Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, stepping down as governor on July 26, pictured here with supporters in Fairbanks before signing a gun rights bill on Friday. (Photo by John Wagner / Fairbanks Daily News-Miner)
by Mark Z. Barabak
Since announcing her resignation, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been pummeled by critics who have called her incoherent, a quitter, a joke and a "political train wreck."
And those were fellow Republicans talking.
Palin has been a polarizing figure from the moment she stepped off the tundra into the bright lights last summer as John McCain's surprise vice presidential running mate. Some of that hostility could be expected, given the hyper-partisanship of today's politics.
What is remarkable is the contempt Palin has engendered within her own party and the fact that so many of her GOP detractors are willing, even eager, to express it publicly -- even with Palin an early front-runner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
Some admit their preference that she stay in Alaska and forget about any national ambitions.
"I am of the strong opinion that, at present day, she is not ready to be the leading voice of the GOP," said Todd Harris, a party strategist who likened Palin to the hopelessly dated "Miami Vice" -- something once cool that people regard years later with puzzlement and laughter. "It's not even that she hasn't paid her dues. I personally don't think she's ready to be commander in chief."
Others suggest a delayed response to last year's shaky campaign performance, now that the race is over and Republicans feel free to speak their minds.
"I can't tell you one thing she brought to the ticket," said Stuart K. Spencer, who has been advising GOP candidates for more than 40 years. "McCain wanted to shock and surprise people, and he did -- in a bad way."
See the full report on Palin and the GOP in Tribune newspapers and here in the Swamp
See other angles of the Palin story: For all the controversy surrounding Palin's resignation, a lot of people say they could vote for Palin in 2012. For her part, Palin says she is simply a soul who has been misunderstood.
It is more than cruel sport, this picking apart of Alaska's departing chief executive. The sniping reflects a serious split within the Republican Party between its professional ranks and some of its most ardent followers, which threatens not only to undermine Palin's White House ambitions -- if, indeed, she harbors them -- but to complicate the party's search for a way back to power in Washington.
Consider a USA Today/Gallup poll released last week. About 7 in 10 Republicans said they would be likely to vote for Palin if she ran for president. Other surveys place Palin in a statistical dead heat with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, the former governors of Massachusetts and Arkansas, respectively, who sought the White House in 2008 and give every indication that they will try again in 2012.
Although any presidential poll taken this far out has to be taken with a sea's worth of salt, that is not the reason so many Republican strategists and party insiders dismiss Palin.
"People at the grass roots see a charismatic personality who is popular with other people at the grass roots. But their horizon only goes so far as people who think like them," said Mike Murphy. The veteran GOP ad man eviscerated Palin -- a "political train wreck," "an awful choice" for vice president, her resignation an "astonishing self-immolation" -- in a column published Thursday in the New York Daily News.
"Professional operatives keep their eye on a broader horizon and understand, without independents and swing voters, she can't win," Murphy said. "She's a stone-cold loser in a general election."
That, of course, is debatable and subject to any number of developments over the next few years. A Palin spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment.
In an interview Sunday in the Washington Times, Palin said she planned to write a book and campaign for candidates nationwide, regardless of party affiliation, who shared her views on limited government, national defense and energy independence.
But the reaction to her resignation from Republican candidates around the country has been telling. Asked if they planned to invite Palin to visit and campaign on their behalf, several of those facing tough races -- the ones who need to do more than turn out the party faithful or collect their contributions -- were not rushing out the welcome mat.
"I don't generally need people from outside my district to do a fundraiser," Rep. Frank R. Wolf, a Republican from the Democratic-leaning suburbs of northern Virginia, told the Hill newspaper.
"There's others that I would have come in and campaign, and most of them would be my colleagues in the House," Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) said in the same piece.
Whatever one thinks of Palin, there is no question she has been subjected to a level of internal sniping -- friendly fire seems like a misnomer -- that is extraordinary.
The Republican criticism of Palin, 45, began during McCain's presidential run, privately at first, then breaking into the open during the last troubled days of the Arizona senator's campaign. Finger-pointing and back-stabbing are hardly unusual in politics, especially on the losing side. But like so many things Palin-related -- the crowds, the adoration, the antipathy -- the verbal strafing seems of a whole other magnitude. (How many other losing vice presidential candidates would merit a 10,000-word exegesis in Vanity Fair, which depicted Alaska's governor as a narcissistic, one-woman demolition derby?)
Some blame sexism, though again there is sharp disagreement between Palin's supporters and detractors. Some think the former beauty queen has always been hurt by her looks, whereas others think her appearance has helped her considerably. "If Sarah Palin looked like Golda Meir, would we even be talking about her today?" Murphy asked.
Others see a knee-jerk reaction from the political establishment, which will always frown on any populist outsider (think Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean), much less a governor who quits midterm and shows up on TV in hip waders.
"The fact that she is a woman who's extremely attractive and dynamic and charismatic throws them for a loop," said Bay Buchanan, who strategized for her brother's two insurgent presidential campaigns. "Once they sense the first little sign of weakness, that's when they go in for the kill."
No one knows where the future will take Palin, not even the governor herself. Her reemergence on the national scene and the scathing response from so many of her party peers underscore one thing, however: Republicans may hold dear their memories of the late Ronald Reagan. But his famous 11th commandment -- "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican" -- was laid to rest a long time ago.
Comments
I don't blame the "weak, running-scared" GOP for trying to down play the growing league of followers Gov. Palin is attracting. But they will need to learn at least one thing, They cannot get aheaed of someone while they are kicking them in the butt. It is physically impossible. I hope the GOP grows a set and returns to the values espoused by MOST Americans and pretty well voiced by Gov. Palin.
Posted by: Randy Rowland | July 13, 2009 8:22 AM
What a great photo! Why didn't the Swamp enlighten us with the fashion details of her outfit as they always do with Michelle? If I was her PR dude, being that it was a news op dealing with gun legislation, she would have been holding a neat AR weapon raised in one hand and a pearl handled 45 strapped on those curvy hips with a deadly combat knife tucked into a boot. Make no mistake about it, the lefty libs. along with their biased MSM, and all the think they know so much, establishment Gopher's are scared out of their collective elitisms about the rising star power of the new American idol, Sarah! You gotta feel for the Swamp bloodhounds, as they no longer are able to give us a weekly hyped poll concerning the great American support for Obama and his failed economic policies. No now we receive a daily Sarah bashing. Does anyone know if that cool powder blue top came from Target or WalMart? Sure looks like a winner to me.
Posted by: bubba Porter | July 13, 2009 8:44 AM
Dipstick Palin brought nothing to the ticket, except stupidity and ignorance. She was the main reason grandpa McCain was smeared all over the map on 11/04/08. I think it best for the GOP if she stayed in Alaska. But then again there are some who believe she represents greatness and slobber and drool all over themselves about her.
Posted by: Doug R. | July 13, 2009 8:54 AM
Well, they damn well better give credit to all of us who spotted her as a borderline personalaity type from day one.
Whatever happened to their lip service to Ronnie Reagan's "Speak no ill of any Repuglican" commandment?
I do think the Replican "pundits" should be made to wear color coded dunce hats: Pink for Judy Ruilaini, Prince of Wales tartan for Jebidiah, etc., so their loyalties can be apparent at once. Little photos with hats at the top of each column so we won't have to waste time reading the whole thing.
Where, or where, are the Replicans going to find their "savior"??
Posted by: ornery | July 13, 2009 9:04 AM
Mark Z. Barabak,
Why are you surprised that Republican commentators are critical of Palin? McCain made a lousy choice, a pretty face with nothing behind it, a mouthpiece for bumper sticker slogans. This choice was a disgrace to McCain, the Republican party and the Republic. How could they NOT be critical? Get real.
Posted by: Huh? | July 13, 2009 9:14 AM
The old game. The quoted Beltway Republicans (Harris, Spencer and Murphy), unknown to 99% of Republicans, know the only way they can get mentioned in the media is by denouncing other Republicans. Which they do, and the Swamp journalist, true to form, gives them the pub they crave. The Leftist media is always happy to foment a split among Republicans.
The giveaway in this article is that, while the Swamp journalist acknowledges the fact that most rank-and-file Republicans have a different point of view, the journalist doesn't talk to anyone reflecting that point of view.
Posted by: No Change | July 13, 2009 9:26 AM
Ronnie Reagan has a lot to answer for, cashing in on his popularity, to the point of gaining an office he no more deserved, than John McCain or Sarah Palin. We have elevated notoriety to the status of a learned skill, particularly, a respected political figure. I need only to point to Bush&Cheney, who had at least a smattering of elective office experience, though their dismal records, belies that experience. We have this idea, given to use by way of our, Declaration of Independence; "...all men are created equal..". Well, they are are, but that doesn't mean you put a child in command of a division of our armed forces. We must stop with this notion that, winning at all costs, means you put anybody up for office that will catch the electorate's attention, and eventually, their vote. That disposition has put America in the stew that it is in. It has to stop.
As a Democrat, as a supporter of President Obama and Vice-President Biden, I don't think with a serious face, anyone can present President Obama or Vice-President Biden, as gaining office by their notoriety, by their pandering, nor by their fathers' influences. On the contrary, they have come the closest, that I have seen in my 50 years of observing politics, to accomplishing a victory, by way of winning it, meritoriously. President Obama didn't select Senator Biden to gain an advantage over a sector of the electorate. I believe he selected him for a lot of different reasons, but popularity, was not one of them. The same can be said of previous nominees for the White Houee, that Democrats presented to the nation. I'm sorry to say, in my humble opinion, the same cannot be said for the Republican nominees, with the obvious exception of Senator Dole. It is sad state of affairs, when one party can not ride their ideals into office, instead distracting the voters, into voting for a personality and not a respect political leader. It has to stop. We are at a point where we must quit this constant bickering, this we/them construct. We are one nation and we must begin to start acting as one ! We the people demand it.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | July 13, 2009 10:47 AM
She's a quitter, pure and simple. She couldn't take the heat, so she ran away. . Sarah Palin as Commander in Chief? Would you want that coward in a fox hole next to you? "The enemy is shooting at me. That's not fair!!!! I'm leaving!" She's yellow through and through.
Posted by: Mike | July 13, 2009 11:16 AM
Rich sums up Palin and the current GOP quite nicely:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/opinion/12rich.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Rich%20Palin%20broke%20gop%20owns%20it&st=cse
Posted by: dumbing down of America | July 13, 2009 12:08 PM
Palin wouldn't do as ordered by the established GOP and chooses to play here own game. She won’t go to all the social events and make pretty speeches for the “good old boy” republicans. And then she does the best thing for her state by quitting as Governor, yet leaving in place the people and systems to carry on her original agenda. How dare she not realize her place? Roll over and obey Sarah. Surely you realized that you either do as you’re told or you get thrown out of the “Grand Old Party” by the old men. Send those old farts to the retirement home, they cant even think for themselves let alone resemble the collective wishes of the average Joe who is current struggling just to keep his home and his job. As far as Obama goes, who cares? He has no agenda. He simply does as instructed, runs around the globe saying whatever he’s told and waits for the next election to quit a rich man. When confronted with what he said when he ran for the presidency, he laughs now and says those were just “campaign promises”. As long as he obey his masters and keeps his teleprompter firmly in view, he’ll be just fine. Even the blacks and the gays are catching on now. Really folks, this is too simple.
Posted by: Phil | July 13, 2009 12:34 PM
I think the Ross Perot - Sarah Palin analogy is the most apt. Perot went from front runner in the 1992 election to obscurity because he got labeled with the “Q” word. Nothing shakes the public’s confidence in a politician as much the perception of being a quitter. People are afraid of the idea that a decision maker won’t be there at 3:00 a.m. if the world starts blowing up. Like it or not, fear drives many more of our decision making processes than we would like to admit.
.
This is the main reason why Sarah Palin isn’t going to survive in politics after resigning as governor of Alaska. She is not going to be viewed as a “tough lady” any more. And, yes, while we may have a serious double-standard going here for women in politics, she is the one who created her own image as the “pit-bull-in-lipstick” type hockey mom. If a politician creates a tough image, he or she had better live up to it. If not, people will not believe it when that politician tells them what he/she is. In addition, tough people don’t quit for irrational reasons: “Quitters” do. Her stated reasons for leaving the governorship were absurd when not entirely counterfactual. Reading through her stated reasons, people will remember her resignation speech as a number of disjointed excuses to get out of office.
.
The other problem Sarah Palin has is that she partakes in the politics of personality. Her “charisma” (if that is one can call it) is what has carried her thus far in national politics. In all of her public interviews she has displayed a profound lack of political sagacity that one expects in a leader. People will not be comforted to know that her less than demonstrable grasp of necessary professional knowledge can be remedied by a plethora of “handlers” to tell her what she can and cannot do. People don’t elect handlers. They expect politicians to exercise the discretion entrusted to them, and to have the knowledge necessary to make decisions.
.
Randy Rowland: One doesn’t have to kick someone in the butt from behind if they have already fallen on their face. As for her values, I think it would be better to elect someone else who shares those same values if they are that desirable.
Posted by: John W. | July 13, 2009 1:08 PM
Alternate caption: "I Surrender!"
Posted by: Neil | July 13, 2009 1:35 PM
White House correspondent Carl Cannon, over at AOL Politics, gives the media game away--he admits the media took sides against Palin.
"In the 2008 election, we took sides, straight and simple, particularly with regard to the vice presidential race. I don't know that we played a decisive role in that campaign, and I'm not saying the better side lost. What I am saying is that we simply didn't hold Joe Biden to the same standard as Sarah Palin, and for me, the real loser in this sordid tale is my chosen profession.
...From the beginning, and for the ensuing 10 months, the coverage of this governor consisted of a steamy stew of cultural elitism and partisanship. The overt sexism of some male commentators wasn't countered, as one might have expected, by their female counterparts. Women columnists turned on Sarah Palin rather quickly. A plain-speaking, moose-hunting, Bible-thumping, pro-life, self-described "hockey mom" with five children and movie star looks with only a passing interest in foreign policy -- that wasn't the woman journalism's reigning feminists had envisioned for the glass ceiling-breaking role of First Female President (or Vice President). Hillary Rodham Clinton was more like what they had in mind – and Sarah, well, she was the un-Hillary."
Leftwing media bias is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. The gorilla that Mark Barabak pretends doesn't exist.
Posted by: No Change | July 13, 2009 2:31 PM
Major media like CBS, MSNBC et al. helped ruined Sarah Palin. And the leftist believed every false news and destructive propaganda viciously hurled towards this woman including her children ---AND the baby born with Dawn Syndrome. And you call yourselves the party of tolerance. I have never in my life seen so much garbage coming mostly from The Left. I hope you can still look in the mirror and see who you really are. You all should be ashamed.
Posted by: eva | July 13, 2009 2:53 PM
More nonsense from the Corrupt Chicago Tribune, the newspaper that makes a big deal. out of a few college admissions, while ignorning most of the scandals in Chicago, Crook County, Illinois and now Washington, where the paper's handpicked child is in the White House.
We get three very little known "Republican strategists or pundits" quoted here. Gee, I'd be willing to bet that when Obumbles first announced his run for the White House, there were a few Dem strategists who denounced him too. In fact, I can name one right now: James Carville.
Posted by: John D | July 13, 2009 3:05 PM
Republicans: together you stood, divided you will be conquered. First to aid the fair maiden in her quest for media justice, first to marginalize her for everything wrong with the party. Embrace the Third Way, Republicans. Somewhere between the lock stepping stuffy suits and helmet hairspray, and batty Neiman Marcus.
Posted by: there goes Africa... | July 13, 2009 6:35 PM
Remember a couple of weeks ago when she was having a heart to heart with BFF Greta Van Sustren? Think Greta showed her "where the money" is??? Greta made her millions after she left her "lawyerin'" job.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | July 13, 2009 7:36 PM
Well, I find all this speculation amusing. Don't you? There's plenty of time for her to stick her foot in her mouth... over and over and over. And over. Rmember the old say? Give her enough time and she'll hang herself. Just sit back and watch.
Posted by: irene | July 13, 2009 7:44 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | July 13, 2009 10:47 AM
.
Don,
.
You are beginning to rave again. The offices of President and Vice-President aren’t filled by merit promotions. They are filled by elections. There is no such thing as “meritoriously” winning an election. Election outcomes often do not reflect a rational selection of the best person for an office - unless you are willing to admit that George W. Bush was the right person merely because he got elected. In which case, Barack Obama “deserves” his offices for the same reason that Ronald Reagan “deserved” his: He was elected; nothing more, nothing less.
.
Furthermore, to the extent you think that Republicans are voted into office on their “personality,” or that Democrats are voted into office because of their ideology and “merit,” your claims are pathetic and laughable. It will be a cold day in hell when the prescribed cold, stiff and stuffy Republican candidate can get elected on his or her “personality” alone (i.e. what personality?). It will be an equally cold day in hell when a Democrat makes it into the White House without “pandering” or playing on their popularity. To Democrats, “campaigning” and “pandering” are synonymous. That’s because “plunder politics” drive their ideology and popularity. Their main appeal is to people who want the government to hand out something at someone else’s expense. Furthermore, one has to be deaf, dumb and blind not to have noticed that Barack Obama milked his personal popularity during the campaign. He had a cult following during the campaign, and he still has it (and you appear to be a member). This is exactly the stuff that drove Obama and Biden into office. Don’t fool yourself in thinking otherwise.
Posted by: John W. | July 13, 2009 8:45 PM
Eva, are you perhaps Inky's girl? With talk about the left not having love, or an understanding of children with "Dawn" syndrom, you are the pug's dream demographic type. Sorry Eva, I'll take the box of rocks instead.
Posted by: Xcellentform | July 14, 2009 8:04 AM
We have a few Obama followers at work who are lazy (yes, lazy --- and they're the first one to complain, too.) who believed in this president because of his skin color. Some of them won't accept the truth that their lives are much better here in America. It's a known fact Americans have embraced diversity --- I know my family have witnessed so much diversity in our community. We are so proud of these people. There are many Asians and other immigrants who have "made it" here and even started with very little in their pockets. This country owes its greatness to the contribution brought in by people who looked up to America and gave their best. Sadly, those who still cling to the "Blame the Whites" mindset have made it possible for these pockets of unstable society like those who expect to get more from the president and the socialistic programs thrive. Therefore, Mr. Obama will increase his chances of "Change" for ---- what else; SOCIAL PROGRAMS. For those who work for their own prosperity in life can look forward to more taxes so the lazy --- and "still those blaming others for their sorry flight" can hugely benefit from these programs. Republicans have done more to help the destitute as well as other nations (Africa was the biggest recipient during his tenure) yet liberal media aided in blocking any kind of news showing Mr. Bush' many compassionate programs.
Posted by: eva | July 14, 2009 1:21 PM
We have a few Obama followers at work who are lazy (yes, lazy --- and they're the first one to complain, too.) who believed in this president because of his skin color. Some of them won't accept the truth that their lives are much better here in America. It's a known fact Americans have embraced diversity --- I know my family have witnessed so much diversity in our community. We are so proud of these people. There are many Asians and other immigrants who have "made it" here and even started with very little in their pockets. This country owes its greatness to the contribution brought in by people who looked up to America and gave their best. Sadly, those who still cling to the "Blame the Whites" mindset have made it possible for these pockets of unstable society like those who expect to get more from the president and the socialistic programs thrive. Therefore, Mr. Obama will increase his chances of "Change" for ---- what else; SOCIAL PROGRAMS. For those who work for their own prosperity in life can look forward to more taxes so the lazy --- and "still those blaming others for their sorry flight" can hugely benefit from these programs. Republicans have done more to help the destitute as well as other nations (Africa was the biggest recipient during his tenure) yet liberal media aided in blocking any kind of news showing Mr. Bush' many compassionate programs.
Posted by: eva | July 14, 2009 1:21 PM
Irene, you know in your heart that mIchelle has some not very pleasing pose in many of her photo ops. But, she is now the First Lady and you still won't quit hating Sarah Palin. Must be hard for you to accept she's actually a force to be reckon with and beautiful as ... hey a 'beauty queen.' Don't say Alaskans who voted for her as a governor didn't know what they're doing because that would be a big insult to the people of Alaska. Show some kindness once in a while.
Posted by: eva | July 14, 2009 1:40 PM
Tell us Eva, are any of the "lazy" people you are talking about white? Or is it just the people who share Obama's skin color?
Posted by: Non white, not "lazy" | July 14, 2009 6:15 PM
Oh Eva, I must ask, are you friends with Senator Jeff Sessions?? You 2 seem so alike.
Posted by: Flo | July 14, 2009 6:53 PM
Yes, there are non-blacks, too. But, unfortunately, the sin is committed mostly by non-whites. I simply state the fact. In this part of the country it's pretty common. Sad, but true. I have very good and conservative non-whites friends. They're not lazy ... a hard working group who I respect. I am talking about the role of Pres. Obama as a leader and his effect in this particular community I live in. I would have readily voted for General Colin Powel if he had ran. Or for that matter Condi Rice.
Posted by: eva | July 15, 2009 12:19 AM
Oh, Eva, how can you fit both of your feet in that stinky mouth of yours. You are a typical chest beating pug that thinks no other nation compares with the US. Well, sweetie, I've now spent about 4 months in Canada and can tell you that they MANY things that are going right for it, and in many respects are lightyears ahead of the US.
I've seen just as many lazy hill-billy pugs as I have seen lazy dems, so I guess you were planning on ammending your comment above. American's, in general, are a lazy bunch.
Time for you to put your tinfoil hat back on so the evil media airwaves don't penetrate your skull.
Posted by: Xcellentform | July 15, 2009 8:35 AM
Posted by: eva | July 14, 2009 1:21 PM
.
Well, Ms. Braun, you really got us, huh? Hard to reply to such a stinging rebuke. Yet, one feels compelled.
.
Yup -- some people voted for President Obama because he's black and because he identifies as a black person. They absolutely did. Just like some people voted for McCain because he was white (and pointedly, therefore, NOT BLACK NOT BLACK NOT BLACK). Go ahead and rack up the counts for both and get back to us on the figures. A bit hard to do because people are allowed to cast their votes however they want and they don't have to explain the reason. One way or the other. Black or white, as it were.
.
And I'd be the first person to agree that some black people are lazy. LAAAAAZY as the day is long. As are many white people. And some Hispanic people, and Asian people, and Native Americans. It's an INDIVIDUAL trait, not a racial one, in case you hadn't noticed. But thank you so much for pointing out that some people voted for Obama because they believed in his SOCIAL programs and what they perceived they'd gain from his election (so different, I suppose, from Republicans who would NEVER vote for a candidate out of self-interest, eh?). Once again, people are allowed to vote for anyone they want to, for whatever reason.
.
I don't personally know of anyone living permanently in the United States who doesn't believe that their lives are better here, but should any come up -- whether they be Democrat or Republican, black, white or GREEN, I'd certainly invite them most enthusiastically indeed to move to wherever they think life would be more amenable. As I believe many conservative posters have done, without even allowing for people to decide for themselves what they feel is best. Are you among those who does NOT like living here? What was the point of your statement?
.
Thank you for acknowledging that Americans embrace diversity (it's about frigging time, and there's still some left to embrace), and it brings a tear of joy to my eye to hear that you've decided to be proud of the minorities you've allowed to join your community. You're a saint.
.
Yes, it's sad that there are people who "blame the whites" for all the ills that have befallen them. In many cases, these people would benefit from letting go of their attitude and getting on with getting on. Thanks for pointing that out. I wonder, though, what you have to say about those who persist in believing that blacks have risen above their station and ought to stop competing against white people so that things can go back the way they should? And what about those people for whom blame truly DOES rest on "the white folks"? They exist, you know...
.
For whatever social gains were accomplished during Bush's administration -- and he DID do very good things for AIDS victims in Africa, for which I'm thankful, I think it's important to recognize that Bush and, by extension, Republicans in general, were REJECTED in the last election by a majority of people who voted in favor of Obama. It's a fact. Obama won the election.
.
Best wishes to you and your diverse little community.
Posted by: Op109 | July 15, 2009 9:27 AM
Posted by: eva | July 15, 2009 12:19
Eva, what can i say to a bigot like you? It's probably a waate of my breath trying to penetrate your prejudice and ignorance. You are the problem, not them. You are the one who needs to change. There are far too many people who think like you infecting our planet. Thankfully your numbers are getting smaller, as people learn to get past your sort of racist stereotyping.
Posted by: Non-white | July 15, 2009 9:33 AM
I find these musings about Sarah Palin's intellect and future aspirations to be very interesting. If she has "little intelligence, political ability and knowledge of the facts", why is she all over both liberal and conservative news outlets? She should be a non-issue, especially with people who would never vote for her should she decide to run for national office. For someone who has such "little skill", she sure has caused quite a stir. In the words of William Shakespeare: "Me thinks thou dost protest too much!"
To its detriment, the liberal media is stubbornly blind to a conservative, non-partisan ground swell of angst steadily growing across this country against the policies of the current presidential administration. This grassroots movement is based on the simple constitutional fact that it's the PEOPLE who rule in a democracy, not the Executive Branch and its current acquiescent mouthpiece, the media.
I look forward to see what Sarah Palin might do in the future when she is no longer a "public servant", but a private citizen and has some legal leverage to thwart the multitude of attacks that come her way. My common sense tells me that we haven't seen anything yet!
Posted by: shahoon | July 15, 2009 10:57 AM
worried about her new born baby. shame for lugging him all over when he should have been in his crib at home, not much of a mother.
Posted by: orothy cooper | July 15, 2009 1:14 PM
Sarah go home!!! Quit going back to Reagan, who declared that "this country didn't need an energy plan". NOT MUCH VISION THERE!! whiteagle38
Posted by: R Juneau | July 15, 2009 8:40 PM
Posted be: Non-white
Would you re-read my statement again. I said 'a few.' and I'm sure this is not the first time this aspect of American society was exposed to you. Obviously, I do not have to expound on whether only the 'non-whites' are the lazy ones. But, I think I just hit one big of a nerve here, people. I actually appreciated blogger Op109 with some of his open-minded thoughts on this very delicate subject of race. Whew! I obviously "cracked the wall." The subject of race is a delicate matter. BUT, NOT WHEN a left-winger talks about the Republicans. They are free to say what they want and use the vilest language at that. Really, I'm aghast with the dirty insult you threw on me. That's okay, I have to remember I'm blogging on the "Swamp," (hey, it's a swamp!!! Ha, ha, hah!) a very liberal site. Non-white, I have no feelings of anger towards you, even though you called me a racist. I know myself -- - I am not a racist.
Posted by: eva | July 16, 2009 2:29 PM
Posted be: Non-white
Would you re-read my statement again. I said 'a few.' and I'm sure this is not the first time a discussion of this aspect of American society was exposed to you. Obviously, I do not have to expound on whether only the 'non-whites' are the lazy ones. But, I think I just hit one big of a nerve here, people. I actually appreciated blogger Op109 with some of his open-minded thoughts on this very delicate subject of race. Whew! I obviously "cracked the wall." The subject of race is a delicate matter. BUT, NOT WHEN a left-winger talks about the Republicans. They are free to say what they want and use the vilest language at that. Really, I'm aghast with the kind of awful insults you threw on me. That's okay, I have to remember I'm blogging on the "Swamp," (hey, it's a swamp!!! Ha, ha, hah!) very, very liberal site. Non-white, I have no feelings of anger towards you, even though you called me a racist. I know myself - - - - I am not a racist.
Posted by: eva | July 16, 2009 2:32 PM