Who needs credibility when you've got Sarah Palin? - Macleans.ca
 

Who needs credibility when you’ve got Sarah Palin?


 

Her book is called Going Rogue and it is already a bestseller weeks ahead of appearing on the bookshelves. This is no small feat and is indicative of the fact that Sarah Palin is the most spectacular politician in the Republican party—and possibly the United States. Her book is just thin edge of the wedge, too. Not only will she make millions doing speeches and grow her profile by acting ‘mavericky’ on Facebook and other outlets, she will dominate fundraising efforts for her party in the upcoming electoral year. Should the GOP make any gains in the 2010 mid terms, she will be in a position to reap the credit and her name will leap to the top of Republican field for the presidential primaries in 2012.

Clearly, she energizes the Republican base and excites the Beck-Limbaugh-Hannity-O’Reilly populist crowd. It matters little to them that she cannot conduct an in-depth interview on policy matters with reputed journalists. All she has to do is control the medium, as she did in Hong Kong and as she does with her Facebook interventions. No one challenges her knowledge because she plays her star quality to the hilt. Her somewhat-glamorous looks and her unpredictability make her irresistible to reality TV–types who want to see a show. Surely, her 400-page book will contain even more revealing glimpses of the hockey mom from Alaska.

All this is aimed at deflecting the negative attention cast on a retired governor who failed to complete her first term and left amidst controversy and declining polls. Her poor performance as the running mate to the hapless John McCain will be less of a factor than her track record as governor of Alaska. It will become obvious in the coming weeks that Palin has outgrown Alaska. She is now out to conquer middle America from the usurper-in-chief in the White House. All this will be great material for pundits on cable news shows and Tina Fey on SNL.

The base and the far-right in the media will applaud their new darling and attempt to compare her glamour with that of Barack Obama. It leads one to wonder whether this is in fact the ideal scenario for the White House. A focus on shallow glamour could effectively drown out some serious and credible voices in the GOP, most of whom have already retreated from the spotlight. Where is Mitt Romney these days? Can Newt Gingrich get any traction? And what about moderate and fiscal conservative Tim Pawlenty, the outgoing Minnesota governor? Remember Bobby Jindal? Compared to the antics of Sarah, these guys are as boring as they come. And in a match up with Obama in the polls, they will not be seen as serious contenders. Palin, the thinking on the far right goes, would do better.

But here is the problem for the Republicans. The Palin Republicans may be boisterous bunch, but they are a definite minority. Americans are by nature an optimistic people. Appealing to fear, pursuing divisive and polarized politics, and always attacking without providing an alternative vision is not the way to electoral success. It gets people out to Tea Parties and boosts Fox News’ ratings but it does not appeal to mainstream America. This blog has argued all along for a moderate conservative alternative to Obama because it elevates the debate. It also offers the best promise for success for the Republican in the medium- and long-term. In the end, Sarah Palin will probably never even become a candidate for the presidency. Yet, as long as the Palin Republicans dominate the political scene in the GOP, the truly worthy candidates will be left to rot on the sidelines. Obama’s strategists could hardly have hoped for a better scenario.


 

Who needs credibility when you’ve got Sarah Palin?

  1. I too am a Palin supporter like avr . i will support her bid for the president . Moderates are musherates. Mccain was a disaster . Why not Cheney making a comeback .We need Cheney in a Palin cabinet .Both believe in a strong America.

    • Concern troll is concern troll.

  2. You wrote: why should such conservatives be satisfied in being represented by squishy "moderates" that differ only from Obama in their preferred speed of governmental growth and spending?

    The answer lies in appeal to moderates and Independents. Palin does, at this point, not garner moderate nor Independent support. To win the Presidency, more than just the base has to come out. Palin suffers from this effect.

    In the 80's there were Reagan Democrats, in the last election Obamicans. Will there be a foreseeable scenario in which we'll see Palinocrats? I think seriously not unless Palin does something drastic to alter her image… Maybe an interview or 2 that's not on Conservative leaning shows…

    • Maybe an interview or 2 that's not on Conservative leaning shows…

      …or is coherent. Coherent would be good.

      • Coherence is elitist.

    • It won't happen because she or a similar populist Republican veers dramatically leftward; it'll happen because the incumbent (or chosen successor) has caused the centre to want a throw-the-bums-out outcome. As I said re: the last of Parisella's standard "Here are some popular conservative Republicans I hate, and here are some unpopular liberal Republicans I like" posts:

      …the particular conservativism Parisella loathes will eventually return to power, when events overtake the perceived competence of Democrats. That's going to happen no matter how much affinity partisan critics feel for the other side's minority wing…

    • It would certainly be catastrophic for McCain and his allies, no doubt.

    • It would certainly be catastrophic for McCain and his allies, no doubt, if the VP candidate they passive-aggressively undercut for half the campaign (and openly since then) were to succeed in some way where he failed.

  3. I'm totally going to start using the word 'mavericky' in ordinary conversation.

  4. This piece was looking pretty good until the final paragraph, at which point Parisella did a gratuitous faceplant.

    "Appealing to fear, pursuing divisive and polarized politics, and always attacking without providing an alternative vision is not the way to electoral success.

    These are exactly what Obama did to get elected, and the first two are what he continues to do. What matters is not whether they can lead to electoral success (they can, as Obama demonstrated) but whether they are good for the country. The answer is no, but this is apparently not Parisella's (or the Left's) primary concern.

    "This blog has argued all along for a moderate conservative alternative to Obama because it elevates the debate. "

    McCain was exactly this. It did not elevate the debate; it guaranteed a Republican loss. Presumably that is why "this blog" continues to argue for it.

    One side of the debate will largely consist of Pelosi-Democrats calling Republicans racists, Nazis, stupid/angry/old/white/ men, and un-American stooges. That is to be expected from the Left. The question is whether the other side of the debate will content itself with timidity and unwillingness to debate the issues that matter, or whether a truly hard-core conservative will emerge to make the case for strong national defense, low taxes, free speech, personal responsibility and respect for the right not to be killed regardless of age or disability.

    Sarah Palin may not be this person but her presence in the debate can only help to force these issues into the public conversation rather than yielding to the Left's smokescreens.

  5. This piece was looking pretty good until the final paragraph, at which point Parisella did a gratuitous faceplant.

    "Appealing to fear, pursuing divisive and polarized politics, and always attacking without providing an alternative vision is not the way to electoral success.

    These are exactly what Obama did to get elected, and the first two are what he continues to do. What matters is not whether they can lead to electoral success (they can, as Obama demonstrated) but whether they are good for the country. The answer is no, but this is apparently not Parisella's (or the Left's) primary concern.

    "This blog has argued all along for a moderate conservative alternative to Obama because it elevates the debate. "

    McCain was exactly this. It did not elevate the debate; it guaranteed a Republican loss. Presumably that is why "this blog" continues to argue for it.

    One side of the debate will largely consist of Pelosi-Democrats calling Republicans racists, Nazis, stupid/angry/old/white/ men, and un-American stooges. That is to be expected from the Left. The question is whether the other side of the debate will content itself with timidity and unwillingness to debate the issues that matter, or whether a truly hard-core conservative will emerge to make the case for strong national defense, low taxes, free speech, personal responsibility and respect for the right not to be killed regardless of age or disability.

    Sarah Palin may not be this person but her presence in the debate can only help to bring these issues into the public conversation.

    • "These are exactly what Obama did to get elected,"

      What examples can you provide of Obama "appealing to fear, pursuing divisive and polarized politics, and always attacking without providing an alternative vision" during the campaign and since then?

      I've been dismayed, frankly, that he hasn't done this….to marginalise the irrational fringe that has currently seized the American Right.

      • I'll be your huckleberry.

        Obama attacked George Bush from the very first breath of his candidacy, using his polarizing speeches to drum up his lefty whacko base against Hillary Clinton. His entire campaign 'vision' was based on two amorphous and vacuous words: 'HOPE' and 'CHANGE', neither of which he (nor his agape followers) defined.

        He used the tactics of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago machine politics to win his seat. He lied about writing "Dreams From My Fathers".

        Barack Obama is a dirty socialist what's destroying America. Now, he's proven a liar.

        We told you so. Now, look out; things will CHANGE again soon enough.

        • Thank you but I rather read a response from someone who's lucid.

        • @Serr8d refers to a right wing website and an author namedLifson ,a right wing truth denier. Now we see the liar!!

    • Indeed. These posts are invariably a lengthy elaboration on the theme of "Why can't these stupid Republicans just understand that my politics are a legitimate ideological worldview, and theirs aren't?"

    • Indeed. These posts are invariably a lengthy elaboration on the theme of "Why can't these stupid Republicans just understand that my politics represent a legitimate ideological worldview, and theirs don't?"

    • Indeed. These posts are invariably a lengthy concern-trolling elaboration on the theme of "Why can't these stupid Republicans just understand that my politics represent a legitimate ideological worldview, and theirs don't?"

      • You guys show how misguided and intellectually dishonest you are. You scare people on healthcare and then you say Obama is a liar . Where is the far right on health?In the pockets of the health insurance lobby.As for Palin doing interviews?
        She will not do interviews because she is lazy and DUMB!

        • No, you are lazy and dumb, kandu.

          Read this. Then say again that Republicans don't have a plan.

          Republicans don't have a plan that would bankrupt the nation. Where do you think Obonga is getting the money for 'his' plan? He's either borrowing it from China (which adds not only the return payment as debt to future generations, but also the interest owed on that debt, the debt service) AND he's printing it (which makes every bit of paper currency worth less: the law of supply and demand!).

          We simply cannot afford the out-of-control candy-store spending spree these leftists are engaged in. There is no money for it. The progressive dream is dying; the economy is built on the engine of capitalism; everything you have is produced by the Milton Friedmanesque idea of capitalism.

          Progressives will shut that down, and with it, this nation as we know it will shut down.

          You won't like so much the nation you will find yourself living in, that I guarantee you.

          • And you are a racist -Obonga?How disgusting in this day and age!!!Correct me if I am wrong.
            Look at the hypocrits like Ensign and Coburn from Oklahoma who negotiate payoffs to cover up sex scandals and who cheer against America`s bid for the Olympics.The Right wing nutbags like @Serr8d

          • 'Obonga' for the weed he bonged, dumass, and for the Grateful Dead endorsement. Don't invent racism in your own wee little mind and project it on others. If there's any racism, it's yours.

          • At least avr and jolyon are intelligent. You are just spewing right wing ignorance. Answer on healthcare,Ensign-Coburn scandal ,Palin lies,Beck distortions ! You can`t and call me racist. Well what is this convoluted response?We know what you meant by Obonga. Do not make up a lame duck excuse for your racist blab.

          • Serr8d's Twitter profile:
            Name Serr 8d
            Location Smyrna, TN
            Web http://serr8d.blo
            Bio Lifetime NRA member, Conservative, a minor blogger, an Ayn Rand sort of bidnessman. A firm grasp on reality, thankyouverymuch

            *cue "Dueling Banjos" from Deliverance*

        • In the pockets of the health insurance lobby?

          We want to eliminate the current conception of insurance. Force insurers to provide actual insurance, and not just medical prepayment. Force insurers to pursue individuals as clients, instead of selling to HR departments of companies.

          Having only high deductible catastrophic insurance and tax free HSAs would drastically shrink the insurance business and create a massive revolution in the way that health care is provided. Get it focused on patients as money generators and as the actual client, instead of an inconvenience to pleasing bureaucrats.

          Liberals and McCainites are the ones that prop up rent seeking bureaucratic corporations. True conservatives want free markets, red in tooth and claw – not something that people want for their own firms if they can lobby the right people!

  6. That you don't know who any of them are proves my point rather well, thank you.

  7. That you don't know who any of them are proves my "basic awareness and understanding of American conservatism" credentials rather well, thank you.

  8. I don't read Conservative blogs, nor Democratic ones, but it strikes me that Palin (or her handlers) will be using this latest David Letterman brouhaha for maximum effect, given her dustup with him not so long ago about making sex jokes about her young daughters. Seems like a base "conservative issue".

    Stay tuned…developing.

  9. I see my hopes that Parisella would stop posting his severe misunderstandings about American conservativism here are to be cruelly dashed, alas. I'll leave it at this:

    But here is the problem for the Republicans. The Palin Republicans may be boisterous bunch, but they are a definite minority. Americans are by nature an optimistic people. Appealing to fear, pursuing divisive and polarized politics, and always attacking without providing an alternative vision is not the way to electoral success. It gets people out to Tea Parties and boosts Fox News' ratings but it does not appeal to mainstream America. This blog has argued all along for a moderate conservative alternative to Obama because it elevates the debate.

    Half right. Americans are an optimistic people – but "Palin Republicans" are the optimists. They're the ones that believe America is genuinely better than other countries – and most certainly isn't a failed empire in decline with little moral credibility, as so many Democrats do. They think it can do quite well for itself if it doesn't try to play the European-style collaborative-consensus-welfare state game. The vision they're providing is of a government that Leaves People Alone and doesn't insist that it must the sole source of wealth and progress; I can see how that would be so shockingly alien as to look like 'nothing at all' to Parisella types.

    At heart, the question remains: why should such conservatives be satisfied in being represented by squishy "moderates" that differ only from Obama in their preferred speed of governmental growth and spending? Why ought they to meekly defer to what a liberal journalist thinks is the appropriately "moderate" expression of opposition, shunning anyone further to the right?

  10. I see my hopes that Parisella would stop posting his severe misunderstandings about American conservativism here on receiving his new position are to be cruelly dashed, alas. I'll leave it at this:

    But here is the problem for the Republicans. The Palin Republicans may be boisterous bunch, but they are a definite minority. Americans are by nature an optimistic people. Appealing to fear, pursuing divisive and polarized politics, and always attacking without providing an alternative vision is not the way to electoral success. It gets people out to Tea Parties and boosts Fox News' ratings but it does not appeal to mainstream America. This blog has argued all along for a moderate conservative alternative to Obama because it elevates the debate.

    Half right. Americans are an optimistic people – but "Palin Republicans" are the optimists. They're the ones that believe America is genuinely better than other countries – and most certainly isn't a failed empire in decline with little moral credibility, as so many Democrats do. They think it can do quite well for itself if it doesn't try to play the European-style collaborative-consensus-welfare state game. The vision they're providing is of a government that Leaves People Alone and doesn't insist that it must the sole source of wealth and progress, and of a presidency that doesn't embark on egotistical fool's errands like personally attempting (and failing) to obtain the Olympics for his hometown. I can see how that would be so shockingly alien as to look like 'nothing at all' to Parisella types.

    At heart, the question remains: why should such conservatives be satisfied in being represented by squishy "moderates" that differ only from Obama in their preferred speed of governmental growth and spending? Why ought they to meekly defer to what a liberal journalist thinks is the appropriately "moderate" expression of opposition, shunning anyone further to the right?

    • I don't think that the "Palin Republicans" really want a government that Leaves People Alone, not really.

      They just want a government that interferes in peoples' lives in different ways.

      • I speak in generalities, of course, but I suspect they're pretty libertarian on the whole – and nothing like the caricature of Bible-thumping, gay-bashing thugs their opponents would like to believe.

      • I speak in generalities, of course, but I suspect they're pretty libertarian on the whole – and nothing like the caricature of Bible-thumping, gay-bashing, wife-abusing thugs their opponents would like to believe.

        • Tell me…what gives you greater insight into the nature of American conservatism to speak about it with such authority?

          • Well, I don't seem to have a barely-concealed loathing for anyone to the right of John McCain. That can't hurt. Keeping tabs on the more prominent conservative American pundits and bloggers probably also helps; my perception of Americans outside the Obama administration is informed by their own words, rather than the fairy tales certain journalists like to tell each other about the stupid bumpkins in flyover country.

          • Well, I don't seem to have a barely-concealed loathing for anyone to the right of John McCain. That can't hurt. Keeping tabs on the more prominent conservative American pundits and bloggers probably also helps; my perception of Americans outside the Obama administration is informed by their own words, rather than the fairy tales certain journalists like to tell each other about the mobs of stupid bumpkins in flyover country.

          • "Keeping tabs on the more prominent conservative American pundits and bloggers…"

            Such as?

          • That I know who they are (and you don't) proves my "basic awareness and understanding of American conservatism" credentials rather well, thank you – and I'm hardly going to fall into the trap of debating who constitutes a "real" one for your purposes.

            Either you follow the other side's opinion media or you don't. Parisella evidently does not, and as a result his columns on this subject sound like an anthropologist studying some quaint backwoods tribe – patronizing, riddled with inaccuracies the subjects would spot in half a second, and positively overflowing with observer bias.

      • Palin is trying to position herself with the tea-party types. She wants to be seen as Libertarian/Classic Liberal.

        There are plenty of conservatives who want to be left alone and there are some who want government involved in lives, but not nearly to the extent Dems/progs do.

        • In other words, she's hoping to replicate the electoral success of Ron Paul.

  11. That I know who they are (and you don't) proves my "basic awareness and understanding of American conservatism" credentials rather well, thank you – and I'm hardly going to fall into the trap of debating who constitutes a "real" one for your purposes.

    Either you follow the other side's opinion media or you don't; Parisella evidently does not, and as a result his columns on this subject sound like an anthropologist studying some quaint backwoods tribe – patronizing, riddled with inaccuracies the subjects would spot in half a second, and full of observer bias.

  12. That I know who they are (and you don't) proves my "basic awareness and understanding of American conservatism" credentials rather well, thank you – and I'm hardly going to fall into the trap of debating who constitutes a "real" one for your purposes.

    Either you follow the other side's opinion media or you don't. Parisella evidently does not, and as a result his columns on this subject sound like an anthropologist writing his thesis on some quaint backwoods tribe based on a helicopter fly-by – patronizing, fuzzy on the details, and positively overflowing with observer bias.

    • they are a backward tribe ,the Palin Republicans. Nutcases and hypocrits like her . Did you read Levi Johnson`s story ?That is exactly who she is . The kid with down syndrome is bandied about like a prop. avr falls for that crap and listens to lies from Beck like Vancouver lost 1 billion on the Olympics. Hint? Vancouver has not had their Olympics.

      • That's some top-quality crazy, right there.

        • Why? It's not as if anything he's said is incorrect. That's the problem with Republicans nowadays: totally obsessed with form, and uninterested in content. How else can one explain Palin's popularity – someone so devoid of substance that a head of lettuce would be a more serious candidate.

        • Frankly, the problem starts by even caring what the wingnuts think.

          • Hear hear!

    • "That I know who they are (and you don't)…"

      Why do you assume that? I follow enough of prominent American pundits on the Right…Peggy Noonan, John Podhoretz, Frank Rich, David Broder, William Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Jonah Goldberg, Ted Nugent…

      I'm also aware of a few major web sites on the Right…RedState, Politico, Powerline, NRO…

      You're going to have to do better than this evasiveness, given the grandiosity of your haughty dismissal of Parisella's post. Then again, that isn't much different than what elite opinion on the American Right consists of either.

      • Rich and Broder aren't on the right…

    • "anthropologist writing his thesis on some quaint backwoods tribe"

      Spot on. Don't know if you read it or not but Goldberg wrote about Conservatives In The Mist a few years ago. I recognized the phenomenon all too well.

      "I was recently watching a BBC wildlife documentary on the Discovery Channel. The narrator — a British fellow with an accent like Gandalf the White — described the scene:

      "The male approaches the pack. His intentions are clear: assert dominance, conquer, rule. Sensing trepidation from the younger males and curiosity from the bitches — who at this age are in a perpetual state of heat — the would-be leader-of-the-pack seizes his opportunity. He puffs out his chest and lets loose with a booming roar: "Hey, have you read the latest issue of National Review?"

      Okay, I'm lying. Or, as Steve Glass or Jayson Blair might say, I'm "fabulating." (My couch just yelled from the other room: "Actually, Jonah, technically speaking Blair would say he's 'stickin' it to Whitey!' but I get your drift.") But, my point is, whenever I read liberals reporting about the goings-on of conservatives I always get the nature-documentary vibe. A liberal reporter puts on his or her Dian Fossey hat in order to attempt to write another installment of Conservatives in the Mist. I've followed this particular brand of reporting for years, it's almost a fetish of mine. Most attempts fail. Of these lesser varieties, there's fear ("Troglodytes!"), mockery ("Irrelevant troglodytes!"), condescension ("I had to explain to them they're troglodytes."), bewilderment ("Why don't they understand they're troglodytes?"), astonishment (Dear God, they're not all troglodytes!"), and a few combinations of all the above. " J Goldberg, National Review, May '03

      • Troglodyte.

  13. Let me see:

    Reagan: sneered at by the leftist academic elite at the time, as an old fool/baffoon,

    Bush: sneered at by the leftist academic elite as a knuck dragging inarticulate "cowboy"

    Palin: sneered at by the leftist academic elite as an uneducated, inarticulate idiot.

    Hey, I'm starting to sense a pattern here.

    • Regan to Bush to Palin?

      I see a pattern there too.

      It concludes somewhere around the 2044 election when the Republicans nominate a block of cheese.

      • If it's not a tangy Bleu d'Auvergne, the leftist academics will sneer at that too!

  14. Folks lets talk some plain american common sense. I wont talk right versus left, conservative versus liberal, democrat versus republican. I wil talk smart versus dumb.

    As a people, if we put dumb people in power, we should not complain when dumb things happen to the nation and we end up screwed one way or another. We all need to look in the mirror and say, we need to have two smart people with different visions competing in this country for our vote. When we make it smart versus dumb, we screw ourselves. When the dumb get in power, stupid stuff ends up happenning to us.

    Look, there are many ways to measure this but the easiest way is this: when they dont have the teleprompter in front of them, can they speak to you coherently. Do they talk in sentences. Do the sentences make sense. Are they accurate.

    We all are in the same boat and we all can disagree. but if we put dumb people in power, we should not be surprised if dumb things flow from OUR decision.

  15. First, The title is: Going rogue: an american life. American is very important here. This proud american woman would never be part
    of an american apologysing tour a la Obama. Second, the former governor is spectacular in live … and as an executive. Big energy infrastructure project , one facebook page derailing the public option
    and saving the american economy. Third, the book is already the best
    seller and not a best seller among other best sellers . Is John asking us about is own credibility by writhing about the credibility of a 45 years old woman, former mayor, first woman governor of Alaska and
    second VP woman candidacy in the history of the United-States ?
    (…)
    A woman able to be the first republican passionaria while she is making seven figures by her own work is a winner and that is as important as hope and much more compelling than socialist change
    in America…
    It is simply more credible.

    • "This proud american woman would never be part
      of an american apologysing tour a la Obama."

      No one sensible cares what you think.

    • Palin wouldn't apologize if she accidentally nuked Switzerland.

      If you think her Facebok page is what derailed health care reform you're delusional.

      Having a best selling book when you're a celebrity is about as tough as having a best selling album when you're Britney Spears (and the content is often as meaningful).

      Any idiot can get elected mayor of a small town in the middle of nowhere.

      Running Alaska successfully doesn't get more complicated than deciding what colour the royalty cheques you send to your constituents are going to be.

      Remind me again, is she Vice President?

      Wow, she makes seven figures by her own work! Following that logic, the Americans might as well just get rid of the Presidency all together and appoint Oprah Queen.

      I'm sorry, but Sarah Palin as President is only slightly more credible than an Inanimate Carbon Rod as President.

      • I think Oprah's quite happy just being the kingmaker.

  16. Had the media given a fraction of the attention to Obama (the actual presidential candidate), his socialist leanings, his intended "Czars" his connections to acorn – stuff that only the eeeevil Hannity was prepared to do, than to Sarah Palin's uretal affairs, her clothing bill and her family's private life,

    perhaps we wouldn't be witnessing one of the fastest falls in presidential history, a health bill in shambles, a cap 'n trade bill effectively dead, an Irainian president emboldened by an "extended hand", an IOC splapping the worldwide unifier in the face, the greatest increase in the public deficit in the history of the nation, government owned car companies.

    Then again perhaps what reciepts were found in Palin's dumpster were more important. It's a tough call.

    Tell us more about "credibility" vis Palin. Please.

    • Biff, Biif , Bifff….chill out or grow up

      Reagan was old baffoon who had no clue after 1983 and Iran Contra was thought to be a new mexican delicacy .
      Bush was a moron who dressed like a cowboy

      Palin looks like the waitress in a XXX film ,really not bright.

      As for Obama,he is at over 52%,passed stimulus ,ended torture, will get health care,cap and carbon ,prevented an economic as we are coming out of recession ,working a coalition aagainst Iran nukes ,improved relations with Russia ,and has improved reputation of US in the world……

      • Your response is typical of the left – hit on irrelevant physical characteristics – what has Obama done? You cite a long list of items as if they were real – which they are not. The stimulus may have passed, but it is not stimulating anything except long term budget problems; ending torture – really prove it; will get health care – have you not being following the debate; etc. etc. etc. Those are interesting talking points, but unfortunately have no results. So at this point Obama is the no result president which is kind of summed up in his trip to snag the Olympics for Chicago – how did that work out for him – all hat, no cattle!

        • And your response is typical of Palin Republicans -denigrate,distort,disavow and destroy. The far right promotes the shrill discourse that Maureen feeds us without a shred of evidence except Chicago. And I am sure she wanted Chicago to fail . very patriotic of her!!!! Weird people t,hese Palin Republicans .

          • Shrill discourse?!! You accuse me of so many things without even knowing me and you call me shrill!!! For your information I am an independent who, at various times, have voted NDP, Liberal and Conservative. As a well-educated person I don't need anyone to 'feed me' anything as I have more than enough brain cells to read a variety of opinions, connect the dots and make my own decisions (or because I'm a woman who is more on the right than left, you assume that I must have a man deciding for me what I will or will not think! – Shrill discourse indeed!). In the case of Palin, even some of my liberal friends in both Canada and the US were appalled at the way the liberal left and the true blue Democrats vilified her rather than address the pros and cons of her record of service. And as we are seeing now, many people are having second thoughts about The Obama, his connections to ACORN, his seeming lack of direction, his various Czars who are beginning to drop like flies once their background is being revealed. And while some of my friends are still his firm supporters, but even they are having trouble justifying his limited attention span. His darting off to give his blessing to the Olympic bid is only the tip of the iceberg – why would he risk any political capital on that unless he was 100% sure that Chicago/US was going to win and since they were the first city dropped, the bid was unlikely to be firm in any way , shape or form. So either The Obama doesn't listen to his advisors OR he doesn't have very good advisors – either way it does not bode well for the US on the world stage. Having Michelle and Oprah there was plenty enough star power – there was no need for The Obama to go – poor judgment which opens up what other poor judgment calls he may be making.

  17. Remember, the root word of spectacular is "spectacle".

  18. I will go off the topic here. Well, since the dust up between Sarah Palin and David Letterman is well documented, I just thought maybe you guys can tell me what you think. I am of opinion that David Letterman's handling his affair was a master class. The way the message came up on his show was just brilliant. I know, Dot, predicted that the conservatives are going to take advantage of Dave's situation, but I don't think there is a way to prolong it. What are they going to say? That he had sex with people who work for him on the show? He already said it. Famous people including politicians should learn one thing or two from the way Dave dealt with his affair.

    • Are you kidding me? Dave Letterman took advantage of young, impressionable women from a position of authority…I think that's called sexual harrassment, no? All the while the guy was in a long term relationship with a women who had his child. Then to top it off we find out that while on a cruise with his wife and son, Letterman brings his young lover/assistant along! This man has zero ethics and should not be anyone to be looks up to. I really hope this bring him down (not to mention that all his humour is mean-spirited and not even funny!).