What's wrong with me, beside my collosul ignorance, that I don't see the obvious?  I weep for "the children."

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Leo the lush, I remember once my parents wondering was he just drunk, or doing that on purpose?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 2:15 PM | Report abuse

chris76543, I said "worry" not "fear" (two different words, look them up).

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Oh no, you have children? C'mon you're joking, right? Tell me you don't or I just might cry too.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Just so I understand you, it is irrefutable to you that Palin thinks (or thought) that "flustrated" and "refudiate" are the actual way to spell/say those word.  Is that correct?

And when I asked you what your evidence for her stupidity, this "example" is your best/most convincing.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 2:20 PM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut: "And Chris, can you point me to Barry's acknowledgment a mistake? Or do we now have to say corpseman because of his genius?"

Not sure what you mean by "corpsemen"...

You present no specifics, but if you're talking about Obama's "57 state" gaffe, that was 2.5 YEARS AGO when he was tired after campaigning in all but one of the lower 48 states - he said he'd visited "50.... 7 states" - he spaced saying "40" - it's not like he said "the US has 57 states".
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp. I've never heard him say anything to refudiate this error, nor have I looked, but it's a non-issue to me.

If you're talking about mistakes for fixing the US, there are plenty, but a big problem there (that affects the future of this country) is no one is stepping up with better or modified plans for solutions. Republicans don't offer anything - either they have no (can't come up with any) better plan, or they want the country to get worse so they can "come to the rescue" (McConnell said the first order is to make sure Obama is a one-term president, Republicans "tokenly" said they'd nix earmarks, then forced extension of tax cuts which increases national debt, etc). ALL need to work together to fix this country - we're getting like Arabs who allow their countries to suffer because they won't do anything the Israelis do (or anyone else does) because they don't want to admit that others are partially right - I really hope potential leaders can come up with plans better than Obama's - if they can't, we're sunk. Worst is Medicare/Medicaid fraud - during all the debate about Obamacare, I didn't hear anyone give ideas on how to stop this (doctors/orgs bilk millions/combined billions, often don't get shut down/thrown in jail, and open up shop under a different corporation name).

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Yes and No. It is neither the best nor the most convincing, it is just one example.

The reason I don't want to get into a how I know Palin is stupid argument, is that if you don't think so, there is no way what I say would matter. Plus, stupid is an adjective in search of a noun, it means too many different things, it is overdetermined.

So first we'd have to agree what we are arguing about. For example, as one who gets paid to make accurate estimates of peoples' intelligence without objective data such as standarized test results(I do a lot of hiring and judging of work performance), I am guessing her IQ to be average. So in that sense, either she isn't stupid or I think average intelligence denotes stupidity and I don't. Lets leave it at that, I don't have to know what you think about America's problem with plutocracy and you don't have to know why I think Sarah Palin is stupid.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

So, Barry's "tired" but Palin's stupid.  Ok, thank goodness for the sweet, sweet concept of rationalization.

"McConnell said the first order is to make sure Obama is a one-term president"

But the Democrats first order of business was to get Bush re-elected in aught four.  Gotcha.

Finally, one sure fire way to eliminate waste and fraud in Medicare is to eliminate it.  Short of that, means test it, and those that remain get to keep, say, 50% of YOY savings of their Medicare expenditures. 

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"...no one is stepping up with better or modified plans for solutions..." I refudiate this, I did, but he didn't listen.

"I didn't hear anyone give ideas on how to stop this (doctors/orgs bilk millions/combined billions, often don't get shut down/thrown in jail, and open up shop under a different corporation name)."

Or they can become the *Republican* Governor of Florida.

And I have opined at great length in past months about the fraud and abuse opportunities that America's unique, myriad silo of payment fee basis model creates. The only way to combat it, is to draw ever more money out of each silo to hire ever more people to combat attacks on each silo.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Shrink,

Your party.  I figured the "top of mind" example is generally peoples most compelling.

And no, I don't think she's stupid, but if I met her and conversed with her, I could be convinced otherwise. I wonder if the same is true for you?  Hence my falsifiable statement earlier.  

I'm curious though, is average now the new stupid?  Or does average, combined with political disagreement equal stupid?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Brigade says means testing ≡ welfare ≣ gubmint taking from those who earned it and giving to those who didn't.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12:"That is why I think he [Obama] will get fewer votes than last time around. She [Sarah] would get more because enough people will have realized how bad he is. Presidential re-election campaigns boil down to how well the incumbent did, not really who the challenger is. Think Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, and then Bush41 in 1988."

And think O'Donnell in 2010.

Theory (of incumbent performance) is true to some degree, but unless Obama's rating goes lower than Palin's, she can't win against him - there is still time for the economy to improve (or die... big issue is if the national debt affects people by then - $10 loaves of bread, dollar bills worth less than toilet paper, etc), and there's time for Sarah to back out or have an emotional meltdown. I can see people voting for most any Republican against Obama, but not for Sarah - and she's turned off a LOT of Republicans which decreases chance of winning the primary.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"Brigade says means testing ≡ welfare ≣ gubmint taking from those who earned it and giving to those who didn't."

How is it not welfare now? The average recipient gets out more than three times they put in.  

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"...if I met her and conversed with her, I could be convinced otherwise. I wonder if the same is true for you?"

Yes of course. As a P-chem professor once told me when I was trying to figure out what was going to be on the test, "Don't worry about that, the more you know, the better you'll do."

Unlike Mrs. Palin I am practically obsessed with the boundary between what I know and what I don't know. Remember what I said, I think Donald Rumsfeld is high IQ smart, but after he realized how many people he killed for losing the objective of the effort, he started to try to understand the problem. He learned about the value of knowing what you don't know you don't know. It is kind of like law school 101, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all those corollary ideas.

There is more to being smart than being a know it all.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"How is it not welfare now? The average recipient gets out more than three times they put in."

True. We agree (Obama's plan is working!). It is a slow motion disaster, an unfunded mandate. The great 2009 health care industrial complex windfall act will bring this country to realize how badly this country needs health care reform.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"Unlike Mrs. Palin I am practically obsessed with the boundary between what I know and what I don't know"

How do you know this about Palin?  I hate to be nosey, but these unsubstantiated blanket statements just beg for my incessant, though horrifically stupid queries.  Does it reinforce my sincerity, let alone stupidity, if I end with a smiley face? ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 3:10 PM | Report abuse

McWingnut:"Present facts, not emotions on why our beloved 'Cuda (no offense, my Dark Lord Cheney) is stupid? Are all people who disagree with you, politically, stupid?"

I have no argument with Sarah's or Tea Party "policies" (they want everything good for the country - hey! we have so much in common!) - the problem is they offer no solution on how to implement policy. Sometimes politicians skate around specifics because they don't want to be called liars later - others depend on mudslinging to gain like/shallow-minded supporters, but the country in general isn't using criticism and finger-pointing as a reason to vote FOR someone (unless the opponent is REAL bad) - they tend to vote people out of office instead of voting someone in (there is little love for Republicans - they're on two-year probation).

Stupid people have no ideas - I've seen no IDEAS for solution so I can't call any ideas stupid... “Finding fault stops progress; finding solutions ignites success.”
http://katenasser.com/professional-people-skills-to-find-solutions-not-fault/

I don't mind being wrong if someone who disagrees with me can teach me something - but I already know (in general terms) what is wrong with the country - I don't see much disagreement about that here. Disagreement will stem from how long people think it might take to see improvement. Sadly, O'Donnell is NOT a witch and can't twitch her nose to fix stuff in an instant.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

There are plenty of Republican alternatives proposed, for example.  Were you unaware of them or just dismissive of the alternatives?

Paul Ryan's so called "Roadmap" is also out there.  Stupid as well?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I am not asking her for humility, awww shucks disclaimers, or fingernails on a chalkboard remarks like, "Abortion is above my pay grade," Obama's worst gaffe.

Still I have seen no sign that she is aware of her considerable limitations and again, that isn't the solution. You have to not only be aware of the fact that you don't know very much, you have to somehow be able to assemble the people around you who do. For this you need to study what you know and what you don't know and study who does know what you don't know and recruit those people to your camp. This is the failure of the Obama administration, I believe that. Bad talent recruitment, it is like sports...I digress.

All of what people consider Reagan's achievements were wholly attributable to the people he assembled around him, that was his achievement, I'll give him that. That and his character, his indefatigable optimism, such a contrast with Palin the hurt collector.

And so now we have someone with no political experience beyond Alaska and the failed campaign, which evidently scarred her, the clothes scandal and so on...who has no political organization. The people around her? There are no Palin insiders, she is on her own and that is stupid.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 3:33 PM | Report abuse

chris76543 at 3:20 PM |


The bottom line Obama is a drag on the economy.


We have to get rid of him before the nation can move forward.

Please take all your garbage elsewhere. Thank you.


Case closed.


.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 1, 2011 3:34 PM | Report abuse

shrink:

“though just a small fraction of money Wall Street firms are going to hand over to themselves for their 2010 performance bonus.”

What does this mean? How does someone hand something over to himself? Mustn’t he already actually have it to “hand it over”? And what is wrong with a firm distributing its profits to its employees in the form of bonuses? Or is it just the fact that it is “Wall Street firms” that bugs you so much?

“That TARP plan sure worked, except for the fact that Americans live in States not on Wall Street.”

What relationship does where Americans live have with whether or not TARP worked? (BTW, shrink, how much did the government make on TARP funds to Goldman? Morgan Stanley? Chase?)

“The party of white people (no Democratic candidate since LBJ has won a majority of the white vote)…”

Are the Dems, therefore, the party of black people?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 1, 2011 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Chris

Here's a few ideas for you


Obama said if the health care bill was passed, premiums would go down, they have gone UP 20%


Obamas high-risk pools are failing


Obama spent 800 Billion dollars on the stimulus and said he would track all the jobs on a website.

Few jobs have been created


Obama has done nothing but waste money


These are not ideas which are worth anything


And you are complaining about the ideas of the other side?


Moron.

.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 1, 2011 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"This is the failure of the Obama administration, I believe that. Bad talent recruitment, it is like sports...I digress."

Than Barry is stupid, by your definition.  An assertion I disagree with.

"And so now we have someone with no political experience beyond Alaska and the failed campaign, which evidently scarred her, the clothes scandal and so on...who has no political organization. The people around her? There are no Palin insiders, she is on her own and that is stupid."

Again, completely unsubstantiated.  In fact, does she not have national campaign experience via the 2008 campaign?  As well as this last cycle?  And as far as "National Political Experience" goes, how much did Barry have?  None right?  That makes The 'Cuda eminently more qualified right now than the current occupant of the White House.  As is obvious now, considering the disaster that is Barry's "regime," its executive experience thats important,  something Barry did not have as is evident then and now, and something Palin in fact has, more than any of the other 2008 candidates.

Look, I do not take your words for it.  I get it's your opinion, and that your gnosis is what it is, but us drooling embiciles require more than the repetition of Talking Points of  your "Elites.".  

And I refuse to reinforce your low opinion of my IQ by giving you my woefully pitiful resume.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

McWingnut:"So, Barry's "tired" but Palin's stupid. Ok, thank goodness for the sweet, sweet concept of rationalization."

Sarcasm isn't necessary - FACTS were presented. If it's necessary to use a single 2.5 yo mistake to "prove" Obama is stupid, there is no point to discuss. Besides, it's an irrelevant issue - it's not like promoting "feel good" knee-jerk actions or reactions without considering consequences or analyzing details.

--------
McWingnut: "chris: "McConnell said the first order is to make sure Obama is a one-term president""
But the Democrats first order of business was to get Bush re-elected in aught four. Gotcha."

How did you come up with this? Bush got elected because the Dems were being worthless (their own fault) - it wasn't a concerted effort of neglect or sabotage. Repubs also played on fear after terrorism - interesting to note Obama is hitting more terrorists with drones than Bush ever did (though some of this is Pakistan not fighting operations after terrorist attacks on their own government and people).

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Palin is as toasted as her s'mores. Without even giving real interviews she manages to show how shallow she is.
America has an obesity problem. What's the number one New Year's resolution?
Palin crossed the line making fun of First Lady Obama's program for healthy eating. Unwritten law, don't make fun of any First Lady.
That should be her last dimwit comment. Presidential Material?

Posted by: cjackman | January 1, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"Th[e]n Barry is stupid, by your definition. An assertion I disagree with."

Well, we may have another disagreement on our hands. But this isn't about Obama.

"...completely unsubstantiated."

Heh, heh, if Palin has smart political people around her or if she has demonstrated any evidence of capacity in that regard, you know more than people who get paid to know who is who in politics for a living. Sure she may surprise everyone, she may be a master at talent recruitment, an organizational genius a political auter. I was wrong about Obama, I might be wrong about her.

Gotta go, this was fun. s'later

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Sorry auteur (that was a typo, not a malapropism), as in auteur theory, a view of film making in which the director is considered the primary creative force in the picture.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"you know more than people who get paid to know who is who in politics for a living."

Is that a source you want to rely on, considering the low state of our political affairs? Really?

Chris, I didn't point out that Barry is stupid, just your hypocrisy. 

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 4:13 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline:"And the Conservatives whom must be deferred to NEVER want a President competent enough to successfully buck the handlers who end up stationed in the west wing to keep their boy under control."

Excellent point. This is what concerns me if a "good" Republican is nominated - the GOP will allow anyone to anything to get elected, but then use him as a puppet after the fact - Bush was a fine example with Cheney and "the machine" working the strings [they only got cut after the second term when Bush wouldn't pardon Libby].

But I disagree that Palin would fill that position. She's an oppositional-defiant "rebel without a cause" and will fight for the sake of fighting. I can't see her being a puppet. She's been criticized by the GOP from day one for not being a "team player" - she's the only politician I've seen who disrespects members of their own party. Sarah is out to prove she doesn't need help or support from anyone but her followers. She's incompetent but will probably never know it (a "Peter Principle" extraordinaire, but will quit before she's pinned).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 4:18 PM | Report abuse

RainForestRising:"And you are complaining about the ideas of the other side?"

The point is there are NO ideas from the other side... As said, only the most out-of-touch people in the USA don't know what's wrong - people are STARVING for feasible plans/alternatives to what's being done.

The only "ideas" I'll really accept are those already in place. I know of positive results in Indiana and want to know more - if a state can function totally independent of federal funding (for healthcare, jobs/unemployment, education, etc) I'd probably want its governor for president - but would want to know how those policies could be applied to the nation. There's a lot more to this than pointing out what's wrong - after the housing/financial meltdown, I'm surprised things aren't a lot worse (actually, I think they are worse, but reality hasn't hit yet - hopefully we'll be on the right path when it does [oil prices set up as a leading indicator/tied to stock market now will slow economic recovery/keep money from circulating in the broad economy]).

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Governor Palin will Pass Go and Collect $200.

For Palin, it's a money game.

Posted by: thomp | January 1, 2011 4:50 PM | Report abuse

McWingnut:"So, she types "refudiate" by accident, the media deals out, she makes a joke out of it, and is therefore stupid. Is that right?"

Give it up, dude - accept the facts... she tried to make a joke out of it, but LIED about "an f/p swap" because she'd SAID the word a few days earlier with Hannity (last July - YOU can find exact dates).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pXaK30qNBM

Making a mistake is NOT stupid, but it IS stupid to try to cover it up when it's on video.

This is a dead issue, though I'm a little curious of what went through Hannity's mind when she said "refudiate" on his show ("Oh no, not again", "maybe no one will notice", "maybe it will be accepted", "Hmmm - maybe she knows something I don't - check dictionary during next break.."), but I'm sure he didn't correct her.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Brigade:"But never fear. Sarah Palin is dumb, and whether she runs or not, that's reason enough right there to let Dumbo himself have another term."

I'd like to see a good alternative - I'm not ready to throw in the flag yet.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 1, 2011 4:59 PM | Report abuse

This link's for Bernie and cao. More right wing violence, sigh. At least it answers the question of why European anarchists set off bombs when The State cuts back on welfare.

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/12/30/the-crusade-of-innocents/

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris

Seriously, any idiot knows that no ideas are better than BAD ideas


From Obama and the liberals all we have is bad ideas: spend billions and get little in return.

AND the Conservatives do have alot of great ideas. The best political ideas from 1980 on have been from the conservatives.

You are saying things which have nothing to do with reality

At this point, the Economy is the MOST important issue - and Obama is dragging the economy down. So, here's an idea for you: we get rid of Obama and his expensive wasteful health care plan and maybe the economy will start to grow again


The problem is Obama

So Conservatives DO have ideas

It is YOU who is not listening


Time to get OUT of the way, because YOU are trying to stop us from fixing the economy.


GET OUT OF THE WAY LIBERAL IDIOTS !!!!!

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 1, 2011 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm bewildered how Palin managed to get such strong loyalty from her base.
Her gig as mayor of a very, very small town required her to hire a city manager. She was the first mayor of Wasilla that required one. Her business the Red Neck car-wash failed. Her 1/2 term as governor is still under review pending release of Emails.
Was it her tweets and facebook comments? Her filtered radio chats with Bruce & Ingraham. Her whatever on Fox?
Just asking where she has demonstrated that she is Presidential Material.

Posted by: cjackman | January 1, 2011 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Here's a video of Barry saying Corpseman. Twice.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/04/obama_mispronounces_corpsman_at_prayer_breakfast.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I hope Sarah doesn't run in 2012 but not for the same reason as the woefully fact-starved liberals who panic at the sight of her name.

http://reformaliberal.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/sarahs-chance-to-shape-21st-century-conservatism/

She can help conservatism in her present role as king maker and liberal agitator.

Posted by: b5blue | January 1, 2011 6:15 PM | Report abuse

chris76543, maybe once she wins the nomination, you will finally admit she has a chance.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey Greg! Ever heard the sayin' "Ask a stupid Question?" You know the answer don't you. BTW, I have BOTH of her books but none of yourn, what's THAT tell you?

Posted by: kennpear | January 1, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Brigade says means testing ≡ welfare ≣ gubmint taking from those who earned it and giving to those who didn't.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 2:46 PM
----

Are you now citing me as an expert?

You're thinking of my attitude regarding Social Security reform. Granted, Medicare is in bad shape, but remember, the taxes we pay for Medicare and Social Security are not the same as federal income tax. I agree that MedicAID is already a welfare program. Medicare, like any form of health insurance, requires that the total of premiums paid in be sufficient to cover the costs paid out. The example that's being set does not make me comfortable with the idea of a "public option" to cover everyone. Government doesn't take in enough to cover the medical costs of the "insured" so they choose to run a deficit rather than raise the "premium". Insurance companies can't do that.

And talking about raising federal income tax and reducing the debt and bridges to nowhere and earmarks and all that stuff should not be confused with Medicare reform. Too different problems.

Social Security is a third problem that really needn't be a problem at all. Young people are being B.S.'d into believing Social Security is bankrupt, the trust fund is gone, and there will be no benefits for them when they retire. Hogwash. Contributions from current workers have always gone to fund retirees, and I'm not looking for the work force to disappear any time soon. The main threat to today's young comes from those who want to cut their benefits, supposedly in the interest of deficit reduction.

But Social Security does not add to the deficit. The SS trust fund is invested in federal bonds and is currently worth between 2 and 3 trillion dollars. Baby boomers will be fine if they can keep the hands of the politicians out of the till. Granted, we'll run into problems in about 30 years if we don't do something in the meantime. As some of my liberal friends(?) here have pointed out, there has been a growing wage inequality over the last generation or two, with most of the wage and salary increases going to the higher earners. The wage cap on Social Secutity needs to be raised (not eliminated), and there will be no need to cut anyone's benefits or raise the retirement age. And yes, I know there are fewer workers per retiree than there were in 1939.

Confusing the current economic crisis in this country with Social Security results from a campaign of disinformation put forth by those who would change it to a welfare program and use the SS taxes for some other purpose. The government would in essence be defaulting on its obligation.

Funding Social Security and the current underfunding of Medicare should be separate topics of consideration than general federal tax revenues and what they're wasted on.

Posted by: Brigade | January 1, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Hey Greg! Ever heard the sayin' "Ask as Stupid question?" You know the answer then. BTW, I have BOTH of her book but NONE of your; what's THAT tell you?

Posted by: kennpear | January 1, 2011 6:56 PM | Report abuse

To Greg, You and many others got Palin's books free. What I wanted to know about Palin is not something she wrote but what was written about her prior to Aug. 2008.

Posted by: cjackman | January 1, 2011 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

"The SS trust fund is invested in federal bonds and is currently worth between 2 and 3 trillion dollars."

Where does the government get the money when those bonds are cashed in?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 7:35 PM | Report abuse

"Are you now citing me as an expert?"

Don't be silly. Just a foil, that's all. So but are you saying means testing, whether for Medicare, Social Security or TARP isn't welfare?

Because I think it is. When the government mitigates moral hazard and hooks it to the tax base...as Hamilton saw it, the good faith in and implied powers of the Constitution could be used to add important obligations to and also fund the national debt...then you have the government in the wealth redistribution business. They didn't call it welfare, corporate or otherwise in those days, but it was those darn Federalists who did this. The agrarian slaveholder, Thomas Jefferson thought differently.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 8:12 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not looking for the work force to disappear any time soon."

I had that laser surgery, other people use corrective lenses.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 1, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

"The SS trust fund is invested in federal bonds and is currently worth between 2 and 3 trillion dollars."

Where does the government get the money when those bonds are cashed in?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 7:35 PM

---

Where government gets the money has nothing to do with Social Security being a drag on the deficit. If the money was borrowed to fund other priorities, then those priorities represent the drain. If you're suggesting the government should default on its Social Security obligations because it borrowed the money, squandered it and can't pay it back, maybe it should just default on all its obligations, including federal pensions and whatever it owes the Chinese. I think that's what they call bankruptcy.

By law, Social Security cannot add to the deficit---creative bookkeeping notwithstanding. If government takes the rather painless measure of raising the wage cap right now, they won't have to worry about Social Security and can focus on more pressing and legitimate problems.

Posted by: Brigade | January 1, 2011 8:24 PM | Report abuse

"Don't be silly. Just a foil, that's all. So but are you saying means testing, whether for Medicare, Social Security or TARP isn't welfare?"

---

No, I'm saying means testing effectively turns it into a welfare program. If all government programs were as effective as Social Security, we wouldn't have any problems. It has taken care of itself, thank you, without having to raid some other fund for its support. I'm sure that you, as a liberal who probably earns more than $104,000 annually, won't resent having that wage cap raised a bit so your children and grandchildren won't have to work until they're 70 and get reduced benefits. After all, you're always fussing about the rich not paying their "fair share" when it comes to funding boondoggles from the general tax fund. Here's your chance to do your part and know what the money's being used for.

Posted by: Brigade | January 1, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I wish I had a nickel for every political obituary written about Sarah Palin.

This author is standing in a line that stretches as far as the eye can see.

Sarah Palin 2012!

Posted by: HostileKnowledge | January 1, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

"When the government mitigates moral hazard and hooks it to the tax base...as Hamilton saw it, the good faith in and implied powers of the Constitution could be used to add important obligations to and also fund the national debt...then you have the government in the wealth redistribution business. They didn't call it welfare, corporate or otherwise in those days, but it was those darn Federalists who did this. The agrarian slaveholder, Thomas Jefferson thought differently."

I'm confused (not surprising, considering the quality [obvious lack thereof] of my previous comments. Some blame my low IQ, others my public school education. I blame both.) Are you writing what might occur? Or what has occurred?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

"Where government gets the money has nothing to do with Social Security being a drag on the deficit. If the money was borrowed to fund other priorities, then those priorities represent the drain. If you're suggesting the government should default on its Social Security obligations because it borrowed the money, squandered it and can't pay it back, maybe it should just default on all its obligations, including federal pensions and whatever it owes the Chinese. I think that's what they call bankruptcy. "

Isn't the inevitable retirement age increase and means testing essentially default?

And isn't SS currently borrowing from the General Fund to pay "benefits"? If so, then it is adding to the deficit, no? Pardon my ignorance on this. (again, shocker, right?)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 9:06 PM | Report abuse

kennpear, good points but I believe that Jonathan wrote this thread, not Greg.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 1, 2011 9:42 PM | Report abuse

I've been reading the comments above and don't understand how some people can just read something and ignore the content. Sarah said she made a typo when writing refudiate. BUT a few days earlier she said refudiate on the Sean Hannity show. For her to pretend she knew the word 'repudiate' and made a typo is one of MANY lies that hag has told or has written. Another thing...when her wayward daughters got in a hassle on Facebook with some posters, they were pretty darn nasty. Reminded me of their snarky mother who calls people "idiots" and "jerks" on her stupid reality show. But they used the "F" bomb, and homophobic words as well. She LIED about their involvement by saying they were retaliating about their comments regarding Trigg. Trigg was not even mentioned. That hag USES her kid to make excuses but who is raising him while she's out doing her "thang"? Her poor mother, no doubt. Seems like the woman (her mother) has suffered enough in life living in a house full of moose heads and bear skins. LOL

Posted by: CorrineK | January 1, 2011 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Hard to believe anyone is still talking about refudiate. Look, people, it's simple. When educated people hear uneducated people trying to fake it,we're not fooled. People who read books (and, ahem, newspapers) know the words refute and repudiate. People who don't read but have overheard words they don't quite know the definitions of try to use them and don't get them quite right.

Educated people trade knowing glances.

The problem with Palin isn't that she's stupid. She isn't. I think shrink2 is right when he says that she has average intelligence. Average, and no better,and average isn't good enough for the nuclear football.

No she isn;t stupid but she's incurious and lazy and disinclined to improve her knowledge, and that's worse than stupid. She's also viciously anti-intellectual and regards education as un-American.

Anyway, now the fun starts. Republicans who want their party to win the top slots in 2012 have to find a way to get her out of the picture. She'll resist that, being far too vain and incognizant of her limitations to step aside and wholly disinclined to do anything for the good of the GOP or the USA or any entity but herself, She'll keep amping up the victim act and just may treat us to a spectacular public meltdown or maybe set herself on fire.

And if the pressure from her lowbrow followers does get her the nomination, hallelujah.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 1, 2011 10:30 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc

Jack Cafferty got it right back then and nothing has changed. The masked avengers who pranked her said she and Britney Spears are the only two who never caught on. Imagine being compared to Britney.

Posted by: CorrineK | January 1, 2011 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Fantastic! Cao's here. The average commentor IQ went up exponentially! No offense CorrineK.

How ya doing buddy? Put us some knowledge!

" ...and average isn't good enough for the nuclear football."

As Barry amply demonstrates!

"And if the pressure from her lowbrow followers does get her the nomination, hallelujah."

You literally cannot get stupider, or more "lowbrow" if you will, than me, so that makes at least the two of us that want her to get the nomination! Cool! :-)

Dang, cao, we have a lot in common. Other than, of course, our IQ's. I've been tested: 71.

Again, glad your here!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 10:56 PM | Report abuse

And isn't SS currently borrowing from the General Fund to pay "benefits"? If so, then it is adding to the deficit, no? Pardon my ignorance on this. (again, shocker, right?)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 9:06 PM
---

Technically, no. If I owe you $500, and you need $50 of it today, you are not adding to my deficit---you are not borrowing from me. The deficit is all mine. Social Security cannot run a deficit. It's separate from the general fund. When money is extracted from your paycheck, SS tax and federal income tax are not meant for the same pot. When politicians look at red ink and decide they want to make Social Security and the general fund all part of the same pile, you can bet it's going to be bad for Social Security.

Posted by: Brigade | January 1, 2011 11:16 PM | Report abuse

"SS tax and federal income tax are not meant for the same pot. When politicians look at red ink and decide they want to make Social Security and the general fund all part of the same pile, you can bet it's going to be bad for Social Security."

But don't they do that already? I mean, starting with Johnson, the SS "trust fund" (snort) has been used to paper over the deficit. It's called the Unified Budget. Even Clinton's "surplus" was really a deficit when you exclude the SS monies.

I think it's safe to say it's "bad for Social Security."

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Whoops, here's the link:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 11:55 PM | Report abuse

But don't they do that already? I mean, starting with Johnson, the SS "trust fund" (snort) has been used to paper over the deficit. It's called the Unified Budget. Even Clinton's "surplus" was really a deficit when you exclude the SS monies.

I think it's safe to say it's "bad for Social Security."

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 1, 2011 11:53 PM

---

We agree. In non-government parlance, it's called cooking the books.

Posted by: Brigade | January 2, 2011 12:19 AM | Report abuse

"Are you writing what might occur? Or what has occurred?"

We are on the same page, it has occurred. That was the debate back then, it is over now. The federal government has been redistributing wealth all along, it is committed to the principle, even the purpose. I don't think this is a question.

Arguing whether the rich get too much or the poor get too much of other people's money is the only question. The rich can buy better cover, obviously.

The deficit ceiling will have to be raised soon. The over-committed budget is in trouble. Deciding which piece is solvent versus bankrupt, that is just three card monte. Anyone ready for QE3?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 2, 2011 12:26 AM | Report abuse

CorrineK, you ain't seen nasty until you see a tirade here by caothien9.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 2, 2011 12:27 AM | Report abuse

And yet military spending, more than every other country combined and in readiness for enemies and warfare three generations out of date, remains "off the table."

Meanwhile the financial caste reaps so much money from their parasitism that their *bonuses* dwarf the combined debt of 50 states.

But there's no such thing as financialization. That's just envy. You know, class warfare. Penalizing success.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 2, 2011 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Another milestone in Cold War 2.0

"The first oil pipeline linking the world's biggest oil producer, Russia, and the world's biggest consumer of energy, China, has begun operating." BBC

Apart from the question of Sarah Palin on point, can the decadent cronyism of our "market" capitalist state beat the state capitalists? Here, we have to go through the elaborate corruption choreography. There, the state owns the whole apparatus.

Cold War 1.0, they were not aware they could enter the "free" trade economy, they were afraid of finance capital. They thought they had to survive on their own and that if they actually got competitive they would lose. Now they know.

[not N Korea obviously, they are teaching the Russians and the Chinese about how not to do things as well or better than we have]


Posted by: shrink2 | January 2, 2011 12:50 AM | Report abuse

When China decided to bring Shanghai up to modern technological standards at a cost of $40 billion they didn't have to plead with a right wing operating under a fanatic opposition to government or with political movements reciting one-liners from a doddering old actor or deal with financial intermediaries wetting their beaks with half the money while contributing nothing to the process.

They just did it, and it's been a huge success.

But we have such a better system. We can own guns.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 2, 2011 3:34 AM | Report abuse

Reading the comments from Palin worshippers here is an amazing experience. The level of delusion is beyond anything I've ever seen in Amnerican politics. Is this how Hitler fooled the "good Germans"? The lack of critical thinking and judgment in the Palin crowd on display here is spectacular. And very, very sad.

Posted by: MarkFromOhio | January 2, 2011 5:31 AM | Report abuse

"And yet military spending, more than every other country combined and in readiness for enemies and warfare three generations out of date, remains "off the table.""

We realize you just make up stuff, but you'll have to try to make your fictions a little more believable than that.

Be happy. You live an idyllic life far away from all this corruption and avarice. None of your concern any more.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 2, 2011 6:34 AM | Report abuse

"The problem with Palin isn't that she's stupid. She isn't. I think shrink2 is right when he says that she has average intelligence. Average, and no better,and average isn't good enough for the nuclear football."

Average, huh. I suppose it would be too much to expect some actual substantiation of that claim that would start with what average intelligence is. You might want to take a look at the average person first.

If average intelligence isn't good enough, then you would have to admit that FDR and Truman were among those unfit to be Presidents. Kennedy and LBJ? Certainly no more than average. Joe Biden? Don't make me laugh. Below average. Al Gore? Worse grades than the "dunce" W.

"No she isn;t stupid but she's incurious and lazy and disinclined to improve her knowledge, and that's worse than stupid."

Again, this has become a rote talking point of the brain-dead left and has absolutely no shred of substantiation. What is your evidence that she's incurious and lazy? What has she read in the past year of five? She did graduate from the University of Idaho and rose from humble beginnings to be a Governor and national figure.

"She's also viciously anti-intellectual and regards education as un-American."

Viciously, huh? What is the evidence she is anti-intellectual? Is that the same as anti-elitist? Is she anti-intellectual because she doesn't have an Ivy degree? What is the evidence that she regards education as "un-American," and how would you substantiate that charge given that her father was a school teacher and that she she graduated from a university?

You need some new talking points, preferably some that aren't so comically stupid.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 2, 2011 7:03 AM | Report abuse

MarkFromOhio, what is sad (if you really are from Ohio) is your comparison of her and her supporters to Nazis. Talk about scare tactics. Do you really think this would be tantamount to the Fourth Reich?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 2, 2011 7:04 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1, luckily for us, he claims to not be voting for Obama in 2012.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 2, 2011 7:09 AM | Report abuse

"They just did it, and it's been a huge success."

Now you moved on from holding up the pre-WWII Soviet Union as a model to holding up the PRC?

Yeah, we must be crazy, thinking we have a better system of government than either of them. Sure, they slaughtered tens of millions of people, oppressed many more, and destroyed entire cultures and societies, but those are details and minor mishaps. Sure, they have hundreds of millions of people who still live in conditions of the dark ages, but when they want to do something they can "just do it."

In all seriousness, you revolt me, as you would any decent person, and your idolization of totalitarian oppressors and murderers is deeply offensive. I wish I could take you by the scruff of the neck and force you to observe close up the misery of the Chinese -- which I know something about and very personally -- those who aren't the Party favorites living in shiny buildings in Shanghai, the millions made destitute by their own "government," the millions made orphans by it, the hundreds of thousands who worship in caves because it is the only place they can hope to avoid detection.

You must really admire their wonderful environmentalism, too. When they want to destroy one of the world's great river systems and the geographical heart of their own ancient culture, they can "just do it," without the fuss of opposition.

You are a malignant being without conscience. Just shut up and go away. Your depravity adds nothing here.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 2, 2011 7:20 AM | Report abuse

What is the evidence she is anti-intellectual? Is that the same as anti-elitist? Is she anti-intellectual because she doesn't have an Ivy degree? What is the evidence that she regards education as "un-American," and how would you substantiate that charge given that her father was a school teacher and that she she graduated from a university?

==

Earlier you were demanding "define fair share." That's the Definition Dodge.

This time you''re demanding criminal-trial levels of substantiation. That's the Epistomology Dodge.

Gosh how do we know anyhting? There's so much room for doubt an' stuff.

The way we (note the plural, the flattery of imitation) know that Palin is anti-intellectual, that she doesn't read, that she regards education as un-American .. is from those things that come out of her mouth. They're called "words." And not only "refudiate."

Oh, define "elitist." Is an elitist someone with an education in an area unrelated to "ecoomics?"

(giggle)

Posted by: caothien9 | January 2, 2011 7:21 AM | Report abuse

Just shut up and go away. Your depravity adds nothing here.

==

Yet you read my posts with the loyalty of a fan club president, carefully edit them into detailed albeit low-content responses, even unto collating them from days ago, though I must say you're sorely lacking in orginal material, your latest response to me is very much like the very first. Barbie loves her new wardrobe and she has a date with Ken tonight.

I'm not going anywhere, tape-loop-boi. Go punch a wall.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 2, 2011 7:27 AM | Report abuse

You must really admire their wonderful environmentalism

==

and what does a Repuiblican fưckhead care about the environment?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 2, 2011 7:29 AM | Report abuse

At least we know how to spell economics.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 2, 2011 7:31 AM | Report abuse

Gosh the meanies are ganging up on me.

Sarah, can I borrow Trig for a minute? I need to play the victim.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 2, 2011 7:40 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1, here's what you are dealing with (just in case you missed this post of his from the filibuster reform thread):

"I'm with you shrink on the animal cruelty thing. Walking home after class one day in college I ran into some freshman kid throwing rocks at a squirrel for the amusement of two girls who thought it was funny. Wouldn't have been long before he broke the squirrel's spine.

I had something of a blackout and next thing I knew I had the kid on the ground and his arm twisted back at an angle arms don't go. Don't think the girls were amused. I'd popped his throwing arm out of the socket.

I walked home a different way for the next few weeks and didn't wear the same jacket anymore.

Cruelty to animals? Better not."

Talk about a failure to respond to Rx nutcase.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 2, 2011 7:41 AM | Report abuse

caothien9, I'm mean? Just admit it, you think that all hunters are cruel to (lower) animals.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 2, 2011 7:45 AM | Report abuse

I'm all for hunting, claw, I just think the hunters should kill each other. Win-win. I wouldn't be so confident that it's the beasts they kill who are the"lower," though.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 2, 2011 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Is "lower" what you meant by sneer quote?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 2, 2011 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Brigade, how is it that you were able to get on this guy's Troll Blocker?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 2, 2011 7:57 AM | Report abuse

MarkFromOhio, what is sad (if you really are from Ohio) is your comparison of her and her supporters to Nazis.

==

Those people who disrupted the town hall meetings and the ones who showed up to listen to Fiorina weren't exactly congruent with the Norman Rockwell vision of democracy, now, were they.

Mark's comparison isn't remotely hyperbolic, it's perfectly apt. The Palin people are latter day Brownshirts.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 2, 2011 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Have you bought your forever stamps yet? Looking around this morning for some investment advice and prognostications, I came across this.

Brigade, unusual as it seems, it appears we will be allies in the coming battle over Social Security.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"On that note, forever stamps provide the most conservative investors with a much more attractive alternative to zero interest checking accounts, low yielding Treasury bonds, or even inflation protected government securities (known as TIPS).

Given these stamps will always be completely liquid, the only way an investor can lose money on forever stamps is if the price of postage goes down. There may not be a single human on the planet who thinks that this is a likely scenario. On the other hand, if postage rates rise with inflation then the stamps are a very, very safe bet.

And unlike Treasury bonds or TIPS, investors do not have to pay a premium above face value for the privilege of buying stamps. While it is true that stamps do not pay interest, the extremely low rate offered by government securities should not fundamentally alter the investment calculations comparing bonds with stamps. More significantly, stamps are backed by an actual tangible service, postal delivery, whereas U.S. Treasury debt is backed by nothing but a printing press.

Forever stamps are about as close to a sure thing as most people will ever get. Over the past 10 years stamps are up 29%, while the S&P 500 is up a measly .1%. With labor and other costs continuing to mount inside the Post Office, there can be little doubt that many price hikes are coming. Minimum investment in forever stamps is just 44 cents, with no brokerage fees. Plus as an added bonus, if you use the stamps yourself, you pay no income tax on your capital gains.

Sure, without a federal bailout there is a chance the Post Office will go under, and those forever stamps will end up lining bird cages. However, given the track record of government bailouts and the clout of unionized postal workers, chances are very high that the Post Office will always get the bailouts it needs. As a result, forever stamps are a better bet than Treasury debt. They also have prettier pictures."

Posted by: lmsinca | January 2, 2011 8:51 AM | Report abuse

You lack subtlety, quarterback. You take anything I write and try to interpret it in the vilest possilble terms. I point out that the Bolsheviks leapt ahead centuries with the financial parasites out of the way and you try to play it to the audience as endorsement of Stalin's purges twenty years later. I note that the Chinese can get major public works accomplished without having to deal with brainless anti-spending people spouting Reagan one-liners and you play it to the audience as endorsement of the rape of Tibet.

This deliberately wild misinterpretation to discredit political opponents is, well, rather Soviet of you, but it's standard conservative online procedure (doesn't seem to be working, by the way). You're as dishonest as they come but you're also so ham-handed and overboard that your efforts end up being comedic.

Discussion with someone like you is impossible; there are only two poles for you, strictly orthodox free-market right-wing conformity or Maoism, nothing between.

You come from a party that votes down any government spending without any regard to its usefulness, effectiveness, or the benefit or the peopel, blindly niggardly, and in thirty years your party has reduced America from a land of opportunity to a grim and barren land of hopelessness and nihilism. Idiotic notions like that Callifornia initiative that requires supermajority approval for spending money are the death of prosperity. Post-Reagan America will never reach for greatness, will never explore space, hell, under Republican economics we can't even fix the roads anymore.

And oh, as for wanting to take me by the scruff of the neck, sorry I;m taken.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 2, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

How many Canadians use the US for health care each year?

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Phantoms-500x387.jpg

Posted by: bernielatham | January 2, 2011 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Fascinating piece on how the looters do it. Playing games with other peoples' money, your money, the money you earned is going to them one trade at a time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/business/02speed.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&hpw

“Markets are there for capital formation and long-term investment, not for gaming,” he says.

Thanks for the daily chuckle, asşwipe.

“Sometimes, too much technology without the ability to manage it effectively can yield some unintended consequences. We need to ask the hard questions about how much of this do we really need. It is the Wild, Wild West in trading...Mr. Lo suggests a need for a civilizing influence."

I've head of exterminating parasites, but I have not heard of civilized parasites.


Posted by: shrink2 | January 2, 2011 9:12 AM | Report abuse

All, a fresh open thread for you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/sunday_open_thread_15.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 2, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Sarah? Are you ok? She hasn't smeared any of her crap on Facebook since Xmas eve.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 2, 2011 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin hasn't smeared any of her crap on Facebook before Xmas eve either. But, have you seen the photos of "food" posted by Chris Fox on his Facebook? I think that's what he calls a sneer quote.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 2, 2011 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I know and that is what you call chum.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 2, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

As if your post about crap in the first place wasn't?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 2, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"Earlier you were demanding "define fair share." That's the Definition Dodge."

I think you mistake me for another. But it's typical of you to toss around such moral judgments using empty phrases you can't define. Let's call it the Semantic Dodge.

"This time you''re demanding criminal-trial levels of substantiation. That's the Epistomology Dodge."

Trial admissible evidence? Anything beyond your anal-extracted assertions would be an improvement. You're starting in an evidentiary hole, too, since the woman's father was a teacher, and she graduated from a university, making your assertions preposterous.

"Gosh how do we know anyhting? There's so much room for doubt an' stuff."

There's a long way between making wild-a** assertions contradicted by the known facts and epistemological crisis. But I wouldn't expect to find you anywhere short of the mouth of the abyss.

"The way we (note the plural, the flattery of imitation) know that Palin is anti-intellectual, that she doesn't read, that she regards education as un-American .. is from those things that come out of her mouth. They're called "words." And not only "refudiate.""

My seven-year old has better reasoning and argument skills than you have. By a wide margin.

What's really amusing is that you make pass these idiotic judgments based on Palin's "words," even while you constantly whine that you are judged by your own words, more of which momentarily.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 2, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"Yet you read my posts with the loyalty of a fan club president, carefully edit them into detailed albeit low-content responses, even unto collating them from days ago, though I must say you're sorely lacking in orginal material, your latest response to me is very much like the very first. Barbie loves her new wardrobe and she has a date with Ken tonight.

I'm not going anywhere, tape-loop-boi. Go punch a wall.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 2, 2011 7:27 AM | Report abuse"

No, I read some of your comments and take you to task because I think it's worthwhile to highlight the depravity of your views. No, I don't "edit" your comments, nor "collate" them, whatever that is supposed to mean. I just use google to retrieve them on a occasions where it's useful to expose your dishonesty, ignorance, and moral corruption.

Your whining about having your own statements draped around your neck won't change that.

"You must really admire their wonderful environmentalism

==

and what does a Repuiblican fưckhead care about the environment?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 2, 2011 7:29 AM | Report abuse"

Great argument, and your best, we can deduce. Have I mentioned lately your penchant for deflection of inconvenient points? Rather unfortunate you were lauding the most environmentally destructive government in the world for its ability to get things done, huh? You don't think things through very well.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 2, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"You lack subtlety, quarterback."

Haha.

"You take anything I write and try to interpret it in the vilest possilble terms."

There was no interpretation involved. Your own words say it all. Here was your comment:

"When China decided to bring Shanghai up to modern technological standards at a cost of $40 billion they didn't have to plead with a right wing operating under a fanatic opposition to government or with political movements reciting one-liners from a doddering old actor or deal with financial intermediaries wetting their beaks with half the money while contributing nothing to the process.

They just did it, and it's been a huge success.

But we have such a better system. We can own guns.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 2, 2011 3:34 AM | Report abuse"

Now you want to try the Subtlety Dodge and pretend this doesn't mean what it says. See, the reason why they don't have to fuss with opposition or "doddering actors" is that opposition is illegal and will result in imprisonment if not execution.
That's the system you were suggsting is better than the USA's, just like you previously lauded the results of the Soviet's liquidation of the "banker castes" (and millions of others). If you're going to say it, own up to it, coward.

"This deliberately wild misinterpretation to discredit political opponents is, well, rather Soviet of you,"

Again, he doth project too much.

"Discussion with someone like you is impossible; there are only two poles for you, strictly orthodox free-market right-wing conformity or Maoism, nothing between."

See above. There are ranges of acceptable if misguided opinion. I have no problem discussing issues with people like lmsinca who are far to the left. Much of that opinion is socialism in one form or another. You are different in kind, based on your own words . . . and actions. You idolize totalitarian regimes and one-party states, and have openly and repeatedly wished for mass murder as an economic development tool.

I wish I were exaggerating, but readers here know I'm not.

As for the rest of your blather about a government supposedly starved for money, government at all levels spends vastly more today than at any time in the past, and government spending has never for even one year declined or even failed materially to grow.

You are where you belong. Don't evern come back.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 2, 2011 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"Mark's comparison isn't remotely hyperbolic, it's perfectly apt. The Palin people are latter day Brownshirts."

And this wretch imputes Manicheanism to the people on the other side.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 2, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Great job, quarterback1.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 2, 2011 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"Is Palin Toast?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

The mere fact that you stupid, liberal media wanks are continuing to ask a question like this just proves that she is in your head and under your skin, 24/7.

You dumb fools.... In your relentless pursuit to attempt to destroy her and show off to your dwindling readers how "smart" you are, you couldn't leave her alone. And now you've helped her create a round-the-clock, all-over-the-internet franchise, which draws more and more people in all the time.

I LOVE IT!! I love seeing her name and her activities broadcast every day, so keep up the criticism and nasty comments. You are helping to create more fans than detractors. HAHA!

"But enough about me, let's talk about you. What do YOU think of Sarah Palin?"

...and that is why she will be our next president.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Stupid libs! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Posted by: QuineGeology | January 2, 2011 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Palin's colleagues, Dana Perino, Juan Williams, Karl Rove, Don Imus, Kristol and Krauthammer are doing a fine job describing her.

Posted by: cjackman | January 2, 2011 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Sure, Palin will be our next president ... because people talk about her. Right.

Pity Whitney Houston only got to serve one term.

I wonder how Palin does in the primaries against Lindsay Lohan?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 3, 2011 1:43 AM | Report abuse

I guess, lucky for Sarah, neither Whitney nor Lindsay are running for President. As I've pointed out, already, my estimate of how many votes, demographics and percentages are there (IF she runs).

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 3, 2011 7:53 AM | Report abuse

cjackman, I don't consider them her colleagues. Besides which "Palin will announced" late or go third party, right?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 3, 2011 8:02 AM | Report abuse

shrink2: "Sarah? Are you ok? She hasn't smeared any of her crap on Facebook since Xmas eve."

Gotta wonder what's going on. It's not like Sarah to stay silent after Michael Vick/Snooki comparisons and a threat by Kathy Griffin (hag) to target Willow.

Sarah's been underground for 10 days now. Is she enjoying the holidays, helping Bristol pack for AZ, or adapting her AK resignation speech to let "real Americans" know she'll be able to do more for them outside the confines of a political office. Time will tell - Happy New Year.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 3, 2011 12:25 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12:"chris76543, maybe once she wins the nomination, you will finally admit she has a chance."

As with O'Donnell, Angle, Miller, and Paladino - nomination increases chance, but I think Republicans will be more likely to vote in presidential primaries after what happened in midterms.

Posted by: chris76543 | January 3, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Are you registered Republican?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 3, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

to clawrence12: When G. Wills, talking head on Fox, says that Palin is unelectable I would consider that equal to burnt toast.

Posted by: cjackman | January 3, 2011 2:02 PM | Report abuse

cjackman, is atheist George Willis her colleague now too? I can quote plenty of Democrats who were critical of Obama's chances in 2007 too (including one of Hillary's State co-chairman who wondered aloud about his past cocaine use). I think that Hillary even asked if America really wanted Obama answering the phone in the White House at 2AM. Besides, let see if "Palin will announced" even.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 3, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

To clawrence12: Palin's supporters have been loyal from the very beginning when Mccain selected her as his VP. Mccain spoke to her once on the phone and met her once. Without the vetting process he selected her. Two poor interviews, one debate, two books, a reality show, gig on Fox, tweets & facebook is her method of communications.
When I heard Palin's speech back in 2008 and she said "...I guess a small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer except you have actual responsibilities"... I was curious about her career path and tried to learn as much as I could by searching the Alaska Newspapers, court papers etc.
It will be a very interesting Republican Primary.

Posted by: cjackman | January 3, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Not a surprise you don't answer my questions.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 3, 2011 5:59 PM | Report abuse

To clarence12: I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it?

Posted by: cjackman | January 3, 2011 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Is that a question for me (oh, never mind, you won't answer that either).

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 3, 2011 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Math says that if she runs she will win by a landslide.
I though, certainly, do not expect my liberal friends to believe in math, therefore i expect the usual tirade of obscenities with no substantiation.
If that makes them feel better and stick to their parallel universe reality, so be it.
As for running, the arrogance and incompetence of the Obama administration will continue to stoke the tea party-like fire.
As for Obama himself, he will soon chose to ignore the message of November's election and will continue down the path of corruption and destruction of wealth that has been the hallmark of his tenure.
As a consequence therefore, the GOP will be forced to select a candidate with strong leadership. Hence Palin.
No one else in the GOP has the semblance of leadership that Palin exhibits.
Certainly not the likes of Lindsay Graham or Mitch McConnel, or even Bohener or Huckabee, etc.
After all it takes a Carter to get a Reagan, so it takes an Obama to get a Palin.
Now feel free to bring in the insults

Posted by: Aldol | January 3, 2011 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Aldol, I posted my best guess as to the vote totals, percentages, and demographics for her if she runs. You have at least one friend here.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 3, 2011 10:08 PM | Report abuse

2008 States + NC & SC = 200 not a landslide yet. Since the election is won by math how about a hint?

Posted by: cjackman | January 4, 2011 12:58 AM | Report abuse

How about you answer my questions to you first?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 4, 2011 8:46 AM | Report abuse

For everyone else, McCain-Palin won 22 States in 2008 (including South Carolina). Now, some of those will be harder to win this time around. But, don't forget that those 22 States gained 9 Electoral Votes for 2012. So, if we assume all of the same States as 2008, also that North Carolina goes for Palin and all 5 Electoral Votes from Nebraska this time, she actually starts with 185 instead of 173. She only needs 84 more Electoral Votes. The obvious target is Florida (now has 29 Electoral Votes), which is why ANY Republican nominee has to seriously consider Rubio for the VP spot, maybe even Bloomberg. If she can steal Florida from Obama's column, then she would only need 55 more Electoral Votes. Stealing Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania would do it. Or, even just one of those States and three or four other pickups. Keep in mind, this time, if the GOP can hold the House and no candidate gets 270 or more, she wins any tie.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 4, 2011 11:02 AM | Report abuse

To clawrence12: Thank you for the SC correction. Obama received 365 electoral votes, I considered that a landslide. Rubio can rely on the older Cuban vote. He'll have a problem with the Hispanic voters and the younger Cubans. Compare Obama's % of Hispanic votes in Florida in 2008 to Rubio's in 2010. Also, Rubio can't count on the Catholic vote.
I don't see Bloomberg and Palin as a team.

Posted by: cjackman | January 4, 2011 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 4, 2011 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Lindsey Graham, Alan Keyes.

Posted by: cjackman | January 4, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Lindsey Graham, Alan Keyes.

Posted by: cjackman | January 4, 2011 3:33 PM | Report abuse

For anyone else BESIDES cjackman, Palin also has another demographic she can appeal to: Reagan Democrats (or, as Liam-still pointed out above, at least for the nomination, with an assist by these types of people http://www.primariesforpalin.com ; )

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 5, 2011 8:22 AM | Report abuse

It's time to feed the toast to the birds and hope they don't have the same fate as the black crows.

Posted by: cjackman | January 5, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

If you are referring to the red-winged blackbirds in Arkansas, those were not crows.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 6, 2011 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company