Lettermen, Matthews, this jerkRat. Its all the same. Sexist pigs.

Spin for Sarah all you want. She's still unqualified. No amount of pity will change that.

Vic

Spin for Sarah all you want. She's still unqualified. No amount of pity will change that.

Well, maybe she's not "sophisticated" enough to bow to the Emperor. apologize to Iran, dither for 9 months on Afghanistan, run up a $2 trillion dollar deficit, go on $100,000 dinner dates, or refer to people who disagree with him as "teabaggers", embrace a mentor who blew up Federal buildings and is proud of it, or decide to try Khalid Sheik Muhammed as in a civial court a few blocks from the former WTC.

But frankly I think we have all had quite enough of that.

Spin for Obama all you want, Vic. He's still unqualified. No amount of pity will change that.

VIC - there is a small element of truth within your statement, but none in with regard to what you said.

Obama is the poster-child for what happens when an inexperienced person is elected President. Inexperienced, as in - has never run anything other than his mouth.

There are many people in the United States more qualified than he was and still is, Sarah Palin among them.

If we are lucky the United States will survive another three years of Obama (as it survived four years of Carter), and then someone actually qualified to be President will win the presidency for 2012.

P.S. since you have previously stated you don't get paid for the "service" you provide here, I suggest you seek professional care.

Victory is Ours wrote:

Spin for Sarah all you want. She's still unqualified. No amount of pity will change that.

Unqualified to do what? Write a best seller? Once again (whoosh!) a libtard troll can't stay on point. Maybe the fear of Sarah Palin brings their deep-seated misogyny to the surface.

It would be interesting to know if the AP assigned anyone to fact-check Obama's books. Probably not.

I don't think 'pity' is quite the right word, Bobdog...

I've already ordered Palin's book - $9 at Amazon. Hell, your standard paperback is $8 at B&N or Borders, I don't mind paying a buck more for a reasonable hardback on an important political figure - whether she goes on from this point or not. (Ferraro didn't go much further than her VP run with Mondale, after all.)

You know the thing I think irks the left about Palin the most? She doesn't play by their 'rules'. She's supposed to hide when attacked, maintain a low profile, get out of the spotlight no matter how relevant or irrelevant the charge. The fact that they're making the charge at all means she should run away, go back to that nowhere she came from!

But she didn't, the nasty little bitch! It's like their opinions of her don't even matter!

And the funny thing is - they don't. I'm looking for facts from reporting, all the facts - not for them to tell me how to think or what to think and then give me a selected quota of information that backs up what they're trying to ram down my throat. I'll laugh at how a comedienne potrays her, but I'm not going to mistake what the humorist says for what the candidate says. And I'm not going to hate someone because someone else thinks I should - I can make my own decisions about who I dislike and for what.

So far, Palin's not earned my dislike.

I think Bernard Goldberg had it right last night on OReilly's show. The left hates Sarah (and Bachmann, and Joe the plumber et all) because they represent the middle class of America. And if there is one thing the left despises, it's the middle class.

More on topic, it really is amazing that AP would assign 11 reporters to pour over a 400+ page book. They never seemed that interested in Obama's books, his background, college info or anything else that could have negatively affected the "narrative" on BHO.

I still think that the "genius" in the White House is going to end up as one of the worst Presidents in modern times. With any luck, the reputation of AP and the rest of the so-called MSM will go down with him.

Getting to know Sarah has been an educational experience. And the more we know her, the better we are at judging her qualifications for office.

New polling data appear to support such doomsday prophecies. According to an Oct. 19 Gallup Poll, the former governor of Alaska has become one of the most polarizing and unpopular politicians in the country. Since she quit the governorship to work on her book, her unfavorability rating has spiked to 50% while her favorability has sunk to 40%, according to Gallup's figures. (The only national politician who is less popular right now, according to the poll, is John Edwards, the former two-term senator who fathered a child out of wedlock while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination.)

Go ahead and circle the wagons, social conservatives, and defend your Sarah -- but notice that the circle is getting smaller and smaller.

Bottom Line: When the going gets tough, Sarah Palin quits and writes a book.

America noticed.

Vic

Palin is 10x time for qualified for the office of president than Obama ever thought about being and that is more apparent every day. She is a brilliant woman and a genuine leader. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Obama can't even put to words together or hold a press conference without a teleprompter to pull the strings. You people are shameless.

Sorry, should say "10x more qualified..."
I'm in a hurry. Got to leave for the day and do something foreign to Vic and the rest of the lefty trolls here: Work.

Poor Victory...he is like Gollum with his preciouss (SSSSarah issss nasssty...She hatesess ussss!)

The worst part is, she is young and healthy. She will be around for years. Heh...

And as for unqualified, once again, she was the VP candidate, not the Presidential. Her potential performance should be measured against Joe Biden's and ......and......BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

OMG! Joe Freaking Biden! You are saying her job at VP would be worse than his? Are you kidding me?

Aside from the willingness of her supporters to blather nonsense in her defense (Sarah-Style) she's not qualified for national office and America noticed.

Vic

I still think that the "genius" in the White House is going to end up as one of the worst Presidents in modern times.

I am sincerely hoping you're wrong on that, Hank. We don't need another Carter or Warren G. Harding - when the President does badly the country does badly. Even now we're going to be years recovering from all Obama's 'good ideas' and feel-good spending - and I'm pretty sure he's sharp enough to know the sort of damage he's doing.

The problem is - it may not be a bug as far as he's concerned.

MSNBC-Ratigan could have handled the apology in a less embarrassing and less conspicuous manner.
They could have called the three people that actually watched his program.

Sarah Palin alone is responsible for the lies we tell about her. She should have known that when she made the choice to speak out.

What a hypocrite!

Victory is Ours wrote:

Aside from the willingness of her supporters to blather nonsense in her defense (Sarah-Style) she's not qualified for national office and America noticed.

Posting two links within 20 minutes to the same goofy editorial written by the same goofy Al Jazeera writer does not make your goofy argument any stronger.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal

Only a devout Obamabot would say Palin is inexperienced yet glosses over the very real fact that she has much more experience then Obama. VIC is right, the inexperience is damaging our country. Obama must go. ww

Hank #8
"The left hates Sarah (and Bachmann, and Joe the plumber et all) because they represent the middle class of America. And if there is one thing the left despises, it's the middle class."

I think you have a very good point. And the liberals saw in the last election that these middle class people can attract crowds, generate a following, and can influence and change a lot of minds.
It scares them to death!
As with what has happened in the last year, within the conservative grassroots movement is what gives them mental ass-puckers about the next election. They have no way and no model to fight it. It is what they have always feared, average people have been driven to become extremely concerned about the politics of the democrat party and the left.
The dems main weapon so far --- name calling.

Bring it on!!!

Vic - Sarah Palin is so far into our head she is about to give you an aneurysm.
Lay off her. You obviously have the hots for her and because she won't give you the time of day you act like a little third grader and try to demean her. Grow up; you are acting like a little weasel.
Madalyn

Sorry - should have said "your head", not our head. Fingers faster than brain.
Madalyn

VIC, as usual, full of shit. If Palin is such a "nothing", why doesn't he just ignore her? Or could it be that she poses such a threat, she has to be attacked on every occasion and her influence minimized?

The more liberals scorn Palin, the more that conservatives embrace her.

Oh wait, that can't be true - he favorability rating has tanked since she quit her job in Alaska because some bloggers made her cry.

Yep - presidential material there...

The liberal vampires are scared stiff theres going to be a shake-up of the liberals

The more liberals scorn Palin, the more that conservatives embrace her.

If only so!!

**Please**, please embrace her. PLEASE!!! Because she really is a disaster. OMG.

She thought the Vice President presides over the Senate - while she was running for Vice President!!!! Do you understand that??

Take a moment and think about that. Seriously.

That's like applying to be a foot surgeon and thinking the feet run the digestion. That's like applying to be a mechanic and thinking the transmission is lubed with wiper fluid. Would you hire a surgeon who was that wrong, to work on your child? Would you hire a mechanic who was that wrong, to fix the car you need to go to work?

Of course not. Then why would you hire someone that clueless to run your country, in case a 72-year-old former torture victim and **three-time cancer survivor** doesn 't live out his term??

This is what the rest of the country sees, and so many of you somehow do not.

As a side note, GWB is already the front-runner for worst president since Nixon or Herbert Hoover, take your pick. I think you all know it on some level too, because your avoidance of any of those three obvious examples implies volumes.

And "the Left despises the middle class."

Sure. That's why we want to make sure they have health insurance, public schooling, and jobs.

Wow. Words fail.

You know what you never hear? You never hear any logical reasons why Palin is so unqualified. You never hear any reasons why she's allegedly so stupid.

All you hear from the lefties is emotional name-calling and bumper sticker crap. The shrieking from the left is as reflexively defensive as it is paranoid.

As for Vic's authoritative reporting - from the LA Times, of course - if I read it right, Palin is at least twice as popular as Congress right now, and almost as popular as Obama. And she's not even an office holder any more. Times are a-changing. She may in fact outlast the LA Times.

Speaking just for myself, I fricking love it.

Funy stuff!!!

Levi Johnson calling Palin a _____.

And despite all the hoopla, this woman has not said she is running for president or ANY office! Hell, I think she would be much better for the GOP if she simply pointed out corruption and made everyone think twice about who they are and what/who they really represent.

Me thinks she would be much better as GOP Chairman than Steele.

She may not have been ready for the POTUS/VP in 2008 because she was naive. But its a whole new ball game come 2012 with all this time to learn what she needs to know.

The left are afraid of her, otherwise they would shut up and never speak of her again.

PS:

Yes I am scared of Barack Obama and his socialist advisers and czars. That is why I am so vocal. I am no hypocrite for saying the left is afraid of Sarah Palin.

"She thought the Vice President presides over the Senate - while she was running for Vice President!!!! Do you understand that??"

Just as much as I understand there are 57 states in the good ole USA Jinxie.

"As a side note, GWB is already the front-runner for worst president since Nixon or Herbert Hoover, take your pick. I think you all know it on some level too, because your avoidance of any of those three obvious examples implies volumes"

This post is about Palin being trashed by liberal pigs again.. Please stay on topic.

That seldom happens, 914.

Sure. That's why we want to make sure they have health insurance, public schooling, and jobs.

Wow. Words fail.

Nah, you want them to have those things on YOUR terms. Public schooling is handled by city and county school boards, with some federal funding. Those would be there whether Democrats were supporting them or not. Same thing with fire departments, water and sewer provisions, and police departments. Federal funding may provide support - but they don't furnish it outright.

As far as health care goes, if they wanted to provide a level of care significantly greater than what's currently available for the uninsured it could be done a hell of a lot cheaper than taking over the health care industry and reinventing the wheel. (Yes, I wrote my Senator and Rep. with the details. It'd be a very modest expansion of the current EFT card programs for those receiving benefits - easily implemented and likely well received in the medical community, and would cost less than $50 billion the first year, and the costs would decline in the second.) And seriously, have you EVER heard of government taking over a business sector and the efficiency increasing and costs going down?

The real problem is that there's a lot of people in Washington who see no problem at all micromanaging the life of the American people. And the people are looking at the associated costs and going "No - that's too much. Thank you, but you've given us about all the help we can stand, and afford."

As far as jobs go - looking at the analysis of Recovery.Gov's website and the jobs reported thereon, I'm not terribly trusting of the efficiency of throwing money out by the government. Oh, I'll admit that government spending did a heck of a job of ending the Great Depression, but that was targeted to large businesses that made lots of war materiel. The current 'stimulus' seems to be, well, random.

Today's report from ABC News tells us that prior to releasing its jobs report, the administration cut out 60,000 additional jobs from unreliable reports, none of which appear to overlap with the ones we've highlighted here. Had those jobs been included in the original count, the number of jobs "created or saved" by the stimulus would have exceeded 700,000, and the number of imaginary or doubtful jobs would have approached 20 percent.

If a Republican administration were doing this crap, you'd be screaming your head off about government waste, and rightly so.

re: side topic of jobs and the stimulus....

It's worse than random JLawson.
Per Recovery.govs website, looking at NH, the website lists the following stimulus funds awarded so far:

1st congressional district 377.8 $285,202,376
2nd congressional district 271.6 $213,131,668
00 congressional district 2,873.9 $194,537,372
6th congressional district 3.2 $1,471,518
4th congressional district 0 $1,033,809

According to govtrack.us NH has 2 congressional districts, 1 and 2.

Be interesting to track down where the money went for the excess districts, wouldn't it?

Back to Palin:

Here's one big reason why Sarah Palin may not run for president in 2012: Her poll numbers are awful.

It's possible for determined politicians to reverse poor ratings of public opinion. Hillary Clinton has done it, to a certain degree. And some experts say Ms. Palin's current situation is similar to that faced by Secretary of State Clinton in the past.

But, still ... 66 percent of respondents to a CBS News survey released Monday said they did not want Sarah Palin to run for the White House in 2012.

Run her, Republicans, please.

And in 2007, 95% of the electorate hadn't heard of Obama. (Shrug.)

Lots of time, Steve. If I were a Democrat, (especially a first-termer) I'd be a lot more concerned about 2010 than 2012 at this point.

JimX (our brain-dead liberal troll) said:
"She thought the Vice President presides over the Senate - while she was running for Vice President!!!! Do you understand that??

Take a moment and think about that. Seriously. "

Well, Jimbo, you have certainly impressed all of us with your ignorance.

In fact, Palin was correct!

Under the Constitution, the Vice President is President of the Senate. By virtue of the Vice President's role as President of the Senate, he or she is the nominal head of the United States Senate. In that capacity, the Vice President is allowed to vote in the Senate, but only when necessary to break a tied vote. Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President presides over the joint session of Congress when it convenes to count the vote of the Electoral College.

Are we impressed with your drooling ignorance?

YOU BETCHA!!!

I don't know what happened to my earlier post. Perhaps it didn't go through.

Here's the video of Sarah Palin revealing her humiliating ignorance of basic US governance on national TV:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/21/palin-vp-senate/

Here's the text:

Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, "What does the Vice President do?"

PALIN: ...[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

SO, I shouldn't have to say this but just in case:

1. The Vice President IS NOT AT ALL 'in charge' of the US Senate.

1b. IN ANY WAY.

2. The Vice President DOES NOT have the ability to make ANY policy changes.

2b. IN ANY FREAKING WAY AT ALL.

The ONLY Constitutional power a Veep has within the Senate, is to make a tie-breaking vote.

So, in short, President Palin would flush the US down the toilet even quicker than GWB.

In a mavericky second.

Well JLawson, we can talk about tactics and strategy for helping out the middle class. But that's a whole different discussion.

My point is, liberals Democrats and what is called "the Left" *do* want to help the Middle Class. It would be great if we could talk policy, instead of constantly being accused of hating America because we're looking for solutions conservatives disagree with.

The right wing media is just echoing what Palin herself wants them to say. That she's a victim and the world owes her a debt because she is so persecuted.

All of this falling down in pain that the right is doing makes me want to vomit. I thought Americans had backbone, and didn't make excuses for their failures?

Then came Sarah.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Palin, an amateur as a candidate, became a professional victim, blaming others when encountering political turbulence.

Finger-pointing became second nature to her, and it shows in "Going Rogue," just as it did when she returned to Alaska from the campaign and began feuding with legislators, reporters and members of the public who alleged she had committed ethical improprieties.

In many of the pages of Palin's book, she portrays herself as an abused woman. It wasn't that Palin was unprepared; it was that Katie Couric badgered her and showed bias throughout their widely watched interview. John McCain's campaign staff censored her. Campaign director Steve Schmidt was callous and condescending. The national media -- in suits! -- swarmed Wasilla and in their haste and indifference made up stories about her.

Turns out the the great frontier woman is nothing more than a cry baby.

Vic

And there's our first problem with the tactics, Jim, the definition of 'helping the middle class'.

I believe that the vast majority of people, if given a chance for a decent job, will take that chance, go to work, earn their pay, and make responsible choices that will - over time - get them from just starting out (or poverty-level) to a comfortable middle-class lifestyle.

Hell, 25 years ago I wasn't even earning minimum wage when I got out after a stint in the military. Then I looked at what I was doing, said "I'm enjoying what I'm doing, but I don't like having no money", and got off my lazy butt and got a real job instead of working in the bookstore which was 'fun', but didn't pay squat and had no future at all. Spent a number of years learning the job, met and married a lovely woman who also was working her way up the food chain, and now we're comfortably middle-class.

But that makes the assumption that the jobs are actually there in the first place.

Now, I could be wrong on this, but what I'm seeing as 'help' from the left is more governmental expansion than actual aid to those who need it.

Programs are implemented, and it's a crapshoot whether they've got the intended results in the long run. (Even if it isn't, it's darn near impossible to dismantle any government program no matter how ineffective.) But to pay for the additional programs, taxes have to be raised or money has to be borrowed. (Or both.)

The raised taxes (or the threat of them, depending) leads businesses to stop hiring, which causes unemployment to rise - which requires more money for programs for the unemployed.

Add in the overhead required to collect the taxes, distribute the money, administer the programs - and you're looking at (estimating roughly) about 70-75% of the tax dollar collected being paid out in benefits.

It's a feedback loop - with each cycle demanding more and more from a resource base that gets smaller and smaller. Taken to the illogical extreme, you've got everyone working for the government or on the dole, and no private sector workforce at all. It'll all fall apart long before that, however.

You seem to see government help as a wonderful thing - and I agree in the case of it being used as a safety net. But the safety net is there if you should fall, it's not designed to be a hammock. And though it may seem a good idea to turn it into one, you get too many people laying on it and the thing will fail when it's most needed.

Hey, Vic -

Tell ya what - I've got the book on order from Amazon. I should get it in a couple of days, I'll read it, and then tell you how close your review (and that unsourced excerpt) are.

Somehow, I'm thinking your review and reality don't even have a nodding acquaintance.

vic "All of this falling down in pain that the right is doing makes me want to vomit."

Please.

Please do vomit, and aim at your modem so your presence here is limited. Or nonexistent.

The right wing media is just echoing what Palin herself wants them to say. That she's a victim and the world owes her a debt because she is so persecuted.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Now that's funny. Projection of the highest order. I think you are confusing Palin with your messiah. Do continue. Lecture us more concerning our wayward grievance mentality. Please.

I believe that the vast majority of people, if given a chance for a decent job, will take that chance...But that makes the assumption that the jobs are actually there in the first place.

Or are created if they have to be.

Now, I could be wrong on this, but what I'm seeing as 'help' from the left is more governmental expansion than actual aid to those who need it.

Programs are implemented, and it's a crapshoot whether they've got the intended results in the long run.

Sure. It's the same thing with business ventures in the private sector as well.

The raised taxes (or the threat of them, depending) leads businesses to stop hiring, which causes unemployment to rise - which requires more money for programs for the unemployed.

That's a possibility.

Also what occurs is, money that people get through government-sponsored programs is spent - which increases the amount of money in the economy - and which thus increases the amount of viable consumers and potential customers.

I'll cut to the chase - the use of direct government funding to invest in programs which benefit the lower and middle class has been constant, and has been tried on a large scale twice.

Once was as the way out of the Great Depression. Which worked. And that includes WWII - which was, among other things, a massive government funding program which put just about every single able-bodied American to work. Including people who'd never been given jobs before, such as women.

The other time was during the Clinton presidency, during which he raised taxes on the wealthy, lowered taxes on the poor and middle class, and invested that money back into programs which benefited the poor and middle class. Which helped create the conditions for an economic boom which gave us the first actual budget surplus in generations.

Then Bush came in and reversed things - cut taxes on the rich, and cut funding for programs which invested in the poor and middle class. Which, along with deregulation of Wall St., created our current mess.

Now to be fair, some of the worst deregulation was passed during the Clinton administration, such as the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act. This specifically laid the grounds for ruin.

So that's my theory, and those are the real-world situations and events that back up my - and most Democrats' - theory for cutting taxes on the poor and middle class, making up the difference on the wealthy (without taxing them to death - no one's suggesting that), and investing in the poor and middle class.

Simply, it works and its proven to work. And the opposite is proven not to.

And we have a difference of opinion yet again, Jim.

The only place government can get money to make jobs is by taxing the companies who are already providing jobs - or by borrowing it from somewhere. Wouldn't it make sense to LEAVE the money with the companies who actually provide jobs?

Well, time's going to tell who's right and who's wrong. You're convinced you're right - I'm nowhere near convinced. Shall we agree to disagree?