News Sarah Palin: Will She Run for President in 2012?

[Al68]

Was under the impression you are pro-life...

I don't know how you got that impression. I'm a libertarian.

I don't know the details of the tax cuts in terms of percentages, but I know Bush did everything from cut the capital gains and dividend tax rates, cut all income tax rates, the Child Income Tax Credit was doubled, and a few other things I think. So everyone got helped by them.

The Bush tax cuts actually shifted the tax burden from the poor and middle class to the rich. The only way they get that 40% figure is to look at it backwards, as if the future tax revenues already belong to government, add it up, then act like they are giving money to someone. Just delusional Marxist logic.

 

[CAC1001]

I couldn't care less what Palin's political views are. It's quotations like this (from the Sean Hannity show) that just drive me nuts:

What, Sarah?! What the heck do you recognize?! Yaaagh!

Yeah, she'll make statements where you go, "HUH!? What did you just say!?"

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah, she'll make statements where you go, "HUH!? What did you just say!?"

It sounds like she would have made a great VP (Biden)

 

[Al68]

It sounds like she would have made a great VP (Biden)

Times 2.

 

[CAC1001]

I don't know how you got that impression. I'm a libertarian.

Maybe I got you mixed up with someone else.

 

[mheslep]

Being libertarian is not incompatible with being pro-life. Ron Paul is "an unshakable foe of abortion" for instance. He's also said "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." I certainly agree him on the latter.

Just like all the other abortion arguments, the libertarian view depends on the definition of when people become people, and people have the protection from harm under the law, as libertarianism is not anarchism. I'd say the libertarian view also generally holds that the Federal government has no business striking down state laws with invented powers, and likewise the states are free to have their own laws in this regard.

 

[WhoWee]

Being libertarian is not contradictory with being pro-life. Ron Paul is "an unshakable foe of abortion" for instance. He's also said "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." I certainly agree him on the latter.

Just like all the other abortion arguments, the libertarian view depends on the definition of when people become people, and people have the protection from harm under the law, as libertarianism is not anarchism. I'd say the libertarian view also generally holds that the Federal government has no business striking down state laws with invented powers, and likewise the states are free to have their own laws in this regard.

After reading this and
Turbo:
"I said that I believe that If McCain had grabbed someone of Lugar's stature and reputation instead of Palin, he would be president. Lots of people I know were scared to death of the thought of a vice-president Palin next in line for the presidency after someone who had survived multiple bouts of cancer. I think McCain's campaign screwed up big-time with her selection. They should have played to their base, and gathered all their normal votes plus all the on-the-fence votes that ended up going to Obama. McCain and Lugar (or a VP candidate of similar stature) would have been very comfortable, safe-feeling place to put your vote, unlike a ticket featuring Obama (not that well-known) or Palin (interesting but totally unknown).

BTW, Goldwater was a Libertarian and was dead-set against having abortion-rights, etc decided by any religious figure. I don't think an Alaskan evangelical secessionist would have appealed to him. "

I'm still motivated to label myself an "Unrepresented Angry Independent" - set my own rules.

 

[Al68]

Being libertarian is not incompatible with being pro-life. Ron Paul is "an unshakable foe of abortion" for instance. He's also said "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." I certainly agree him on the latter.

Just like all the other abortion arguments, the libertarian view depends on the definition of when people become people, and people have the protection from harm under the law, as libertarianism is not anarchism.

I agree with that, and I agree that a fetus is a person. But even if a fetus is a person, it has no right to force another person to "host" it. The pro-life side demands rights for fetus' that no other person has, or could have, in a libertarian society.

Semantically, one could argue that a libertarian government could prohibit directly killing a fetus, but could not prohibit simply cutting/crimping the cord, knowing that it will die, then just wait until the fetus is a corpse instead of a person. But as a practical matter, that's a moot point, and an inhumane alternative to the normal abortion procedure, especially if it's late term.

But I must admit that abortion is a tough issue. It, far more than any other issue in my mind, has a legitimate, honest, and compelling argument on each side. That makes it very different from most issues.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Semantically, one could argue that a libertarian government could prohibit directly killing a fetus, but could not prohibit simply cutting/crimping the cord, knowing that it will die, then just wait until the fetus is a corpse instead of a person. But as a practical matter, that's a moot point, and an inhumane alternative to the normal abortion procedure, especially if it's late term.

In this libertarian government you're imagining, could you simply decline to feed an infant in similar fashion?

 

[Al68]

In this libertarian government you're imagining, could you simply decline to feed an infant in similar fashion?

You can do that now in the U.S. In fact, a mother can just leave her baby at the hospital when it's born. No one is forced to care for a baby, but since we have plenty of volunteers to adopt, it's a moot point.

Of course, if the mother voluntarily has custody (and its obligations), failure to feed it while in her custody would certainly be neglect, but that's a different issue. She is free to give up custody. After birth, a baby needs care, but not from a specific person against their will. And there are extensive waiting lists of volunteers.

 

[turbo]

In this libertarian government you're imagining, could you simply decline to feed an infant in similar fashion?

We had a similar situation in which some cultists from MA moved to ME and declined to get adequate medical care for their ill infant because "God will provide" and they wanted nothing to do with modern medicine. It's been a few years, so I don't know if I can dig up the links, but it was in all the papers. It was really sad.

The defense couched the actions of the parents as an exercise of religious freedom.

OK, found a link to the Body of Christ.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical8.htm

 

[Evo]

This thread has gone off topic, abortion is too closely tied to religious discussion. So please return to discussing Palin.

I wrote this before you posted turbo, not aimed at you.

 

[WhoWee]

This looked like a fun way to get back to the topic of Sarah Palin...
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/86763/20101129/sarah-palin-criticized-for-beating-fish-to-death-on-show.htm
"Sarah Palin criticized for beating fish to death on show"

 

[ThomasT]

Having done a bit more research on Palin, I'm of the opinion that she very well could be elected to the Presidency. She apparently appeals to a lot of people -- re various polls I've looked at. (Not necessarily many of PF members. I'm guessing that most Americans don't frequent PF.) She's got a reality television show with approx. 5 million viewers. She's in the newsmagazines, the newspapers, and doing television spots that are viewed by millions. She's become familiar to most of America, I'm assuming. That's a big part of running for public office isn't it? Familiarity. Name recognition and association with familiar values. (Campaigning for Ralph Nader during a couple of his candidacies, most people that I talked to said they had never heard of him.) I'm guessing that most people associate Palin with being a regular person, not much different from them, who shares their values and would do what they think is the right thing to do in most situations.

If the American people could elect George W. Bush to two terms, then it seems reasonable to me to suppose that they might elect Sarah Palin to at least one term. The only question seems to be whether or not the country is ready to elect a woman to the Presidency. My guess is that, assuming she wants to be elected to the Presidency, given the current level of media exposure, she can be the President.

From my own personal perspective she seems a bit phony. But then so do most politicians. And I have to wonder if that's necessarily a bad thing. After all, aren't all of us a bit phony now and then? It does seem to be a necessary requirement for election to, and holding, public office. In terms of the notion of a country of, by and for the people, we, the people, seem to understand, if not necessarily want, this, because, after all, these are the people that we elect.

Ok, there's certainly more to it than that. But I'll just stop here. Opinion: an emphatic yes, Sarah Palin could be the next US President.

 

[WhoWee]

Having done a bit more research on Palin, I'm of the opinion that she very well could be elected to the Presidency. She apparently appeals to a lot of people -- re various polls I've looked at. (Not necessarily many of PF members. I'm guessing that most Americans don't frequent PF.) She's got a reality television show with approx. 5 million viewers. She's in the newsmagazines, the newspapers, and doing television spots that are viewed by millions. She's become familiar to most of America, I'm assuming. That's a big part of running for public office isn't it? Familiarity. Name recognition and association with familiar values. (Campaigning for Ralph Nader during a couple of his candidacies, most people that I talked to said they had never heard of him.) I'm guessing that most people associate Palin with being a regular person, not much different from them, who shares their values and would do what they think is the right thing to do in most situations.

If the American people could elect George W. Bush to two terms, then it seems reasonable to me to suppose that they might elect Sarah Palin to at least one term. The only question seems to be whether or not the country is ready to elect a woman to the Presidency. My guess is that, assuming she wants to be elected to the Presidency, given the current level of media exposure, she can be the President.

From my own personal perspective she seems a bit phony. But then so do most politicians. And I have to wonder if that's necessarily a bad thing. After all, aren't all of us a bit phony now and then? It does seem to be a necessary requirement for election to, and holding, public office. In terms of the notion of a country of, by and for the people, we, the people, seem to understand, if not necessarily want, this, because, after all, these are the people that we elect.

Ok, there's certainly more to it than that. But I'll just stop here. Opinion: an emphatic yes, Sarah Palin could be the next US President.

The question might be - is the US ready for a female President? I thought Hillary tried too soon. Here is an overview of female candidates in the various 2010 elections.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/elections/candidates_2010.php

From the list, I think Meg Whitman would be an interesting candidate - had she won. Her support outside of CA appears to have been greater than inside the state, and people LOVE ebay.

Missing from your example is the election of President Obama. He ran from the mid-point of his freshman term, very little experience, and quite unknown - yet the voters embraced him.

 

[Evo]

Having done a bit more research on Palin, I'm of the opinion that she very well could be elected to the Presidency. She apparently appeals to a lot of people -- re various polls I've looked at. (Not necessarily many of PF members. I'm guessing that most Americans don't frequent PF.) She's got a reality television show with approx. 5 million viewers. She's in the newsmagazines, the newspapers, and doing television spots that are viewed by millions. She's become familiar to most of America, I'm assuming. That's a big part of running for public office isn't it?

Oh, I thought your were talking about Paris Hilton. Actually Palin's show only got that handful of viewers the first day from curiosity seekers, the next show dropped to half that already.

Honestly, if your list about what the "right stuff" to become President of the US were true, the winner of the next American Idol would be our new President.

Thomas, something you and WhoWee both failed to bring up as a quality that is mandatory for President, and why Obama won - Intelligence.

 

[BobG]

Oh, I thought your were talking about Paris Hilton. Actually Palin's show only got that handful of viewers the first day from curiosity seekers, the next show dropped to half that already.

Honestly, if your list about what the "right stuff" to become President of the US were true, the winner of the next American Idol would be our new President.

Thomas, something you and WhoWee both failed to bring up as a quality that is mandatory for President, and why Obama won - Intelligence.

Intelligence is mandatory?

George W Bush vs Al Gore?

Perhaps not a fair analysis since I have no idea what Bush's intelligence level is. Still, considering he quit drinking and first started taking a serious look at life at the age of 40 and that he was elected President only 14 years later, you at least have a competition between a 14-year-old and an adult.

Intellect isn't a mandatory requirement for anything.

 

[Evo]

Intelligence is mandatory?

George W Bush vs Al Gore?

Perhaps not a fair analysis since I have no idea what Bush's intelligence level is. Still, considering he quit drinking and first started taking a serious look at life at the age of 40 and that he was elected President only 14 years later, you at least have a competition between a 14-year-old and an adult.

Intellect isn't a mandatory requirement for anything.

So true, but you've got to admit that lack of intelligence was one of the major strikes against her.

I love this video.



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

 

[Dembadon]

So true, but you've got to admit that lack of intelligence was one of the major strikes against her.

I love this video.



L8__aXxXPVc

This is another good one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk

 

[WhoWee]

Thomas, something you and WhoWee both failed to bring up as a quality that is mandatory for President, and why Obama won - Intelligence.

I'm not as convinced that Obama carried the election because of his intelligence - now his personality is/was certainly a factor. That aside, one of the reasons I think Meg Whitman would have been a strong national candidate was her business success with ebay - I assumed she is intelligent (but who knows?).

 

[mheslep]

This is another good one:

Why are the comments from some pampered zillionaire Hollywood actor 'good'?

 

[WhoWee]

This is another good one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk

Did the CBS reporter quiz him on why he's talking about dinosaurs 4,000 years ago or banning books? Did she say either of those things - or did the actor hear those things somewhere - and repeat them as facts?

Personally, I worry about Obama's lack of experience (also only 2 years (as a Senator - not a Governor) and never ran anything - not even little, itty bitty Wasila) and Biden's unpredictibility.

 

[turbo]

Why are the comments from some pampered zillionaire Hollywood actor 'good'?

His comments were well thought-out. That's what made them good. The fact that he is a movie star gets him some public exposure that the rest of us don't get.

Palin gets exposure, too, though she can barely string two coherent thoughts together. She remembers her talking-points and buzz-words and tries to get them all in, regardless of their relevance - thus the oddly disjointed non-sequitur speaking style. The US public has a fixation with "stars". Palin is a "star" because she ran for VP. Her daughter is a "star" because she is an abstinence-only unwed mother whose mother ran for VP.

I would rather sit down and have a long political discussion with Matt Damon than either of those two Alaskan "stars".

 

[WhoWee]

His comments were well thought-out. That's what made them good. The fact that he is a movie star gets him some public exposure that the rest of us don't get.

Palin gets exposure, too, though she can barely string two coherent thoughts together. She remembers her talking-points and buzz-words and tries to get them all in, regardless of their relevance - thus the oddly disjointed non-sequitur speaking style. The US public has a fixation with "stars". Palin is a "star" because she ran for VP. Her daughter is a "star" because she is an abstinence-only unwed mother whose mother ran for VP.

I would rather sit down and have a long political discussion with Matt Damon than either of those two Alaskan "stars".

The expected lifespan of McCain, the dinosaur nonsense, and the banning of books all sounded like talking points to me?

 

[turbo]

The expected lifespan of McCain, the dinosaur nonsense, and the banning of books all sounded like talking points to me?

At the time that clip was recorded, all those "talking points" were current-affairs. Topics of interest that hit the media and the blogs. Was he not supposed to mention them? It would be like me slamming you for mentioning Charles Rangel's ethics violations and speculating about his punishment (or lack of).

 

[Dembadon]

Why are the comments from some pampered zillionaire Hollywood actor 'good'?

Did you watch the clip? I share his concerns, apart from any judgments I have about his profession, as if they should matter anyway.

The expected lifespan of McCain, the dinosaur nonsense, and the banning of books all sounded like talking points to me?

So what? Those things are important to people.

 

[Dembadon]

Did the CBS reporter quiz him on why he's talking about dinosaurs 4,000 years ago or banning books? Did she say either of those things - or did the actor hear those things somewhere - and repeat them as facts?

Did you watch the clip? He never asserted that Mrs. Palin made any claims about dinosaurs. He said "...[he'd] like to know..." whether or not she believes it, which is the correct position to take if he'd heard it second-hand.

Personally, I worry about Obama's lack of experience (also only 2 years (as a Senator - not a Governor) and never ran anything - not even little, itty bitty Wasila) and Biden's unpredictibility.

What does Obama have to do with any of this?

 

[mheslep]

I would rather sit down and have a long political discussion with Matt Damon than either of those two Alaskan "stars".

The US public has a fixation with "stars".

So do you apparently.

 

[turbo]

So do you apparently.

Nope, only persons in and of themselves. Slamming someone because he is an actor is a poor form of reverse discrimination. I don't care what he does for a living - his expressions of concern about Palin's beliefs (she is an end-times evangelical!) and his reference to her banning or attempting to ban "Pastor I am Gay", and his concern about her possible ascendancy to the Oval Office should McCain die were all current-events during the campaign and every political geek that I know (left and right) were discussing them. He got a pulpit for his concerns because of what he does for a living (make multi-million-dollar blockbuster movies), but that does not mean that he is stupid, out-of-touch, or incapable of holding intelligently though-out opinions.

 

[WhoWee]

Did you watch the clip? He never asserted that Mrs. Palin made any claims about dinosaurs. He said "...[he'd] like to know..." whether or not she believes it, which is the correct position to take if he'd heard it second-hand.

What does Obama have to do with any of this?

Where did Damon hear about the dinosaurs and why wouldn't a reporter challenge his source?

 

[Evo]

Did the CBS reporter quiz him on why he's talking about dinosaurs 4,000 years ago or banning books? Did she say either of those things - or did the actor hear those things somewhere - and repeat them as facts?

Personally, I worry about Obama's lack of experience (also only 2 years (as a Senator - not a Governor) and never ran anything - not even little, itty bitty Wasila) and Biden's unpredictibility.

No, she said it was 6,000 years ago and that she believed that dinosaurs and men walked the Earth together, according to Wasilla music teacher Philip Munger.

Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-palinreligion28

Since being tagged as VP she has been careful about going on record with her beliefs.

 

[Evo]

What does Obama have to do with any of this?

It's a tactic some people use when they can't defend their position, they try to change the direction of the discussion by throwing in off topic comments.

The discussion is Palin, unless Obama is quoting Palin or you're posting a quote he made about Palin, it's off topic and will be deleted.

 

[Dembadon]

Obama is relevant because we knew very little about him either.

I didn't intend for the thread to be a comparison between President Obama and Mrs. Palin. I probably should have said that in the OP.

Where did Damon hear about the dinosaurs and why wouldn't a reporter challenge his source?

I'm not sure where he heard about it, but he implied that he didn't know whether or not she believed it, and that he would like to know. There is no claim made for which a source is required.

 

[Evo]

I didn't intend for the thread to be a comparison between President Obama and Mrs. Palin. I probably should have said that in the OP.



I'm not sure where he heard about it, but he implied that he didn't know whether or not she believed it, and that he would like to know. There is no claim made for which a source is required.

See my post above for the answers.

 

[WhoWee]

No, she said it was 6,000 years ago and that she believed that dinosaurs and men walked the Earth together, according to Wasilla music teacher Philip Munger.



http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-palinreligion28

Since being tagged as VP she has been careful about going on record with her beliefs.

Damon said 4,000 years on the video and apparently wasn't challenged.

 

[Evo]

Damon said 4,000 years on the video and apparently wasn't challenged.

Why did he need to be challeged? Damon said he wanted to know what Palin thought, nowhere did he come out and say "Palin said dinosaurs roamed the Earth 4,000 years ago".

If he had, he'd have been off by 2,000 years. According to the University Professor that knows her she said 6,000 years ago. Then it would have made sense for the reporter to ask "are you sure she said 4,000 & not 6,000?".

 

[turbo]

Damon said 4,000 years on the video and apparently wasn't challenged.

Whats a couple of thousand years between young-earthers? Palin's church is an end-times evangelical ministry, and they have hosted a minister who practices exorcisms, and who orchestrated the banishment of a woman from her own village that he claimed was possessed. These people are not strung very tightly. Palin reportedly told the Wasilla music teacher that she had seen pictures of dinosaur tracks with human tracks in them. If she is going to be a heart-beat or a bad biopsy away from the presidency, it would be nice to know what her beliefs are. Some end-times sects not only travel to Israel - they support the most militant forces in Israel in the belief that a ME conflagration would be a good thing, triggering Jesus' return and unleashing Armageddon. Would you want such a person to be holding our country's launch codes?

 

[BobG]

Personally, I worry about Obama's lack of experience (also only 2 years (as a Senator - not a Governor) and never ran anything - not even little, itty bitty Wasila) and Biden's unpredictibility.

One of the knocks against Palin is her experience. I think it's valid to compare her experience to Obama's. In fact, I found it very frustrating that the three leading Democratic candidates had very little experience.

Without past experience, a candidate has a tough hurdle to show they're capable of being President. I think Obama met that hurdle, as he certainly showed he had enough poise to handle the pressure; the ability to handle uncomfortable questions.

Palin didn't meet that hurdle, nor does she currently. As soon as she has to deviate from a script, she starts verbally spinning the wheels, delaying for time; hence her very bizarre style of speaking in non-scripted situations. There is just no way she would be capable of handling herself when dealing with other world leaders.

Having a leader incapable of speaking wouldn't be unprecedented, however. Anyone planning on seeing the movie, "The King's Speech"? That looks pretty interesting. Of course, even in that situation, King George VI eventually learned to speak without stuttering.

 

[turbo]

As soon as she has to deviate from a script, she starts verbally spinning the wheels, delaying for time; hence her very bizarre style of speaking in non-scripted situations. There is just no way she would be capable of handling herself when dealing with other world leaders.

I sure would hate to be an interpreter at an international conference trying to make sense of her "remarks" so that my country's leaders could make sense of what she is saying. Native English-speakers with a good grasp of phony down-home colloquialisms can't make sense of that word-hash - how could it be made intelligible to someone who speaks only Cantonese, Urdu, or Swahili?

 

[WhoWee]

Why did he need to be challeged? Damon said he wanted to know what Palin thought, nowhere did he come out and say "Palin said dinosaurs roamed the Earth 4,000 years ago".

If he had, he'd have been off by 2,000 years. According to the University Professor that knows her she said 6,000 years ago. Then it would have made sense for the reporter to ask "are you sure she said 4,000 & not 6,000?".

The video clip has "CBS News" labels throughout. I'm not sure if he was being interviewed on 60 Minutes or a morning program or on the evening news - I didn't see that level of identification? If turbo is correct and the 6,000 years was widely discussed - then a 4,000 year comment should of at a minimum been challenged to meet the generally discussed standard - as you indicated. If nothing else they could've had a second laugh?

I really don't care to defend Palin or things she says (or does). I just think the reporting on her often reaches the point of absolute and petty nonsense - take my earlier post about her being cruel to fish. I have to stop and laugh everytime I think about her "beating" a fish?

 

[Evo]

I really don't care to defend Palin or things she says (or does). I just think the reporting on her often reaches the point of absolute and petty nonsense - take my earlier post about her being cruel to fish. I have to stop and laugh everytime I think about her "beating" a fish?

Honestly, I don't think there is any reason for that woman to be seen, heard, of spoken of, yet she insists on putting herself out there, so she is fair game.

 

[WhoWee]

Honestly, I don't think there is any reason for that woman to be seen, heard, of spoken of, yet she insists on putting herself out there, so she is fair game.

Come now, the fish beating story is funny.

 

[lisab]

Come now, the fish beating story is funny.

It is funny, I agree.

But c'mon, every time we turn around it's Palin, Palin, Palin. Enough already, I've seen more than I want to see!

 

[turbo]

It is funny, I agree.

But c'mon, every time we turn around it's Palin, Palin, Palin. Enough already, I've seen more than I want to see!

Well, lately, it's been Bristol, Bristol, Bristol. I only watched a couple of clips, but if she is a dancer, I am a world-class neurosurgeon. As noted earlier, the US has a pop-culture mind-set that makes people famous for just being famous.

Sarah Palin is crafty and ambitious from all accounts (if not that well-informed), but I'd much rather vote for Tina Fey for president. Maybe I'll start a poll...

 

[mugaliens]

...I'd much rather vote for Tina Fey for president. Maybe I'll start a poll...

I think you did, and I'll paraphrase here what I posted there.

Palin has the training and the temperament to be a political leader, although I question her selection because of both her outspokenness as well as the fact she quit the governorship (although I do understand why paying tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars defending against frivilous lawsuits would get real old, real fast).

Fey not only possesses neither the temperament nor the training, and her demeanor is comedic, and replete with theater, little more.

 

[turbo]

I think you did, and I'll paraphrase here what I posted there.

Palin has the training and the temperament to be a political leader, although I question her selection because of both her outspokenness as well as the fact she quit the governorship (although I do understand why paying tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars defending against frivilous lawsuits would get real old, real fast).

Fey not only possesses neither the temperament nor the training, and her demeanor is comedic, and replete with theater, little more.

Unfortunately, Palin seems to suffer from a special hick form of Tourettes. Ask her a serious policy question and she will pretend to take a stab at it, only to degenerate into a stream of stream of "hockey mom", "momma grizzly" populism, and grin at the end as if she just scored a home-run.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Ask her a serious policy question and she will pretend to take a stab at it

An experienced politician will simply answer the question they wanted to be asked.

 

[WhoWee]

Unfortunately, Palin seems to suffer from a special hick form of Tourettes. Ask her a serious policy question and she will pretend to take a stab at it, only to degenerate into a stream of stream of "hockey mom", "momma grizzly" populism, and grin at the end as if she just scored a home-run.

What are the actual rules of moderation in this thread when turbo can make posts like this?

and this:

"Well, lately, it's been Bristol, Bristol, Bristol. I only watched a couple of clips, but if she is a dancer, I am a world-class neurosurgeon. As noted earlier, the US has a pop-culture mind-set that makes people famous for just being famous.

If Bristol wants to keep her brand hot, she'll have to start clubbing with Linsay Lohan and "forget" her underwear a few times.

Sarah Palin is crafty and ambitious from all accounts (if not that well-informed), but I'd much rather vote for Tina Fey for president. Maybe I'll start a poll... "

and this:

"I sure would hate to be an interpreter at an international conference trying to make sense of her "remarks" so that my country's leaders could make sense of what she is saying. Native English-speakers with a good grasp of phony down-home colloquialisms can't make sense of that word-hash - how could it be made intelligible to someone who speaks only Cantonese, Urdu, or Swahili? "

and this:

"Whats a couple of thousand years between young-earthers? Palin's church is an end-times evangelical ministry, and they have hosted a minister who practices exorcisms, and who orchestrated the banishment of a woman from her own village that he claimed was possessed. These people are not strung very tightly. Palin reportedly told the Wasilla music teacher that she had seen pictures of dinosaur tracks with human tracks in them. If she is going to be a heart-beat or a bad biopsy away from the presidency, it would be nice to know what her beliefs are. Some end-times sects not only travel to Israel - they support the most militant forces in Israel in the belief that a ME conflagration would be a good thing, triggering Jesus' return and unleashing Armageddon. Would you want such a person to be holding our country's launch codes? "

and even this:

"Nope, only persons in and of themselves. Slamming someone because he is an actor is a poor form of reverse discrimination. I don't care what he does for a living - his expressions of concern about Palin's beliefs (she is an end-times evangelical!) and his reference to her banning or attempting to ban "Pastor I am Gay", and his concern about her possible ascendancy to the Oval Office should McCain die were all current-events during the campaign and every political geek that I know (left and right) were discussing them. He got a pulpit for his concerns because of what he does for a living (make multi-million-dollar blockbuster movies), but that does not mean that he is stupid, out-of-touch, or incapable of holding intelligently though-out opinions. "

and my post - directly on-point with a comparison of Obama and Palin is deleted?

"It's a tactic some people use when they can't defend their position, they try to change the direction of the discussion by throwing in off topic comments.

The discussion is Palin, unless Obama is quoting Palin or you're posting a quote he made about Palin, it's off topic and will be deleted. "

IMO - turbo needs to support some of these comments - or someone should start deleting his posts.

 

[Evo]

I believe this is the video that backs turbo up.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl4HIc-yfgM

 

[CAC1001]

Oh, I thought your were talking about Paris Hilton. Actually Palin's show only got that handful of viewers the first day from curiosity seekers, the next show dropped to half that already.

Palin's show from what I understand broke/shattered TLC's ratings record when it debuted: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/live-feed/sarah-palins-alaska-breaks-tlc-45421

I have no idea how it has performed since though - EDIT: http://www.hotmommagossip.com/2010/12/01/sarah-palins-alaska-sees-quick-rating-revival/

Thomas, something you and WhoWee both failed to bring up as a quality that is mandatory for President, and why Obama won - Intelligence.

I think Obama won more on charisma than intelligence (although not saying he is not very intelligent). But also look at the film they showed about his life story at the Democratic National Convention. There was nothing in it about his going to Columbia or Harvard, it was about the more hardscrabble aspects of his upbringing. The campaign didn't want to focus on his formal education.

Also I think you are confusing intelligence with policy knowledge. You could go into the mountains of Afghanistan or some tribe in the middle of South America and find people who can't read or write, but who are very intelligent. And you can find plenty of morosophs in Westernized society as well.