Comments on: THE MORAL COWARDICE OF SARAH PALIN

By: flyerhawk

flyerhawk — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:04:09 +0000

Geez. And you guys wonder why Rick turned off comments. Some of you have no respect for this site.

As for the diary entry, I don’t think it was moral cowardice. I believe this is another example of Sarah Palin simply being in over her head. She didn’t know the appropriate answer/non-answer to this question. In retrospect I suspect she could answer the question easily. But when the question was asked she locked up and gave a hodgepodge answer.

Had the McCain campaign thought things through they would have been prepping her all summer. She still would have been behind the curve but at least she could have come out a little more prepared.

To be clear, I am not speaking about her intelligence or competence. I am referring solely to her readiness to face the brightest political spotlight on the planet. In 4 years, she may be ready but she isn’t right now.

What the Republicans SHOULD have done is have her do the Obama track. Give her the keynote speech and then start to cultivate for 2012. She would have been a formidible force. The question now, is whether she has damaged her brand too much.

By: the Fly-Man

the Fly-Man — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:09:38 +0000

Oh, thanks Rick for opening up the comments. Mike Pence 20012!I said it here first.

By: the Fly-Man

the Fly-Man — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:07:11 +0000

It was really simple folks, McCain pawned all of his Maverick credentials to ironically appease the part of the base he thought would complete the deal for him. Unfortunately the people he alienated during this surrender apparently have standards too, and just a wee bit more clout in the party. For all you anti-abortion folks out there let me ask you a few questions: Don’t you all feel like complete stooges? Really, W, Bill Frist and Tom Delay were all in charge of Congress for 6 years and all you got for your loyal votes was the Teri Shivo act? You have been played again and reminded how radical and insignificant your power really is. Get your own party won’t you please? You all stomp your feet and demand equal treatment like kindergartners.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:52:26 +0000

Rick:
If you keep these comments open sooner or later your head’s going to explode. There are two possible scenarios: 1) Cantaloupe with a firecracker inside. 2) Daffy Duck. If the latter, you’ll be okay, though singed and temporarily denuded of feathers.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 04:03:52 +0000

williams was just trying to change the subject off of Ayres and Palin wasn’t going to let him. She continued to get her point out about Bill Ayers being associated with Obama and being a terrorist. Good for her. She knows more than you about how the press works.

By: Tippecanoe

Tippecanoe — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 03:12:22 +0000

I used to read your blog more than I do now. And this article is one reason. One has to sift out that which is irrelevant and unimportant. With the abortion bombers (domestic), well we can’t even find one now. It is just simply a total non-issue. How then can you compare that to perhaps 10% of 1.5 billion Muslims that are radical terrorists in waiting? You cannot. There is just simply no comparison and any attempt is just something that does not matter in this very real world.
I think Palin is just fine. Moreover, she is ordinary folk using common sense. That alone beats any politician out there. That alone is what we need. With a good base you can learn what little you need along the way. Without a good base, you are a lost cause.
She has the good base, conservative values and common sense.

By: Bagley

Bagley — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:37:07 +0000

“…and her negatives are so high now she has become a huge drag on the campaign…”

Source, please. (And, no, fevered imaginings do not count.)

By: Cecil Hill

Cecil Hill — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:58:13 +0000

I love it when the so-called intellectuals call people names:

“Adding three points to the highest tax bracket is “socialism”? You are an idiot whose thought processes are limited to wingnut talking points.”

The Chinese under Mao was a socialist experiment. Who owned the means of production? Certainly not the Chinese individuals as is now happening. Seems you are rationalizing that the Chinese experience was not socialism.

And speaking of “What China tried was an insane Asian personality cult and tyranny.” Do you see any correlations in this and your friend Obama (if, indeed, he is your friend)? Aak a member of the “cult of Obama” a well-thought out question or a serious question and see what happens. Been doing that for the last two years and I always get STONE COLD SILENCE.

Been to China lately or are you just calling people names because your inability to provide reasoned discussion? Don’t worry, I will not call you a name.

By: Indigo Red

Indigo Red — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:24:36 +0000

It’s probably the height of hubris to say I know what terrorism is and it’s not at all difficult to understand. Terrorism the philosophy and act of instilling intense, overpowering fear which is called terror.

Terrorism does need to involve murder or violence of any kind. The practioner of fear need only know what the target group is afraid of and promise delivery. If the promise isn’t enough, then escalate to the actual from the virtual.

The purpose of terrorism is to make folks so afraid they will change their behavior if only to avoid the percieved feared thing or idea. If abortion clinics are bombed night and day, them I’m afarid to go to abortion clinics at any time, and abortion clinics shut down. If financial centers are bombed, then I’m afarid to use financial institutions.

That’s the elementary theory. It just doesn’t work in the long run. There has never been a successful terror campaign nor a successful anti-terror campaign. Periods of terrorism have come and gone. And that’s precisely what happens - terrorism just goes away, no winners, no losers, just destroyed property and destroyed lives.

“It was terrorism yesterday, it is terrorism today, and it will be terrorism tomorrow.” With this statement, I’m in agreement with Rick. Redefining attempts to instill intense, overpoweing fear is always terrorism no matter who does it. And the action is always wrong. It’s just that sometimes, it is right to do the wrong thing. I am in inveterate supporter of the American Revolution, but when I look seriously at the reasons for revolution, I find them rather flimsy and downright idiotic. But, revolution (the wrong thing) was the right choice.

Terrorism is always a choice. The terrorist should also be prepared to be terrified in return with the threat of death, capture, prosecution, and any form of public humiliation the establishment deems appropriate.

By: Nes

Nes — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:26:35 +0000

It is not socialism to raise tax rates a few percentage points, HOWEVER, if you actually mouth the words that you “want to spread the wealth around” that is a GIANT red flag to those who have some knowledge of political/economic ideologies.

“Spreading the wealth around” smacks of socialist philosophy. Basically, the belief that the “experts” in government know best and they will decide if you make too much money or have too many things and re-allocate it to their preferred constituents, i.e., the particular class of dependents which they claim to represent. In B. Hussein’s case, inner city blacks, radical professors, academics, radical muslims and assorted fellow travelers.

Generally speaking, it’s better to reduce taxes DRASTICALLY in a time of economic recession in order to stimulate economic activity and thus job growth, capital growth, etc.