Pajamas Media

82 Comments

1. Nick Guariglia:

Great analysis. Agree entirely.

Sep 8, 2008 - 1:13 am 2. Joy Harmony:

My take is that Sarah Palin has completly changed the state of the race.

Basically:

Eleventh: Make the theme of reform of the republican party 100% believable.

This is what the electorate wants.

Reform the Republican party, who they view as have mismanaged this country over the last few years (Culture of Corruption, Iraq War before the surge, and Katrina).

NOTE: The electorate, correctly, believes that the surge has succeeded in Iraq, but still blames the Bush Administration for the Iraq war before the surge.

In fact I now see the race as more Democrats .vs. Mavericks, than Democrats .vs. Republicans.

More here: http://joyharmony.blogspot.com/2008/09/state-of-race-democrat-vs-maverick.html

Sep 8, 2008 - 2:37 am 3. SAF:

Nice summary.

And I would add an eleventh reason Palin is big trouble for Obama: When she is attacked for lack of experience it throws a huge spot light on Obama who’s experience is worse. I think that is one of the reasons his pole numbers have been driven down. Made people look. Certainly did around where I live.

Sep 8, 2008 - 3:04 am 4. misanthropicus:

While initially wary of this choice, it eventually won me over mightily. Many and good consequences it has upon the Republican ticket, one of them being the fact that has it has thrown the liberals’ lines of attack in confusion – the funniest one being their new mantra that Palin’s nomination was done having Hillary’s faithful in mind (the gender thing – no-no, this move won’t work, not with them!)

Wrong – whether Palin’s nomination had some calculation of this sort in its initial reasoning, that phase is over – Palin is, demographics-wise TRANSCENDENT, she rapidly begun drawing in the McCain-Palin ticket people from all over across the spectrum: women, men of all ages, of all social status. Her freshness is striking and cheering in contrast with Obama’s and Biden’s backroom operators appearance. I cannot see this process other but maintaining its momentum – the 2008 election was won by the conservatives/republicans.

Sep 8, 2008 - 5:37 am 5. RE:

An excellent article.

I’m still a bit stunned about how fast the Democrat house of cards has collapsed. Sarah Palin was an arrow shot straight into their Achilles Heel.

Even the media is running for cover.

My, my, my. What a difference a week makes. And what a joy it is to watch this leftist meltdown!

Sep 8, 2008 - 5:52 am 6. PokerGuy:

Obama is vulnerable in several obvious areas that the MSM won’t touch. But paid adverts can highlight them, and #12 or whatever is that Palin has helped and will continue to help with campaign funding just by being on the ticket.

Sep 8, 2008 - 5:53 am 7. It’s a New Race « The View from Alexandria:

[...] 8, 2008 by philo Jennifer Rubin lists ten ways in which Sarah Palin has shaken up the race. Polls now show McCain slightly [...]

Sep 8, 2008 - 6:06 am 8. MikeR:

McCain should use Palin to deliver a blow on ethics reform, now. They should demand that every single Republican follow them or be publicly singled out as defending corruption. Then they should demand that major and draconian ethics legislation be drafted and passed now, not after the election when Congress can get back to business as usual.

Either the Democrats will submit to this and cooperate, or they run a grave risk of losing many elections that everyone thought they must win. Earmarks are only popular with Congressmen and lobbyists.

Sep 8, 2008 - 6:58 am 9. PaulD:

I enjoyed your article. The Palin choice has been serendipodous.

Sep 8, 2008 - 7:08 am 10. Blogs For Victory » How Palin Power Has Shaken Up This Campaign:

[...] 8th, 2008 at 10:13am Kevin Patrick Jennifer Rubin has good piece on The Top Ten Ways Sarah Palin Has Shaken Up the Race: * The Republican base is now energized and enthusiastic like never before * Palin offers [...]

Sep 8, 2008 - 7:13 am 11. JFP:

Weren’t there people betting on not whether but when she would be dropped by McCain?

I hope they lost a lot of money.

Sep 8, 2008 - 7:13 am 12. Self-hating boomer:

I don’t imagine the Democrats will even try the ritual hunting expedition which has become a mainstay in presidential races. (Better not to compete against a gal who slays moose.)

ROFL!

[Conjuring image of Obama trying to hunt quail with an AK-47...."which end of this thing do you...?"]

Sep 8, 2008 - 7:15 am 13. G-Ma:

#11-John McCain has already shown the CHANGE he is capable of. Sarah Palin!
John McCain has combined wisdom and a dynamic female with a servant’s heart.

Sep 8, 2008 - 7:24 am 14. John Primmer:

Very comprehensive list. The only factor you missed is that the Palin pick has given us some recent, brief sightings of Mark Steyn.

Sep 8, 2008 - 7:25 am 15. Self-hating boomer:

Eleventh: Make the theme of reform of the republican party 100% believable.

There’s been pent-up demand for reform in the Republican party for a lot longer than most people realize. Ross Perot was basically appealing to disaffected Republicans. Forbes was an outsider who was shunned by the insiders. Even Buchanan and Paul, loony as they were, were outsiders trying to horn in on the lock that the insiders had.

G.W. Bush didn’t win because the base was excited about him, he just had the fortune to run against a couple of extraordinarily weak candidates.

So this has been building for a long time. Pretty much since Reagan left office 20 years ago. Finally McCain had the clairvoyance and chutzpah to look past the conventional and see what the Republicans and Reagan Democrats have wanted all of this time.

The Republican party finally has a rudder after 20 years of bobbing around at the mercy of the winds and currents.

Sep 8, 2008 - 7:25 am 16. PaulD:

A suggestion for a new campaign sign: “Sarahdipodous”

Sep 8, 2008 - 7:28 am 17. Vivienne Avare:

Thank you for this blog site and your sense of fairness. I wonder what complaints the extreme biased Obama camp will put forth, once Lady Sara has had a chance to meet the Press etc., and promote substantial issues?! Her convention speech was focused on introducing herself, not policy making! When the unwise Obamas dis-respected the heavyweight Hillary and millions of her supporters for the lightweight Biden, they opened the door for the winning McCain ticket! Clinton was the one to help beat McCain
not the Insider Joe Biden! Ex Democrat

Sep 8, 2008 - 7:34 am 18. Doc Rochester:

Twelve: Sarah Palin is a genuinely likeable and authentic person who truly loves her country, whereas Obama is an effete, snobbish leftist who, although feigning patriotism, nevertheless surrounds himself with the most vile, in-your-face revolutionaries that despise American cultural virtues.

Sep 8, 2008 - 7:38 am 19. Rev. David R. Estes:

Sarah Palin has made me proud again to be a Conservative Republican. I pray for her and her beautiful (normal) family that she be protected by the EVIL ONE behind all the lies about her. You go Lady!

Sep 8, 2008 - 7:52 am 20. Teresa:

Sarah Palin has elevated this race to be more than just the same old politics. Left vs Right. Now its going to be a race that involves areas of our government that quite often go ignored….motherhood, straight talk and experienced leaders who actually know what war is like and will be the least likely to get us involved in yet another war.

Sep 8, 2008 - 7:57 am 21. Howard:

KUDOS TO THE NEW YORK POST !!!
Once again … if you compare McCain/Palin’s track record with Obama/Biden’s, it’s no contest. McCain/Palin are a hundred times more qualified to lead this country. McCain/Palin show scores of actual achievements and solid service to America, while once again, Obama’s track record is one of excessive absences from his responsibilities, and all talk with no actual experience, or contributions to America. Like Governor Palin has pointed out … Obama had the time to write two memoirs, but never wrote one piece of significant legislation … not even when he was in the state legislature. Regarding earmarks, and the economy … If Obama gets elected, his irresponsible and clueless ideas for shifting America’s wealth would turn the U.S.A. into a third world country, with businesses laying off employees to keep their doors open. Obama’s ideas for national security would de-fang America and make us weak, putting us at the mercy of the world’s tyrants.

Sep 8, 2008 - 8:01 am 22. Ex-fetus:

Lucky Thirteen; The Unions.
What Union boss wouldn’t surrender a highly valued ( at least by him) body part to have a union family one heartbeat away from the White House? The left one is traditional.
Has there EVERY been a Union member living in the White House? I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think so. In Todd Palin the unions have a card carrying, dues paying, union guy one heartbeat away from the White House.
Is that another voting block I see heading for the lifeboats as the USS Obama bin Biden slips slowly under the waves?
This pick was almost Rovian in it’s effect. How delightful. Karl is working on his book, isn’t he? Page 3, right?

Sep 8, 2008 - 8:01 am 23. goy:

Wonderful, comprehensive assessment Jennifer. Thank you for posting it.

Also – I want to say how thoroughly I enjoyed your work on camera for PJTV at the RNC. What a refreshing change from the network mediocrity we’ve grown so used to! The John Bolton interview in particular was excellent: clear, comfortable, prepared and authoritative (and so was Bolton). Dare I say you’ve found a calling?

- I’m still a bit stunned about how fast the Democrat house of cards has collapsed.
With bullies it is ever thus. The first genuine article to stand up to them sends them running home to momma.

The far-left’s standard tactic of shouting down the opposition finally crumbled under the weight of its own intellectual dishonesty last week. The party faithful are still in denial over this reality, and Obama knows it, which is why he’s rearranging his financial deck chairs at this very moment in a paroxysm of dike-plugging.

But there’s a potential down-side to the truly overwhelming reality outlined in these ten points, which are only the top ten: it will surely accelerate Obama’s desperation, as well as his Moonies’. This desperation is already being demonstrated by declarations like “we won’t be bullied”, attacks against mothers and children, the slow abandonment of his hard core policies so as to look more like McCain, and irony-laced feints like his Female Surrogate Brigade. When these tactics all prove likewise fruitless, I look for a meltdown – in Obama’s campaign organization, for sure, but more significantly among the powerful and the powerless who want him, or his ideological equal, elected. At any cost.

Having witnessed almost first-hand the violence at the 1968 DNC, and that which followed, that latter meltdown is of no small concern to me. Because the most manic and sociopathic of these people still blindly idolize murderous thugs like Che as a genuine hero of the masses; one whose marxist ends justified his lethal means. The core ‘value’ driving them is violent revolution, in forms both widespread and isolated. Last time people like Bill Ayers had an ideological meltdown, Bad Things happened. And while I don’t agree with Chesler that we’re on the brink of a Civil War, historical reality dispassionately warns us of some very unsavory possibilities, which we ignore at our peril.

Interesting times, indeed.

Sep 8, 2008 - 8:02 am 24. Herb:

Eleventh, vast numbers of unprincipled right wing hacks have totally jumped the shark supporting the pork-loving, inexperienced, ethically challenged “hockey mom” who doesn’t mind government hand outs for oil companies, but really really doesn’t like them for the working poor.

Sorry, folks, reasonable people might wait more than 2 weeks to make a judgment about a totally unknown quality like Palin. The only thing she has accomplished is exposing the Republican party as the party of the gullible and moral relativism.

Sep 8, 2008 - 8:07 am 25. BobNC:

The other side of the “make history” coin is the 11th reason. Many of us liberals were leaning toward Hussein only because he is black; we didn’t want to be accused of racism for NOT voting for him. That reason no longer exists. His mad dog attack clones have forced many of us to shift and defend Palin.

Sep 8, 2008 - 8:08 am 26. Amber Collins:

Great article.

Sarah Palin has certainly added a jolt of energy and enthusiasm in the GOP. I can’t help but be excited about the appeal that she has brought to this campaign. Her experience far outweighs Obama and as far as I can see, this lady has more potential, poise and personality as well. Not to mention the McCain/Palin ticket has a withstanding love and respect for our country-something Obama has very little of and they are known to have experience in ACTUALLY enforcing change.

I can’t help but capitalize on this either- yes, Palin is a woman however she is feminine (how refreshing!). I can’t tell you how pleased I was at the fact that she wears skirts!

I am not sure how all of the Clinton supporters feel about Palin although I am hearing many different things. Obviously they stand for different things, yet they are both women.

Undoubtedly these next two months are going to be interesting.

McCain/Palin 08!

-Amber Collins
Pensacola, FL

Sep 8, 2008 - 8:18 am 27. BC:

Palin’s speech was well delivered but essentially nonsensical. And her history doesn’t indicate that she’s that much of a reformer — she only looked good because her Alaskan Republican rivals were over the top greedheads, and overall it’s not at all remarkable. Your so called, hated “liberal MSM” gave nothing but positive, almost swooning coverage of her speech, and while people who actually were paying attention to what she she was babbling about were just rolling their eyes.

But she’s not running for President (thank God), McCain is, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that McCain version 2008 is going to be any sort of reformer, starting with having advisers like Randy Scheunemann with ties to the PNAC — Project For a New American Century, and it was Bush’s PNAC-laden staff, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton), that bears major responsibility for the whole Iraq mess. (Tthe invasion had nothing to do with WMD’s or al-Qaeda — the PNAC had publicly wanted Hussein removed since Clinton was in office, and had even asked Clinton to do so.)

The bottom line is that if you are very smart, well informed, and highly ethical, you are not going to vote for McCain/Palin, no ifs or buts. So the real question is whether this matters at all in this age of disinformation.

Sep 8, 2008 - 8:49 am 28. Dave II:

Great article, Jennifer. Your 10th reason though, that “Palin allows many voters the opportunity to avoid “standing in the way of history”, is even MORE threatening to Obama than you would think at first glance.

Part of his campaign was BUILT on the dependence of “white/liberal guilt” and though it is “unspoken”, it remains a factor for MUCH of his appeal.

Well, now the legs have been knocked out of THAT prop big time, and ESPECIALLY with white women. Now this is NOT a racial issue, but rather an “appeal” issue…and now the appeal is for a woman in the White House for the first time…as much, if not A MORE compelling issue for 52% of the electorate than for a racially-mixed black man in the White House.

They won’t speak about it, the pollsters won’t recieve honest answers about it, they may even lie to their family about it….but women across America WANT HER in the White House…PERIOD! It will be the biggest “voter booth” catharsis in history when many supposed Obama and especially Hillary supporters find themselves facing that choice in the privacy of the voting booth. NOBODY will know except them and their conscience. And they will find themselves with a choice that may even leave THEM wondering…”WHY am I compelled to vote for this woman?”

The “guilt” of making history with Obama will be OVERWHELMED by the “guilt” of NOT making history with Sarah Palin.

Simply put: Gender will trump race…BIG TIME!

No, not with all woman. Of course not. But with those that see in Sarah a highly competant woman, and more importantly… a reflection of themselves, or who they would like to be. Beat-up and picked-on by the media and the liberal attack-dogs, but sticking to her principles and coming out triumphant in the end.

Compared to Obama, THAT compelling narrative won’t stand a chance…

Sep 8, 2008 - 8:51 am 29. unseen:

very good article. I am waiting to see new statewide polls in NC, MI, OH, NV, PA, WI, MN, IW, MO, VA and CO. The NYT has reported that Obama is pulling money out of NC, GA and other redstates and is instead concentrating on get out the vote machines. I still think Gov Randell is going to wait fro a call on NOV3 from Hillary giving him his marching orders to either GOTV or to sit home. I’m leaning for her to tell him to sit at home and thus give McCain PA and the presidency. Hillary will take on the mantle of reform and work with McCain for the next four years getting things done and then in 2012 it will be Palin vs hillary. Both agents of change and reform leading us into the next century….etc

Sep 8, 2008 - 8:59 am 30. always right:

It keeps popping into my mind:

Is it ever possilbe that the left and the media could have embraced McCain’s VP choice in Gov. Palin?

If they have not single-mindedly out to destroy her, what kind of outcome we would have at this point?

Sep 8, 2008 - 9:24 am 31. Todd Collier:

OK,
I’d like to take something on here. When it comes to national governemt I am very much opposed to earmarks. However, they are a part of current congressional business. So if I was a mayor of a small town wanting to do the best thing for my town, wouldn’t it be a part of my responsibilities to try to get whatever funds were available? I personally oppose pork barrel spending, but I will help anyone write a grant that gets the approved money sent where it is needed. Hypocritical or pragmatic?

Sep 8, 2008 - 9:25 am 32. CMalkus:

I think Palin has changed the race for the better in ways we have yet to fully grasp.

I was at a small crab-feast fundraiser last night for a local state Delegate to the Maryland General Assembly. The Delegate casually mentioned the exciting pick of Sarah Palin, and the spontaneous applause that erupted from those people gathered lasted for a LONG time. It just seems to me that people are re-energized and refocused, and she will bring a lot of new people into the fold.

Sep 8, 2008 - 9:26 am 33. Herb:

Dave II, your “guilt-based” argument doesn’t seem to be very persuasive or very intelligent. I also think the waves of support for Palin have less to do with her being a woman, or a reformer, and everything to do with her being a vessel for Republican hopes and future promise. Seems you guys needed a little hope too…just of a different kind.

Sep 8, 2008 - 9:28 am 34. James Beam:

Ms. Palin also represents a change from the other party’s candidates and their vast array of scandalous characters with which they surround themselves, yet cannot or will not dissociate themselves:
the marxist Ayers, racist Wright, sharia-advocate Raila Odinga, slumlord Rezko, financial fraudster Hunter, Soros…

Sep 8, 2008 - 9:37 am 35. Olivia:

Great article Jennifer! This may be the first Pajamas post where I agree with every single point. John McBrilliant indeed.

Sep 8, 2008 - 9:38 am 36. Doc:

BC said: “The bottom line is that if you are…highly ethical, you are not going to vote for McCain/Palin, no ifs or buts.”

But then again, if you ARE highly ethical, you’re also not going to vote for someone who thinks it should be legal to pull a baby halfway out of his mother, stab him in the back of the skull and suck his brains out, then pull him the rest of the way out, dead; or to forcibly deliver prematurely an infant you presume will not survive outside the womb and then proceed to let him die of exposure w/o any care. In other words, you won’t vote for Barack Hussein Obama.

Sep 8, 2008 - 9:53 am 37. Red Blooded American:

Interesting that the GOP didn’t think to draft her for the top of the ticket rather than the bottom, in which case the analysis might have some merit. If Palin truly changes what was otherwise a losing ticket, she would be the first VP pick in history who did. “This time it’s different!” I hear the cries. Heard that one before, and always shouted by a lot of fools about to go broke. The Palin pick, no matter how much it seems like the magic bullet of GOP politics at the moment, can blow up at any time. Don’t get me wrong, I think she’s no doubt an intelligent and capable politician and will do well on her feet these last two months of the campaign. She’ll get her first test this Thursday when she is lobbed a few softballs by ABC. What you all have to ask yourselves is what she is going to do to continue to energize the rural working-class white vote and whatever other core groups she appeals to. She’s going to have to make a strong case that she matters and is not just a side-show. As to the glass ceiling of nominating a female VP candidate, that was shattered in 1984 by the Democrats, in case it escaped your attention. So the argument that her pick is groundbreaking in that sense doesn’t hold water. Groundbreaking for the GOP, certainly, but not for the nation. As you all have your orgy of glee imagining the death of the Obama campaign and conjuring up scenarios of riots, civil war and the opportunity to use those guns you talk about on live human beings, remember that the election is on the first Tuesday in November, and that real patriots believe in the democratic process and believe that it insures fundamental freedoms. That is something the GOP does not have a monopoly on, all chest-pounding, swagger and sabre-rattling aside. By the way, I own three guns, know how to use them, do not fantasize about using them on humans, and don’t think the right wing has any ideas beyond distracting the mass of voters with divisive social issues while ignoring the facts that the GOP has been in power for eight years, (and for 20 out of the last 28, as well as 28 out of the last 40) and accepts no responsibility for the economic crisis caused by their fiscal incompetence. And the GOP claims to keep the country safe, when the country was attacked on their watch and the people who did it are still at large. But GWB was worried about his “stem cell policy” all of August 2001, and didn’t have time to read the intelligence reports. Now that’s leadership for you. That’s the record you have to run on, and no amount of fawning on Sarah Palin is going to hide that.

Sep 8, 2008 - 10:09 am 38. Militant-Infidel:

It is nice to see that the resident DNC talking points experts (Herb, BC, realitycheq, et al) are at least, for the time being, not screaming racism or stupidity. OTOH, blind anger is quite humorous (longing for the days of old).

Todd Collier:
Difficult question with regard to eating at the trough of already approved earmarks. I am reminded of the reality of the “return on investment” in buying a lottery ticket (something I don’t do). Both facts are true, the return is only about NEGATIVE 80%, and the fact that somebody has to win the money anyway. I see it as an attempt to profit from a bad investment in the first place.

MI

Sep 8, 2008 - 10:14 am 39. Oziripus:

Another, apparently overlooked benefit of the Palin nomination are the *male* votes she brings to McCain. Not all of those 18 million Hillary votes were women, and not all men automatically vote against women — a fact the women’s-studies feminists seem incapable of realizing. Among “Independent” male votes, the joy is even larger.

Sep 8, 2008 - 10:15 am 40. Herb:

Doc, honest question: When are you going to start expecting results from the pro-life forces in the GOP? It’s one thing for Republicans to promote a “culture of life” during an election year, but do you really think they’re serious about it?

Republicans have been against abortion for decades, but have never taken any significant steps to outlaw it.

One can conclude that they aren’t as serious about this as they say…or they’re just not very good at getting things done.

Or maybe they’re just pandering to get your vote. What’s your view?

Sep 8, 2008 - 10:22 am 41. CALindie:

Herb – I think I speak for many ex-dems like myself, SHUT UP! Your constant low-grade hate is why I can’t stand with Democrats anymore. My parents were Reagan Democrats and they represented a unique and uplifting quality in their politics; How to be reasonable. I’m fairly new to PJM and there are so many people like you on here it only drives me further away from Democrats (read, haters).

I loved what John McCain (the only true Democrat in the race) said in his speech: We are not Democrats or Republicans, we are Americans! I really liked Barack Obama about 12 months and 12,000 vague statements ago. When I heard Sarah Palin speak in Ohio and then at the convention, I literally felt a huge sense of relief, it was physical and mental relief, because she spoke so clearly, in plain english.

I didn’t realize how much mental and physical fatigue I had built up over trying to decipher what Barack was realling trying to say (or not say). I think in the end it will be the Reagan Democrats like me, reasonable people, (even though we may not agree 100%, but who does) that put John McCain in the Presidency. You could say, it is easy on the intellect.

Lastly Herb, my dad had a phrase for people like you, he said, son “Those people are like the dog that barks to feel his tail jerk.” I miss you dad!

P.S. I miss Ronald Reagan’s decency too. Does anyone else see Ronald Reagan in Sarah Palin?

Sep 8, 2008 - 10:28 am 42. The Fop:

When McCain picked Palin as his VP, it was like a pipe bomb exploding in the Women’s Studies Department at every university in the country.

Sep 8, 2008 - 10:58 am 43. Feingold:

Radical anti-male feminism will be picking up the pieces for a long time. By sacrificing Hillary to get a “go along to get along” Obama into the White House, the nags of extremist feminism have sold themselves and the democrat party down the river.

Sep 8, 2008 - 11:18 am 44. 301:

Herb – abortion to me, as a conservative, is not about “outlawing it”. It’s about trying to change hearts and minds – at which point, it will take care of itself.

Sep 8, 2008 - 11:23 am 45. CALindie:

Oziripus – “Among “Independent” male votes, the joy is even larger.”

Count me in! Well said. You make a very, very good point that I don’t believe I’ve seen anywhere else… Hillary men. That would make an interesting poll question.

As I watch and listen to the talking heads, it seems the “follow with blind faith” Democrats are overwhelmed and perplexed beyond measure with Gov. Palin and it’ only going to get worse. To use a sports analogy, it’s like the undefeated, #1 team in the nation, with the Heisman trophy winner at quarterback, Ohio State in 2006 being out coached and out played to their complete and utter shock by Florida for all the marbles. How do I know the emotions the Dems are feeling right now? I went to Ohio State… ouch!

P.S. Growing up in Ohio, Sarah Palin is a grand-slam in the bottom of the ninth for blue collar, union, hunters (most of the state) that tend to be independent voters (that turn out to vote). Oziripus, I think you’re on to something with the **male** independent vote being equal to or greater than the women vote for McCain/Palin.

Sep 8, 2008 - 11:44 am 46. Herb:

CALindie, “Shut up?” That’s really the most intelligent rejoinder you can come up with?

At any rate, here’s my answer: NO.

301, thanks for the courtesy. Do you have any extra for CALlindie?

For what it’s worth, I agree with you 100%. The best way to reduce and eventually eliminate abortion isn’t through government coercion. It’s by encouraging responsible decision-making before and after conception.

Sep 8, 2008 - 11:49 am 47. goy:

Todd Collier, the valid point and question you raise, I think, can be explored and ultimately resolved by differentiating between the responsibilities of a Governor and those of a Representative (or Senator, as applicable).

Governors have a responsibility only to the constituents in their State. This is something that has been completely obscured for over 100 years now – since about the time people switched from saying “the United States are” to “the United States is“. Think of it in terms of the President of the United States having responsibility only to U.S. citizens. In this light, part of any Governor’s task is to bring back to her constituency as much treasure as possible, especially inasmuch as that treasure is comprised partly of money stolen from her constituents, their businesses and their investments, through excessive federal taxation.

Representatives, OTOH, have a responsibility – through the mechanism of centralized, federal government – to the Republic as a whole, working on behalf of their constituents. Career politics tends to confound this responsibility, I think, at least insofar as the politician in question moves away from this responsibility. The typical result is a politician who works more for successive re-election – through writing and/or voting for legislation favoring the voters in her State – and less for sane federal governance of the Republic.

IMHO, the error in conflating Palin’s efforts on behalf of her state and those of the average career congresscritter is that it ignores this distinction. That, and this error also ignores the influence that said congresscritter has over the creation and/or passage of a given bill that contains earmarks beneficial to same, which no Governor has.

Sep 8, 2008 - 11:54 am 48. Gary W:

WAIT A MINUTE – IS PALIN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? IF NOT, WHO CARES WHAT HER POLICIES ARE ???? OBAMA ON THE OTHER HAND WILL BE PRESIDENT, SO EVERYTHING HE SAYS MATTERS. PALIN IS JUST A TOUGH PRETTY FACE.

Mccain passed over MANY Republicans more demonstrably fit to be President than Palin. He did not vet her thoroughly. This impulsive and careless man, who is spineless enough to stay in Washington for decades, wants the keys to our nuclear weapons.

HELL NO !!!!!

Sep 8, 2008 - 11:58 am 49. BC:

To Doc: sorry, but this is what Obama said:

“On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.

“Part of the reason they didn’t have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

“As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don’t think that’s any Republican out there who I’ve worked with who would say that I don’t listen to them, I don’t respect their ideas, I don’t understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we’re always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.”

That’s not exactly what you claimed is Obama’s position, is it? Which makes you…I guess, a McCain voter, eh?

And what about all those 4100+ dead US soldiers in Iraq, the 30,000+ wounded, and the 1 million+ (by best estimates) dead Iraqi civilians? Considering that *all* of the primary justifications for invading have turned to be bogus, deliberately trumped up nonsense, what is one to make of McCain’s strong support of the war? That he’s a moron? That he’s catering to the clueless far right Republican base? That none of this matters since McCain is a Republican and one of yours regardless?

Sep 8, 2008 - 12:09 pm 50. Paul From Hamburg:

Ex-Fetus: I don’t think anyone answered you question: Yes, there have been union members in the White House. The one that leaps to mind was president of a union: Ronald Reagan was president of the Screen Actor Guild.

Sep 8, 2008 - 12:25 pm 51. CALindie:

Herb – Do you have selective reading disorder (often accompanied by selective hearing disorder)?

Shut Up! Was followed with: Your constant low-grade hate is why I can’t stand with Democrats anymore. My parents were Reagan Democrats and they represented a unique and uplifting quality in their politics; How to be reasonable. I’m fairly new to PJM and there are so many people like you on here it only drives me further away from Democrats (read, haters).

I certainly don’t expect you to actually shut up, it was just what so many of us are thinking, and therefore, enjoyable to request. This is where the mindless reflex I described as, “Like a dog that barks to feel his tail jerk” takes over your body. Growing up as a farm boy in Ohio we have a lot of truisms about folks like you. Let’s just say, you (and Barack) red line my bullshite meter. Is it workin’ for ‘ya?

Sep 8, 2008 - 1:01 pm 52. goy:

BC, the “1 million dead Iraqi Civilians” was actually the worst of the estimates, not the “best”.

And they weren’t estimates, they were computer projections. These projections were generated mathematically, by software that is rivaled in its complexity, methodological deficiency and complete lack of repeatability only by the software used at the IPCC to lie about global warming. The “input” used to generate these projections was hearsay and anecdotal “data” that was never independently validated by anyone.

Garbage In / Garbage Out, as they say. When it’s garbage also running the calculations, the output you get is something that’s worse than garbage: propaganda.

The stuff you’re talking about was debunked long ago.

Also, your assertion that any of the justifications for the use of military force were bogus is, ah… bogus. The justification for Saddam’s ouster have been completely validated based on intelligence gathered both before and after March of 2003.

Sep 8, 2008 - 1:40 pm 53. glc:

Yes.

Make the message all about true reform and true change.

Love it.

Great analysis.

And screw those liberal media-types who think they’re the end-all be-all of American politics.

They don’t speak for me. (And I’m a professional female Republican…)

Sep 8, 2008 - 2:49 pm 54. Will:

The comparison between Sarah and Obama is twofold.

On experience, Sarah blows Obama away. he has NO executive experience, and had only 143 days as a US Senator before declaring his Presidntial candidacy.
What is more compelling however is a comparison of ACCOMPLISHMENTS. Sarah has lowered taxes, cut spending, fought corruption, cleaned house – the list is impressive.

Obama, on the other hand, doesn’t have a SINGLE THING he can point to. He’s authored no law of significance but has written TWO memoirs..LOL.

It should be a good pointer for everyone that not even the DNC nor his campaign have a list of achievements as talking points!

He doesn’t even have anyone who can give him a credible character reference!

I wouldn’t hire him, – no experience, no track record, and no references

Sep 8, 2008 - 3:28 pm 55. BC:

To goy: No. The “1 million dead Iraqi Civilians” (plus) is still the *best* estimate (so to speak), and the “debunking” was only deliberate disinformational garbage that got wide circulation in the — surprise, surprise — right wing media.

Remember a couple of years back when right wingers got all upset at the John Hopkins/Lancet report, in association with MIT (gee, what lousy credentials, eh?) that gave 426,369 to 793,663 as the likely numbers for Iraqi civilian causalities? That was when Bush and his people were quietly using the Iraq Body Count estimate number of 50,000 despite the IBC clearly stating that it was a low number by its nature. Some right winger found a funding connection to Soros and all of a sudden an excruciating detailed scientific study was somehow “debunked.”

At the time I did an elementary (well, it’s probably beyond almost everyone else here) mathematical estimate of Iraqi civilian causalities by using the best and worst case for probable pre-war violent death rates (by crime) in Iraq, and then fitting in the best and worst scenarios for the rise in these rates in the case of war as compares to ordinary spikes in violent crime in US cities. Under *no* circumstances did 50,000 fit in any scenario — you would have to also believe that visiting Iraq, at its very worst, was only about twice as dangerous as visiting Washington, DC, and at its best, its was only about as dangerous or even less so than visiting DC. That was absurd and clearly showed Bush and his people to be liars (yet again).

Since murder rates in US cities can go up or down by close to a factor of 3 with just changes in the economy and (presumably) better policing, I assumed, modestly enough, that a war would cause at least a 10x factor increase in the murder/killing rates, and for Iraq for a 3 1/2 yr total (at the time I did the calcs), you would get an increase of 455,000 in the number of deaths for that period directly attributable to the war. Which puts in right in the range of Lancet/John Hopkins study.

If you guys want the full dirty details, I can post it, but it’s kind of long….

But there was an update to the John Hopkins study that confirmed the earlier one:
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

And this was this separate study that raised the estimate even higher:
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=88

MIT’s little summary of all this:
http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/reports.html

And what this aid worker found out about what the US military really knows:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050420/ai_n14591172

And lest anyone even think to bad mouth the aid worker:
http://www.slate.com/id/2117056

FYI….

Sep 8, 2008 - 3:29 pm 56. Teri Pittman:

Under the wire is the fact that the Dems are running conservative candidates in the South, to try and capture normally Republican states. If the liberal base found out, they would be furious. What it means, if McCain wins, is that he will have a group of Dems that he can work with. And it will ultimately change the face of the Democratic party, which may be spent after three unsuccessful candidates appealing to their liberal base.

Sep 8, 2008 - 3:59 pm 57. Judy, NYC:

i have always voted democratic, but under no circumstances will i vote for obama. i will vote mccain-palin. i like sarah palin, and i would like to hear from her (instead of the hysterical rumor mongering) on social issues, specifically where her religious beliefs end and her political policies begin, or are they one and the same? i am in favor of her values as they appear to be, and i understand them to be, yet there are some extreme religious elements who are supporting her as well. it would be nice to know more about her thinking and where she diverges from her church. mccain democrats do need to know.

Sep 8, 2008 - 4:20 pm 58. goy:

BC, you obviously never took basic statistics or you could have debunked both of these silly “studies” yourself. Both were nothing more than propaganda released to sway the outcome of U.S. elections, released in October of 2004 and then in October of 2006. How convenient.

When the number projected by the first computer run in 2004 turned out to be dwarfed by the number of civilians murdered by Saddam and buried in mass graves throughout Iraq, they simply tweaked the inputs, re-ran the program, and came up with an even more ’shocking’ projection just in time for the midterm elections in 2006. But a computer projection was all it was. Nothing more.

This is the same fallacy being used to lie about anthropogenic global warming. The tactic is to produce some ominous “scientific” declaration that supposedly requires a PhD to understand. In this way, only ‘experts’ are allowed to have an opinion on the declaration – kind of like… no, exactly like Roman Catholicism before The Reformation, where only the latin-fluent priests could reveal the mysteries of salvation (e.g., indulgences). It’d be laughable if it weren’t that so many people like you are duped into falling for the same gag.

This, of course, is a failure of public education.

Here’s an example. Without leaving my chair, I can assert with 100% confidence that the number of civilians killed by military conflict and related causes in Iraq between Jan 1, 2003 and today is between 1 and 100,000,001. I can therefore state with precisely the same authority used in the Lancet and Burnham studies that the number of civilians killed in Iraq was… 50,000,000. And in the process, the only thing I needed a computer for was to type this. What’s more, I don’t need to bother rationalizing this outrageous number with ANY of the conventional mechanisms in place that have monitored civilian deaths in Iraq – including the U.N. They are all WRONG and my calculation is correct. This is precisely the same sort of assertion made by both of these flawed “studies”.

And the Lancet/Burnham studies weren’t debunked as a function of revelations about their funding – that merely demonstrated one aspect of their non-credibility. They were debunked as a function of their lack of repeatability (the two were WILDLY contradictory – as you yourself have just noted), lack of mathematical validity (idiotically large confidence interval, injudicious reliance on the representative quality of clusters used) and lack of scientific rigor in data collection (all hearsay, anecdotal data, NO details provided on methodology).

And, heh, you’ll have to pardon my skepticism regarding your ‘ability’ to demonstrate any mathematical relationship between violent deaths in the US and those in an Iraqi combat zone.

Sorry, you won’t get any traction with that idiotic number in the presence of anyone who knows better.

You like Slate? Here.
Got a PDF reader? Here.
Need more background? Here.
Any clue how much detail has been provided regarding the data collection? Here.
Know someone with a math degree who can explain statistics to you? Here (see mostly APPENDIX at the end).

Sep 8, 2008 - 4:48 pm 59. Herb:

CALlindie,
“…Your constant low-grade hate is why I can’t stand with Democrats anymore. My parents…”

Sounds like a personal issue you should perhaps keep personal. I wish some of these comments weren’t so dumb too, but you don’t hear me telling anyone to shut up.

Low-grade hate, indeed.

And sic’n your Dad on me? Really? You don’t even know me.

Also, your bullshit meter seems a little out of whack, so you might want to get it checked out. As a farm boy from Ohio, I’m sure you know just the place.

(You really that happy with Palin, who you met only two weeks ago? Hell, you really that happy with MCCAIN? Tell me you wouldn’t rather have someone else on the ticket… Go ahead, and be honest.)

Sep 8, 2008 - 5:04 pm 60. Aureliano:

(You really that happy with Palin, who you met only two weeks ago? Hell, you really that happy with MCCAIN? Tell me you wouldn’t rather have someone else on the ticket… Go ahead, and be honest.)

Irrelevant.

Barack Obama attended an explicitly racist church for 20 years.

There is nothing else to consider.

Everything else is just intellectual onanism — and arguments in his defense disingenuous ignes fatui by the crypto-bigoted.

Sep 8, 2008 - 5:22 pm 61. CALindie:

Herb – John McCain is a Reagan Democrat just like me. As far as knowing who Sarah Palin really is takes very little effort and takes far less than 2 weeks. I read up on her 4 or 5 months ago and she continues to impress me and I don’t care if John McCain sends abortion back to the states. I understand that after 4 years you still don’t know who Barack Obama is but that’s your problem, not mine anymore.

Here’s another truism for you: You can’t argue with an idiot! I’m sure you believe your on the right side of that equation. Good luck with your circular reasoning. May it always lead you to your happy place.

Sep 8, 2008 - 5:54 pm 62. dragonfly:

Jennifer: a really great list. I just sent in to Powerline a list of all the things that the NYT could have come up with as Obama started his campaign If they had “vetted” him half as hard as they have Palin, He would never have made it to the primaries. They have a lot to answer for.

I think there is an extra dimension to the disgruntlement of the Hilary defeat, and htat is that the McCain ticket is demonstrating what could have been if Obama had chosen her instead of a dead-as never-was. He is really having his nose rubbed in it

Sep 8, 2008 - 6:39 pm 63. BC:

To goy: You are a poster boy for everything that’s wrong with Republicans these days, starting with this bizarre antipathy towards science and research. Yeah, those raving liberal scientists and statisticians at John Hopkins and such were all involved in some dark conspiracy to take down Bush. Why you’re at it, why don’t you blame math as well — I was able to use very simple and straightforward extrapolations of readily available data to confirm that the Lancet/John Hopkins study was at least in the ball park, and far, far more accurate than the lying, nonsensical BS from Bush and his toadies.

And this same “reasoning” is on display when the topic of Global Warming comes up. To scientists involved in climate research, there is no “debate” on Global Warming and humanity’s role in it — it’s a done deal, and the time is now to figure out solutions. You can count on a maimed hand the true number of genuine climate scientists that disagree with the main findings of the IPCC (although I think they’ve given in too much to political pressure and have been overly conservative in their assessments, but I’m not a climate scientist.) But in the right wing world (and I might as well dump in the conservatives as well since there isn’t much difference these days), there are all these “alternative” theories that are considered just as plausible as those from the darn, sneaky, bleeding heart, good two-shoes, leftist elite so called scientists in their ivory towers. Yeah, good honest folk like plumbers, truckers, and investment bankers know just as much science as anyone when they have a computer. Gawd….

I miss Usenet and I’m really not happy with how Google mangled Google Groups — there I could at least sometimes get into a good debate (and/or clever bashing) on stuff. These right wing blog sites, though….seriously, the comments are so disturbing at times, especially the willful disregard for fact, fairness or even reality in general. Some right wing twit somewhere writes a bit a reassuring nonsense and even though it might take all of 2 minutes of research to debunk it, it still manages to spread almost instantly to all parts of the right wing mediasphere, spilling out to the MSM, and becoming an article of faith on day three at the latest.

I think I’m going to exit this strange little alt-reality.com land. Don’t worry, I can see myself out and I’ll be sure to gently close the door behind me….

Sep 8, 2008 - 7:18 pm 64. Jim Treacher:

I don’t know if they’ll be able to reform their party, but they’re already well on their way to reforming the media.

Sep 8, 2008 - 11:22 pm 65. Danny:

BC, the methodology for these studies are similar to those used to estimate Value at Risk for derivatives. The main difference is that VaR has 99% probability of being correct and these studies have a confidence level of 95%. So the current sub-prime crisis is 5 times less likely than these studies being accurate. The issue is that like movement of underlying mortgages, deaths in Iraq aren’t random so the methodology is simply wrong especially if you generalise from 40 households to a country of 26.1 million.

Sep 9, 2008 - 12:20 am 66. sarahpalin:

sarah Palin is awesome. People can keep making up stupid sarah palin scandal but mccain / palin are going to be elected in the fall.

Sep 9, 2008 - 1:24 am 67. Ex-fetus:

Thanks Paul. What a co-ink-see-dink! as Popeye would say.

Meanwhile, it’s the first Tuesday after the last convention. Now the trend lines start to count. McCain/Palin starts out with a slight lead over Obama bin Biden.
If they cam hold that lead the normal Question 3D 5 point advantage for conservatives should be enough to do the trick.
Anybody remember when McCain/Feinstein kicks in? I can never remember if it is 60 days or 30 days. Not that I think it will matter. If one side runs ads, the election will be over before it gets into court. The other side will run ads too. So then the Supremes will have to decide if a political campaign is protected speech or not. Since that decision has already been reached, they will then decide if advertising is protected speech or not. I think that has been done too. So the McCain\Feinstein election law will die a well deserved death and Congress can have another shot at getting rid of some corruption.
The next President of the Senate would be an ideal woman to put in charge of that.

They still there? 33 Days and counting.

Sep 9, 2008 - 2:50 am 68. goy:

- You are a poster boy for everything that’s wrong with Republicans these days…

This ad hom admission that you had nothing of substance with which to respond is gladly accepted.

Those who insist on declaring the debate “over” are generally afraid of what will be revealed if the debate continues.

Thanks for leaving.

Sep 9, 2008 - 7:54 am 69. 888:

On the question of abortion and an infant’s right to life, Obama is spineless…”It’s above” his “paygrade”, he said. It should have been an easy ‘Yes, life begins at conception’, or ‘No, it doesn’t', but because he’s beholden to the liberal establishment and the fanatical National Organization of Whiners, he gave the Saddleback audience a lame and ambiguous (safe) response.

Sep 9, 2008 - 7:56 am 70. Jason:

How is picking the “Bridge to Nowhere” lady o’ pork a good choice? I’m confused. (I know, I know. She was against the bridge to nowhere, after she was for it, but only after happily taking the 300 million in taxpayer money to blow on whatever she wanted.)

I think there’s a war in the McCain campaign between making good governance decisions (McCain) vs. making good electoral decisions (his handlers, Karl Rove types). McCain clearly lost a battle on the Palin choice. If McCain is running on the fact that lack of experience is such a drawback, then why did he pick a person lacking in experience to replace him in the event of a disaster. I thought McCain had more of a backbone than that. Eight years is a long time to think about how he got spanked by Bush in 2000, and it looks like he’ll do anything to win, consequences for our country be d***ed.

I’m thinking more and more about just not voting for McCain. Four more years of false conservative-ism may do us in for good.

Sep 9, 2008 - 8:16 am 71. goy:

Jason, she didn’t write the bill. She was not able to vote on the bill. She was not working in the U.S. Congress where she could influence passage of the bill. Alaska citizens are US Taxpayers. When you have some evidence that she blew the money on “whatever she wanted”, and not what her constituents wanted, get back to us.

And do keep chasing this canard. Be persistent! It’ll keep you busy doing nothing until Nov. 4.

Sep 9, 2008 - 10:23 am 72. Jeff:

shhhhhhhhh

Sep 9, 2008 - 1:01 pm 73. BC:

To Danny — last word: here is a link to MIT’s copy of the study:
http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/reports/human-cost-war-101106.pdf

On the first page, under go look under “Methods” for how they sampled — it was a teeny weeny bit more than “40.”

And as I mentioned earlier, another more recent study by ORB (Opinion Research Business) put the Iraqi civilian deaths at the million plus range:
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=88

This falls in line with the earlier John Hopkins study given the intervening time: another site used the earlier John Hopkins study as the baseline and then used the percent increase in the IBC numbers since to extrapolate:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/counterexplanation.html

But this is all math and research and such, and I don’t want to anyone’s head here to explode. Why don’t you all concentrate on more fun and fact-free stuff like the “Top Ten Ways Sarah Palin Has Shaken Up the Race”….

Toodles….

Sep 9, 2008 - 3:28 pm 74. Grace:

Real change is on its way.

Sep 9, 2008 - 3:39 pm 75. The Potency of Palin « Republican Party of Jefferson County, TN:

[...] Jennifer Rubin is right in saying, “Sarah Palin has shaken up the race.”  Actually, I think she has shaken it all the way down to its foundation.  And, Sarah Palin drives the media nuts. Explore posts in the same categories: National Politics [...]

Sep 9, 2008 - 7:39 pm 76. Jeff:

My biggest concern with McCain’s pick of Palin is that, with her tough no holds bar conservative stance, it will be very difficult to reform this hyperpartisanship that we are facing in Washington, as McCain claims that he wants to do. They will face many an opposition from the Left in Washington from the start on many an issues facing our country.

The other main fact is that Palin has never tackled on any problems inside of Washington so will be viewed by our Democratic controlled Congress with little experience, as McCain has always viewed with Obama. They will always have a mental note of the short time that she’ll be in Washington.

With Palin’s pick, we could be facing a more uphill battle in Washington than Obama’s pick of Biden. We don’t need internal battles in Washington, we need results!

Sep 9, 2008 - 9:42 pm 77. Bookman:

I’m a newcomer here, via a Fark posting of this URL, and I’m very pleased to see the high level of intelligent discussion here (unlike Fark, which I am beginning to think consists heavily of people still living in Mom’s basement).

Several people here have been throwing around statistics regarding civilian casualties in Iraq, reasons for going into Iraq, etc. What I haven’t seen (apologies if I missed it) is a discussion of what I believe are the *real* reasons we went in.

My military background is only 2 active duty Navy years during Vietnam, but I read *a lot* of military history. The Iraq War is a classic “suck” or “killing ground” situation, where one side forces the enemy into confrontation in an area that the enemy feels *must* be maintained.

Classically, in a campaign of this sort, you maintain *just* enough forces to barely maintain control. This encourages the enemy to continually commit – and over-commit – their forces in the hope of eventually driving you out of the area. Then, at the appropriate time, when the enemy is drained, you clamp down and send in enough force to finish them.

Is this not a description of what actually has occurred in Iraq? Thin US forces, fighting for years with no apparrent effect, an then the Surge?

It’s not pretty or “ethical” but international politics isn’t, either. Never has been and never will be.

I also see a “pressure cooker” analogy. The Middle East is a pressure cooker of fundamentalist fanaticism. Iraq has actually functioned at a “steam value” that has relieved pressure that otherwise might have exploded the pot.

Yes, it has been tough on the Iraqi civilian population, and tough on the 4,000+ American an Allied troops that have died there, and the thousands more that have been injured.

But the alternative, IMHO, would be a situation that could escalate to area-wide Jihad – and eventually lead to *very* hard response by US and/or Israeli strategic forces. Yes, I’m talking nuclear. 300,000,000 dead Muslims and glowing landscape is NOT an option that I would like to see occur.

In my opinion, the Iraq War is actually *helping* to prevent that possibility.

How does this relate to McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden? Think about this: – WWI – Wilson (D)
- WWII – Roosevelt (D)
- Korea Truman (D)
- Vietnam – JFK (D)

In all cases, we got involved in major wars due to mixtures of (1) idealism (making the world safe for democracy, etc.) and (2) President’s who were perceived by foreign leaders as being weak, trying to prove that they were tough guys.

In terms of foreign policy, Obama isn’t a tough guy. As President, he might very well try to prove that he was. Mccain, OTOH, doesn’t need to prove anything to anybody, and every foreign leader knows it.

Obama = good chance for a really big war with major civilian casualties (not necessarily on our side, but why have any?)

McCain = good chance for either uneasy peace or a series of small brushfire wars.

I’ll take McCain.

Sep 9, 2008 - 10:24 pm 78. Bookman:

Ex-fetus: “The next President of the Senate would be an ideal woman to put in charge of that.”

It will take a woman to clean up the Senate? Heh heh.

Sep 9, 2008 - 10:29 pm 79. Jason:

Ask and I shall deliver. Wall Street Journal, a pretty reliable, conservative news outlet too, not some liberal hack job.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Does McCain even know he picked someone who was for the pork before she was against it, but really she was still both for it and against it???

Sep 10, 2008 - 6:03 am 80. From Duluth:

The congenital lefties running Obama’s campaign cannot just ignore Sarah Palin and let the novelty bounce fade away. Instead, with the audacity of dopes, these elitists in their argula arrogance just keep driving more and more women and working class folks into the McCain-Palin camp. Result — the resurrection of the Reagan Democrats for McCain-Palin. No one in this country scores political gain by throwing nasty verbal rocks at a woman, no one, not even The One.

Sep 10, 2008 - 5:14 pm 81. Chang:

You are judged by the company you keep. Looking at Obama and Biden you see Tony Rizo who is convicted in jail, William Ayers the bomber, Rev. Wright and Farakahn the racist. The liberal media who slanders an all American woman Sara Palin and her 17 year old daughter. Then attacks her qualifications which means they are attacking all women. Obama can’t speak with out a teleprompter which means someone else is telling him what to say. Sara Palin has an 80 percent approval rating by hundred of thousands who put their stamp of approval on her. Now the entire country approves of her. The Democrat party has been taken over by socialists and the insane. Their idea of a qualified woman is a hard core lesbian! The Bible sums it up They are evil haters of God and despisers good.

Sep 10, 2008 - 5:15 pm 82. RODW:

AFTER READING THE COMMENTS IN THIS COLUMN I CAN’T BELIEVE THE DEMOCRATS LOST THE LAST TWO ELECTIONS.

Sep 26, 2008 - 2:00 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: