Another Palin Misstep... And She Want's To Be President?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA

If there was any doubt Sarah Palin lacked the gravitas and intelligence to be this nation's chief executive she has removed all doubt. After her pronouncements today there should be be no doubt in anyone's mind.

The audio clip of Sarah's pronouncements (link below) at best illustrates her lack of focus. At worst it brings into question her basic intelligence.

Sarah Palin's remarks on North Korea.

So, Tea Party members and those others enamored of her folksy Alaskan charm, think long hard about encouraging her to run for President on the Republican ticket in 2012 or anytime thereafter. For if she should seek the nomination and win it will insure that the Demotheft party wins the Presidency. Sarah Palin is the Republican equivalent of Joe Biden.

Come to think of it, had the U.S. stayed clear of the Korean civil war in 1950 we wouldn't be facing this situation today. An example of the Military Industrial Complex and the United States hunger for global dominence.

Founding Fathers where are you when we need you?

Cross Posted to Rational Nation USA.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. Yea, because no one ever misspeaks.

    Are you kidding? come on.

  2. Misspeaks... maybe, For Sarah it is frequent.

    Put her on the 2012 ticket and insure an Obama win.

    That is reality.

    Like I said in an earlier post I like Sarah. She is however not the person to run for president.


  3. And if you end up being wrong? will you eat your proverbial hat?
    S I have said before... Who would you pick? Who has the best qualities to bring this nation out of the weeds?

  4. Les, Les, Les:
    Dontcha you know that you can't say these things about Sarah? What's wrong with you!!!

    Of course the pesky little detail that this backs up the book saying she didn't understand the the geopolitical dynamic of Korea doesn't matter. She just mispoke.

    Now to turn the sarc button off, she may very well have just mispoken, but the former campaign staffers statements are going to make this harder to believe by some.

    I don't think that she is stupid, but this certainly won't help with the perception of many that she is. I guess she is lucky that this happened the day before Thanksgiving. It wouldn't have gotten much more press otherwise.

  5. How ridiculous...picking on the fact that she mis-spoke is pathetic...AND you can take this to the bank..Obama is not running because he is not constitutionally qualified...he'll probably be out of office before then...the guy is a villain of the highest order...but if he were around in 2012 he ain't running because he will have to prove he is constitutionally eligible THIS TIME. HE CAN'T. He's a fraud and a lifetime criminal. America is catching on. BTW Palin would clean his clock in a debate and in a head-to-head election but it's not happening. Palin will be left standing not the usurper.

  6. This is not a matter of misspeaking. She did not seriously prepare to answer the question. There are strategies available to deal with the bad acting by North Korea that we employed all too briefly(see They include squeezing the North's access to hard currency by suspending banks that launder their money, interdicting their arms shipments to the Mideast, cracking down on counterfeiting, and suspending humanitarian aid. Since I am able to think of these asymmetric responses with minimal research, and I am not running for President, I would expect a serious candidate to have some inkling of their existence.

  7. As I have repeatedly said these are just my humble opinions.

    She is not stupid, she is just ill prepared and lacks the wisdom of one should have to occupy the oval office,

    This nation picked one incompetent in 2008, lets not pick another.

    For you folks who would like me to tip my hat, well here ya go.

    1) Ron Paul... But that ain't gonna happen
    2) Mitt Romney at this early stage... it could change.
    3) I have an interest in Senator Thune should he show interest.
    4) A dark horse qualified third party candidate would be ideal.

    Palin... See next post.

  8. Come to think of it had the U.S. stayed clear of the Korean civil war in 1950 we wouldn't be facing this situation today. An example of the Military Industrial Complex and the United States hunger for global dominence.

    That has to be dumbest statement I have seen published on Left Coast Rebel. I am really disappointed in you, Les.

  9. Really? Well it might be dumb to some, but in reality it was similar to Vietnam, another fiasco IMHO.

    What is it I once heard about steering clear of foreign entanglements? Was that from one of the founding fathers? Help me here on this one. I might have forgotten my history, but I doubt it.

    Was it Ayn Rand that said something like the only justification for the use of force is in response to an unprovoked act of aggression against the state or it's people? Of course this is a paraphrase. I do have all her books if you would like a direct quote.

    I call myself an independent conservative (classical liberal) for a reason. I do not march in lockstep with any ideology. I prefer to remain unshackled by dogma.

  10. Les, I respect your right to your own opinion, and we often see things similarly, but I really think you're way off base here.

    Did you really listen to the entire recording? Write her words out and read them.

    I think in perceiving this misstatement as that vital, you're guilty of the type of elitism that we typically see from the leftists. You're being a word snob.

    I don't think she was "ill-prepared" at all. Not every person gets every word correct, and not everybody is the perfect wordsmith that TOTUS clearly is.

    One sentence before, she was clearly correct in her discussion of strict sanctions against the North. She simply muddied her words. She's human - we've all done it.

    You may not want her to be President, but by running I believe she'd only strengthen the field.

    And while she mixed up a word in a sentence, she clearly has shown more common sense on a daily basis than Obama has shown throughout his entire time in office.

    Your post brought me to put together a post of my own on the subject . My thoughts are at the very least a different perspective, and honestly offer what I believe is sort of a "counter-point" to your views.

  11. Soloman - As always I respect your views, and I understand your concern with mine on the apparently sacred subject of Sarah Palin.

    The truth is that going back to her VP candidacy I had grave concerns with her qualifications. Although I freely admit to liking her on a personal level. As I said in a previous post I would enjoy having dinner with her and even meeting her family. I have absolutely no doubt but what she, and her family are good people.

    Having said this it does not, at least in my mind equate to qualifications to be the Chief Executive Officer and Commander in Chief of these great United States.

    This is not the first time she has misspoke. Perhaps it is here inexperience and with time and political maturity she will become that which so many want her to be today. I hope sincerely this is the case.

    However, as I said in my follow up post should Sarah seek and win the republican nomination to run against "The One" it will lead to certain reelection of "The One."

    The polls have consistently shown this, there is a reason the liberal demothefts are licking their chops over the thought of a Palin run against "The One."

    Believe me when I tell you that I have thought long and hard about my position on this. It didn't come with any sort of satisfaction. But reality is reality, and there are plenty of real conservatives that support the position that 2012, and maybe even 2016 is not the right time for her to run.

    Give it time. She may well become a winning candidate... In the future.

    I stand by my position.

  12. Korean "Civil War". Really?

    You mean the INVASION of South Korea by Communist North Korea, aided by Soviet and Chinese advisors, armed with Warsaw Pact and Chinese weapons and ultimately a co-belligerent with Communist China?

    Do you really think the people of North Korea CHOSE to be communist? Do you really think they CHOSE to go to war to reunify Korea under a communist banner?

    More than 22,000 North Korean soldiers refused repatriation at the end of the war. Only 237 South Koreans refused repatriation. What does that tell you about the Korean Civil War?

    Yes, Vietnam was similar - a communist INVASION. The Viet Cong, actual South Vietnamese citizens, were virtually destroyed after Tet. Some analysts believe that was the intention of North Vietnam.

    If we had chosen not to become involved, there is little doubt communism would have spread to Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, India, and the Philippines. China would have invaded Taiwan and Hong Kong.

    Our Founders were highly skeptical of entangling foreign alliances, a philosophy which delayed our entry into both WWI and WWII. We learned out lesson from those wars that two massive oceans on our flanks are not sufficient protection from the intentions of evil dictatorships abroad.

    The invasions of South Korea and South Vietnam were unprovoked attacks. Are we saying we have no allies or human interests abroad worth fighting for? Are libertarian principles intended ONLY for Americans, or is it our duty to defend liberty and extend the rights of man throughout the world? You see, I always thought God created all mankind, not just Americans.

    Our Founders could not have imagined a world with aircraft carriers and intercontinental ballistic missiles, nor were they accustomed to genocide.

  13. I've enjoyed some of your posts in the past, but this one I disagree with 100%. Jumping on a slip of the tongue, when she correctly identified NK 8 seconds earlier is rather petty, don't you think?

    Scandal: Palin Mixes Up Koreas 8 Seconds After She Gets It Right

    On Glenn Beck’s show earlier today, Sarah Palin accidentally said North Korea when she meant South Korea:
    CO-HOST: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea? [...]
    PALIN: But obviously, we’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies. We’re bound to by treaty –
    CO-HOST: South Korean.
    PALIN: Eh, Yeah. And we’re also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes.

    Some of Palin’s usual antagonists are going nuts over this slip of the tongue, but they don’t point out that she correctly identified North Korea as our enemy literally 8 seconds before the mix-up: “We’re not having a lot of faith the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do.”

    Palin shouldn’t be sheltered from tough yet fair criticism. But her critics don’t help themselves when their attacks are based on falsehoods or don’t tell the full story.

  14. Les:
    I have to say that this giving Palin the short shift before the primaries even begin is very short sighted. We have two years to go before 2012. We all know that is the equivalence of two lifetimes in politics. So why edit the field early? If Palin is not up to snuff, then that will become apparent in the debates and the primary campaign. If we kill her chances now, we won’t ever know for sure.
    One of my biggest fears is that without Palin in the primaries, the Bluebloods may be successful in once again foisting another RINO on us. A strong and highly visible conservative like Palin makes it much harder for RINOs like Romney to gain traction.
    If you insist upon pre screening the nominees, could you at least work as hard to sink Mitt Romney as well?

  15. Nick - As a conservative I simply do not believe it is our place to CHOOSE for another sovereign country what form of government they have. Period.

  16. american girl in italy - Palin is doing quite well in stumbling all by herself.

    As a conservative I shudder to think Obama wins reelection BECAUSE Palin DECIDES TO through her hat in the ring and DOES get the nomination.
    The only group that gives her positives id the Republicans. All other groups give her much higher negatives. Worth considering.

    I have stated no falsehoods with respect to Sarah, whom I personally like.

  17. Clifton- You make a fair and reasoned observation. And you can rest assured I will be, to crib FOX, "fair and balanced" in my coverage of Mitt Romney.

    Romney is a capable business exec. But rememberer, I am from the state he Governed for a short while.

    I am also hearing (although I have not done the research at this juncture) that some are saying Palin should only give select interviews at this point. IE: Questions that are approved by her and her handlers in advance of interviews. If true, and as I said I haven't yet confirmed this, it would be just a further troubling development.

  18. If I ever wonder about a person's character, all I have to do is ask them their opinion of Sarah Palin. People who will blindly bend over backwards to maintain the idiotic pretense that little prince Brakabama is a genius will meanwhile maintain a keen ability, from a mile away, to see a speck of sawdust in Sarah Palin's eye.

    She's amazing in that regard. She inspires universal,irrational hatred in the irrationally hateful. It's always best to know who's who.

    I'm grateful for that this Thanksgiving Day.

  19. @ Chuck - Obama is certainly far from a genius. Anyone believing he is insults Einstein as well as the incredibly brilliant founding fathers.

    Palin is, on the other hand no genius either. She is simply a warm engaging personality of average intelligent who stirs feelings of patriotism among the Republicans and Tea Party members.

    I have done my share of Obama bashing over the last year. Made a lot of noise on left leaning sites that have had a ball hating me for speaking truth about the Impostor in Chief.

    Yup, she's amazing alright. I just hope she doesn't toss her hat in the arena and run for the Republican nomination in 2012. If she does, and becomes the parties nominee then prepare for another four years of... OBAMANATION!

    Nuff said?

    Just a thought, those who blindly bend over backwards to support Sarah Palin without questioning the complete package are well... Just MHO.

  20. I'm with Clifton!!!

    "Rational Nation USA said...
    american girl in italy - Palin is doing quite well in stumbling all by herself."

    You didn't answer my comment - she correctly referred to North Korea, and then s few seconds later slipped and said North instead of south. That doesn't seem petty, to you, to jump on her for that?

  21. american girl in italy - My belief in Sarah's lack of qualifications are not based on JUST her most recent misstep. It is just the final comment that caused me to raise a flag of caution.

    She is not ready to lead this nation and mix it up on the World Stage... yet IMHO. As I said perhaps her day will come.

    Yes she corrected her misstep. How many more times will she need to do that?

    Look, if she runs she runs. And if in so doing she wins the nomination she wins the nomination. And when Barry, the "Impostor in Chief" is sitting comfortably in the Big Chair in the Oval Office for another four I promise not to do an I told you so posting.

  22. Mr. Carpenter:

    Take a step back and look at what's going on!

    Sarah Palin is the recipient of a cultural movement of persecution. We haven't seen anything like this in (literally) 2000 years.

    She is a "Davy Crockett" figure. She comes out of the American landscape and provides our first hard look at American politics in 200 years.

    She reacquaints us with the Constitution. Michael Barone sees our political lines now in terms of "Progressives" and "Founders".

    That's all because of Sarah Palin, and you trivialize her? Watch out for the backlash...

  23. @ Howard Towt - Sarah, IMHO needs to read and understand the Constitution and the Classical Liberalism of our Founding Fathers. Sound bites and canned 30 second shake up the Palin base does not equate to the EARTH SHAKING REVELATIONS of which you are alluding to.

    Am I to understand your "watch out for the backlash" to be a veiled threat?

    Sir, my voice in defense of, and support for, independent conservative (classical liberalism) will not be silenced. I am not a shill to any idealogical base, and I will not be silenced by any such said base...

    Sarah is a warm, intelligent person who as far as I have been able to ascertain has stayed clear of the taint of corruption. Having said this, that does not make her qualified to be the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of our great nation.

    My purpose has never been to slander her good name. Rather it has been to look at the reality that she caries enough negatives in the view of the majority of the American electorate to insure another four years of the ObamaNation.

    Take your pick. We as conservative need to find a viable candidate that excites not only the Tea Party, and conservative Republicans but Independents and conservative Democrats as well.


  24. You should be horsewhipped (metaphorically, of course) for this wretched post.

    Palin has had trade missions from South Korea over to Alaska in the past, and indeed, knows full well who our ally is. She misspoke and you Bushtards are trying to use this kind of thing to ram the Store Mannequin down our throats.

    Sorry, won't work. No "Mittcare" for us, pal.

    "Korean Civil War"? Where did you come up with that one?

    Faux conservatives need to think twice before repeating Media Matters talking points to the rest of the Movement Community in a laughable attempt to let Democrats and their Media Allies pick our nominee again.

  25. section9 - Go for it dude!

    Talk about "talking points!

    Sheesh, your are as bad as the extreme lefty wacko far out progressives.

    Only difference is you are so out in right field reason has left you behind...

    Thanks for the comment.

  26. Les, the South Koreans and South Vietnamese CHOSE their governments. The Northerners invaded them to take away those choices.

    The Northerners themselves did not have a choice. The USSR imposed communism on them.

    We "imposed" democracy on Germany and Japan, but pretty much left it up to them to select their own leaders and make their laws their own. I have no remorse for imposing free elections on any people who never had the choice in the first place. Afghanistan and Iraq are going to be shining examples of democracy some day. Democracy is not only consistent with our view of universal civil rights, it is also the world view of self-determination.
    We should not be in this alone. The other free nations of the world need to be by our side.

    The only thing worse than monarchies are sham republics.

    If there is anyone in the world suffering under oppression, it is the duty of mankind to snuff out the oppressors by war whenever necessary. It is atrocious that we have let North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Darfur, Zimbabwe, and China to persist this long in despotism. If we aren't going to invade, we should do nothing to help those governments. I refer to Kennedy's inaugural address.

    De Oppresso Liber!

    Oh, and as far as Palin goes I agree with you completely. I love her to death, but she's not presidential material - not yet, and maybe not ever.

  27. Slaves seem to enjoy slavery these days.

  28. "Just a thought, those who blindly bend over backwards to support Sarah Palin without questioning the complete package are well."

    You're gonna have to do better than that, son.

    You belligerent little assholes fail to realize that what you and your self-important fellow travelers all agree upon is not made true by virtue of your mutual agreement.

    Show me why a know-nothing, never-did a goddam thing in his worthless fucking life is a standout compared to Sarah Palin, and in a little while I'll begin to give half a shit what you think about her fucking pedigree.

    Get started, boy. Prove your point.


  29. @ Nick - "It is atrocious that we have let North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Darfur, Zimbabwe, and China to persist this long in despotism."

    Is it the United States job, (or indeed right) to be the worlds policemen? To solve all their issues and problems?

    Just asking. Nation building can be a very dangerous and costly endeavor. Perhaps we should focus more on he infrastructure problems at home and get our own house in financial order before it collapses. Just MHO.

  30. @ Chuck - "You're gonna have to do better than that, son."

    No I'm not. And at my age I doubt I could be your son. Nor would I wish to be.

    "You belligerent little assholes fail to realize that what you and your self-important fellow travelers all agree upon is not made true by virtue of your mutual agreement."

    This comment Sir only points to your belligerence, and your use of profanity merely leads me to believe your arguments are weaker than I originally thought.

    "Show me why a know-nothing, never-did a goddam thing in his worthless fucking life is a standout compared to Sarah Palin, and in a little while I'll begin to give half a shit what you think about her fucking pedigree."

    This profane and pointless comment Sir doe not deserve a response.


  31. Is it the United States job, (or indeed right) to be the worlds policemen? To solve all their issues and problems?

    It is our DUTY, in concert with our allies, to preserve, defend, and advance the blessings of liberty. If you are a libertarian, and you believe that every man deserves a full measure of freedom, and if you observe entrenched dictatorships which provide no opportunity for revolution, then you must not believe we should stand by and enjoy our liberty while watching others suffer.

    I ask again: Are the liberties you cherish so deeply confined to the borders of the United States of America?

    That job description is not that of a policeman, nor is it a statement that we should become embroiled in "all their issues and problems."

    You are creating a straw man to avoid the issue.

    Just asking. Nation building can be a very dangerous and costly endeavor. Perhaps we should focus more on he infrastructure problems at home and get our own house in financial order before it collapses. Just MHO.

    We didn't seem to have a problem rebuilding the nations of Japan and Germany.

    We didn't seem to have a problem growing our economy in the 1950s despite spending enormous amounts of money on the Marshall Plan, stationing massive armies in Europe and Asia, building up our nuclear and conventional arsenals, fighting a war in Korea, and maintaining a low deficit.

    And whatever costs we did bear were well worth it. The alternative was worldwide domination by the Soviet Union and their allies. Could you even imagine what the world would be like today if the political ostriches demanded once again that we not involve ourselves in the affairs of foreign nations after WWII? In retrospect, would it not have been wise to destroy the Soviet Union while we had the chance?

    Just my humble observation.

  32. Sarah sent you a message.

  33. Nick - We shall have to agree to disagree. Your view and mine are not so different really. If anything it rests on the application of American influence and power.

    My guess is you do not support Ron Paul or his views. I happen to do so.

  34. RightCoast - Neat link. As if I was not aware of this. And like it equates to having qualifications to be President.

    Not once have I ever advocated for or supported Barrack Hussein Obama. I despise his philosophy of governance.

    It is specifically why it is important to select someone to run against him with the intelligence, wisdom, and has the ABILITY to overturn the "Great Impostor."

    Read just a conservative girl's comment in the other Palin stream. She nailed it. Of course IMHO.

  35. Nick -

    Note the reference to "civil war" in the provided link. It became more than that because of unnecessary and unwarranted interventionist foreign policy.

    The war was fought to a stalemate, North Korea is still communist, Thousands of American lives were lost, we were meddling in the Asian Sphere of influence (remember the Monroe Doctrine? ... ), and the cost of maintaining our military presence is enormously expensive.

  36. The most amusing thing about this obsession that Les has with Palin is his inconsostancy. Whassamatter Les, did Palin turn you down for a date in high school?

    Anyone who maintains that Palin isn't qualified to be president while at the same time touting batshit insane Ron Paul for the job clearly isn't a serious thinker. A racist isolationist, now THERE'S a good choice for 21st century leadership in America!

    Saying that Mittens is your second choice just compounds the hilarity, he's the polar opposite of Paul. Do you have any consistency to your arguments beyond just hating Sarah Palin?

  37. wasdave - Your opening statement is pointless and juvenile.

    Ron Paul, in your opinion is batshit insane, a racist isolationist. Sir you do not have a clue and therefore resort to profanity and slurs of a man not deserving of them. And you have no proof to back up your allegation.

    Read everything I said about Mitt. Then read between the lines. It's somewhere, go look for it. Oh, by the way, the order may or may not indicate preference.

    And Sir, nowhere have I ever indicated, or said I hate Sarah. Nor have I ever maligned her character, her sincerity, or referred to her as unintelligent or questioned her patriotism. I have even said that in time she may be ready for the office she is obviously seeking.

    Because I happen to believe now is not the time for Palin, and that she can't win based on consistent polling data showing this means I hate her is just, well... intellectually dishonest, lacking in reasoned thought, and only points to the lack of substantial arguments that might convince one to rethink their position.

    Good day Sir.

  38. Les:

    I have taught courses at universities on the Korean War. I don't require Wikipedia as a reference, where information can be changed day-to-day by whomever chooses to edit it.

    The Korean War was NOT a "metamorphosis" from a "civil war to a proxy war" as the link states. It was ALWAYS a proxy war.

    The US and USSR had been posturing their allies in Korea long before the defeat of the Japanese. Of course, the intent of the USSR was to bring the entire peninsula under communist domination.

    In the US Civil War, we were one sovereign nation from the time of Independence until the war. In contrast, the Korean situation was much more complicated.

    The Korean peninsula had existed as three separate kingdoms which fell under alternating rule by Manchuria, China, and Japan. The Joseon Dynasty which formed a unified Korea, was essentially a vassal state of the Qing Dynasty in China, and following the conclusion of the Sino-Japanese War, Korea came under Japanese control.

    So, "Korea" had not been a sovereign, unified state in all of history up through 1950.

    US actions vis a vis Korea were deeply influenced by the clear intentions of the Soviet Union to create a unified communist Korea. Also in the mix was the Chinese Civil War where North Koreans provided strong support to the Chicoms. This would be reciprocated in the Korean War. Also, China vied for influence over Korea with Stalin.

    The US would have allowed self-determination in Korea but for existing communist influence. The Soviet Union had already installed its puppets in the North. In the South, there were some communist elements that had been put down by Syngman Rhee's nationalists.

    The reality remains: North and South Korea were TWO SEPARATE COUNTRIES when hostilities commenced in 1950. This was not a civil war - it was an invasion. More specifically, it was an invasion of communism.

    The distinction between a "civil war" and an "invasion" are the existing political structures, not whether the belligerents share the same ethnicity.

    The Vietnam War bears an uncanny resemblance to the Korean situation. Vietnam had never been a unified nation, had been dominated by one foreign ruler after another, was divided into two nations according to ideological lines, and the communists invaded the other half in their quest for world domination.

    I happen to share a lot of Ron Paul's views, but I also think he's bat shit crazy on some things. Isolationism is one of those crazy notions.

    Weapons of mass destruction, integrated economies, the free flow of ideas, and transnational political movements have rendered isolationism as obsolete as fixed fortifications. We are vulnerable to events in faraway lands whether we like it or not. And we ignore those events at our own peril.

    The fact that the Korean War ended in stalemate is NOT ex-post justification for the belief we shouldn't have fought there. A stalemate is always better than a loss.

    Had we not intervened in Korea, they would be unified under a communist flag, looking just like modern Vietnam from which 3.5 million people had to flee for their lives and freedom.

    Are you saying that we would have been better off with that scenario than having a free, independent, capitalist, democratic South Korea? If so, then you are bat shit crazy too.

  39. Nick - I do not view Ron Paul's support of non interventionist foreign policy as isolationism. That is fundamentally our difference. I view it in a broader scope than just as it relates to military action. And I am sure you so as well.

    Perhaps you are right. Ultimately history will be the final judge. I can only reasonably deduce that the policy you and many others agree with will insure continued global military action forever on behalf of one nation or the other, or what someone perceives as this nation's self interest.

    We should not strive to be the world's policeman nor should we endeavor to nation build. There are things which are and should be out of our sphere of influence and control.

    The only justification for violence (war) is in response to an act of aggression committed against a sovereign nation and it's people by another hostile nation.

    These are of course just MHO's.

    If I am bat shit crazy, well then I have a lot of company.

    My apologies for offending you. Of course you are right with respect to Wikipedia.

  40. I dunno Les. I've been reading LCR for less than a week, and already I've seen two longish posts from you yammering "OMG! PALIN! She can't win!". This one is especially pathetic, focusing on a slip of the tongue of the type that every human in history has made at one time or another. To quote from your previous article, really? Really Les? Palin is not presidential because she stumbled over north/south briefly, then corrected herself. Really? That's obsessive Les. And ridiculous.

    As for Paul, well, OK, maybe he isn't a racist. I dunno. But there sure as hell were racist diatribes published in the Ron Paul Report back in the day (amongst other things suggesting that blacks like to carjack whites, and then suggesting that people arm themselves in defense because "the animals are coming". Not cool. Not cool at all), and since his name is on the masthead, he owns the quotes. Seriously, these statements were published under his name. You may wave that away, but I can't.

    Finally, your contention that you have nothing personal against Palin, you're just trying to be realistic here, her poll numbers are awful, is just plain stupid. Poll numbers two years before an election are meaningless, that's why they have campaigns, for candidates to make their case and change those numbers. You seem to be hell bent on denying Palin the chance to do that. Repeatedly. Zero's poll numbers (except amongst the nutroots) were low in 2006. Reagan's in '78 were terrible. For someone who claims to be a seasoned political observer, your continual harping on such an absurd meme strikes a sour note of unbelievability. Finally, I object to your repeated attack on Ms. Palin's "gravitas". It's nonsensical. You don't even seem to know what the word means, in this you remind me of the Code Pinkers (and now that I think of it, some of the rabid Paulians I know), bawling about the "Imperial" wars that the U.S. is fighting. I do not think that word means what you think it means, sir. I addressed this in some detail in my reply to your previous entry, but you did not deign to reply.

  41. And finally, I'd like to say that I finally figured out how to make a final point, and that last post's final form shouldn't be construed as final. But this post is. Finally.

    :rolleyes @ myself:


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.