okay, I’ll bite. What has she done for Alaska? What was Alaska like before she got there? What problems did she fix or avoid?

Alaska generally does allright — it’s got alot of income, and not too many expenses. She didn’t make that happen. She just didn’t fu@k that up . . . giving her the same effective leadership talent as a table lamp.

But you’re right about one thing: all of the negativity toward her is clearly a Liberal Media Elite Plot to make a genius look bad. Hell, you saw it with those “gotcha” questions like “what newspapers do you read”. Very sneaky of them to add “what” to “do you read”. No real American could be expected to answer a trick question like that on the spot. And all that trick editing, making it look like her answers were rambling, incoherent nonsense. I do some video editing, and I gotta tell you I’m impressed how they made it look like she actually said all that using such tricks like turning the camera to “record” and leaving it pointed at her. Sneaky liberals.

Oddly enough, I had much the same conversation with a hardcore Conservative friend of mine during the campaign. After telling me how it was all a plot I asked them if they had actually watched the Couric interview. She admitted she hadn’t, but Rush and Fox News told her everything she needed to know about it. I sent her a link to the video. Two days later I got a response, and I’m quoting: “wow — that was really pretty bad.”

p.s.: I’m taking a sidebet with myself as to your response. 20% odds you ignore the question and yell about how Obama is destroying Christmas, 30% you insult me for being such a gullible sheep, and 50% you do both. C’mon . . . disappoint me.

Didn’t work against him, as he was not then, and is not now, the person I worry the most about being the President.

“Obama had his Katrina/Iraq/name it moments in the first five months of his Administration as he engaged in economic policies that will implode in the near term.”

I am taking it from your analogy that you believe that the ambulance driver is at fault for the 3 car pile up he has arrived to try and save lives at? Katrina happened in 2005, Iraq started in 2003. ‘Name it moment’ is a little to vauge for me to date. Housing collapse started in 2008 before Obama was even the Dem candidate. So, what else do you have to blame him on? GM & Chrysler & the banking industry running themselves into bankrupty? I think it took more then 5 months of stupidity on their part to achieve that. Sanford’s cheating?

Or are you trying to claim that Obama has special magical powers that let him fool CEO and Politicians into becoming brainless idiots more then 6 years before he was elected President?

Obama’s base:
Out - just told the family you’re gay.
Here - at the public library on the internet. No place else to go that’s free.
Large - overeating out of nervousness to the point of binging.
Motivated - trying hard to find a job in this high unemployment Obama economy. Not succeeding, hence ‘here’.

Ahem - REAGAN cleared the field of more than half a dozen contenders in 1980 with his “I paid for this microphone” moment in NH. Nothing was set in stone in 1977. Nothing about 2012 is set in stone yet.

It never is 3 years out. If it were, we’d have had a Guliani vs Hillary race last year.

That’s because he’s an idiot who cant manage his money well and racked up a lot of debt. A fiscal-anti-conservative. But he still manages to live in what most Americans would call a mansion.

oops, 2012 that is.

2010 is reserved for deposing Queen Nancy.

Rick, I’ll take door #2.

“I’m about half way between you and Stacy. She was clearly unprepared, and she was clearly on a losing and poorly managed team. But the biggest cause of the portrait presented of her to the public was the press’s seething hatred of her.”

BINGO, we have a winner. Why does the press hate her? I dunno, but I was watching History channel and they were talking about how the EASTERN PRESS OF 1830 ABSOLUTELY HATED COUNTRY BUMPKIN DAVEY CROCKETT. Unlettered backwoods hunter Crockett was too much for the DC elites. “hey, that’s Palin!” I thought.

“Why are people who don’t like her in a tizzy about her? Because she’s (a) relatively attractive and (b) a hilarious train wreck”

The trains are fine. Alaska had done better under Palin than America has done under Obama.

“If there is someone running for office that I think will destroy everything, then not only am I going to not vote for them, but I am also going to campain against them.”

SO HOW HARD DID YOU WORK TO STOP THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE PRESIDENT IN OUR LIFETIME, BARACK OBAMA?

“If Obama could get elected, any Empty Suit deluxe could. That is what excites the Palin folks. If a bumbling, economic illiterate like Obama could be elected, certainly someone more marginally qualified than he could be. And let’s face it: Obama was and remains at the far margins of qualification. Obama had his Katrina/Iraq/name it moments in the first five months of his Administration as he engaged in economic policies that will implode in the near term.”

Governor Sarah Palin might not be the best Republican candidate we could put forward in 2010, but she would do a better job than Obama, as would hundreds, nay thousands, of other decent folks who have a clue about the economy, love freedom, and have a patriotic care for the sovereignty and security of USA.

“If Palin is such a horrible choice as the GOP standard bearer, why are all the usual suspects, on the left, side in such a tizzy about her? They should be encouraging the GOP to nominate such a “obvious loser”.”

We are. Dear god we are.

Why are people who don’t like her in a tizzy about her? Because she’s (a) relatively attractive and (b) a hilarious train wreck and (c) a target people can point to and say “see? That’s why Republicans are dangerous — bewcause they’re all like her.”

If I understand what you’re saying, you’re implying that if people are paying attention to her, then she must be either very skillful or very powerful. Taking the second part first . . . anybody that might have the ability to start a war with nukes is dangerous and someone I take seriously. That doesn’t mean I respect them. Assuming Iran gets the missles working, Ahmadiddlyajad becomes heart-stoppingly important and serious . . . does that mean you now think he’s a brilliant, talented, engaging and inspirational leader of men?

If you’re saying that people paying attention to her implies that she is respected, admired, and inspirational . . . well, then The Real Wives of New Jersey must be the template for the American Family, The Springer Show must be the our ideal of Journalism, porn is our target for inter-gender relations (well, that might be a bad example), and a 15-car pile-up on the freeway with a few fatalities must be our ideal for enjoying the scenery.

Personally, I consider her both — a hilarious joke that is terrifingly dangerous. I can’t think of a single thing she has said or done that has increased my estimation of her . . . usually the best she gets is I don’t respect her less when she’s done.

Like I said, she’s purty no doubt, and the platitudes are nice and all, but what has she said or done that makes anybody think she’s more qualified to run this country and speak for me than, say, Tyra Banks?

If there is someone running for office that I think will destroy everything, then not only am I going to not vote for them, but I am also going to campain against them.

If the other sides choices are Average, Average, and Moron, I am going to do everything to avoid it coming down to my side vs Moron. I care to much for the country to risk that. I would rather see my side lose then see someone I thought was the worst possible person win.

I think that you will find a lot of people feel that way about it.