Sarah Palin

[lennygoran]

( My own view isn't that extreme (I am okay with legal abortion until the fetus is viable and under certain extreme situations after viability has been reached)

Exactly my feeling-a friend of mine said that even at 8 months 29 days it was the womans's decision to make-I just canakt buy that with all the great scientific strides we're making at keeping beings alive. Len from washington dc

[Agnes Selby]

And to reply to the conservative women solidarity statement above, Palin has positioned herself to be the symbolic leader of the Tea Party. Everybody admits that much. Is this person (no gender reference) intelligent? No. Does this person (no gender reference) offer realistic solutions (other than "Let's shut it down!!! Let's shut it all down!!!). No. Does this person (no gender reference) serves as an intellectual role model for the new generation of Americans? An unqualified "NO."

Assessing a person's capacity to lead does not have to be assessed in gender terms. This "person" is posturing for leadership and ain't my concept of a leader.

Twist and turn as much as you want....

No twisting or turning. She's not even my possible candidate of choice. However, why do Liberals - especially Liberal women, go after public conservative women so viciously? Got jealousy issues? She's pretty, she's successful...hey, why not? High school mean girls never do grow up.

You are right, the bitching continues. It will be an interesting two years to follow
from a distance. The constant obsession with elections amazes me and what nastiness
it brings out in people. I would like to mention here that our State elections are
in March. I am yet to hear a single word about it from either Labor or Liberals. I must
admit, I am eternally grateful for the silence. About 4 - 6 weeks is plenty to listen
to "promises"! Australians are certainly not as passionate about their candidates
as are Americans. Anyone electioneering in Germany to be our Prime Minister
would become a joke in Australia.

I don't know what to think about your positioning yourself on such high moral grounds, Agnes. I do recall that you had nothing nice to say about Mr. Gore when he visited your country. The comments were rather vitriolic.

I will persist with the notion that people here are experts in playing the double standards game.

Mr. Gore came to Australia with one purpuse only. To make MONEY. He arrived
in his own plane with his flunkies early one morning. A dozen limos awaited
him at the airport and each flunky travelled to the hotel in his own limo.
Then Mr. Gore told Australians to stop poluting the world
and use bicycles to go to work. There were other such lectures and after a
short time in Australia, Mr. Gore and his retinue left for the airport in limos,
one per man, and boarded his private plane back to the US.

Do you think he deserved to be commended?

Agnes.

[Cyril Ignatius]

The ultimate irony, for me, is how the party that's been so consistently the mouthpiece for the most powerful and the most wealthy --that fraction of one percent which owns or controls such a vast proportion of this country's assets-- successfully projects itself as the party of the people, of the mass of the population. There's a parallel here with the way southern politicians engaged in Black American demonization to rally the white populace behind them.

There's no doubt about it, it's not only theater, it's deception on a national scale.

What I worry about is that some of those who are most successful in staging this masquarade might actually believe in their own deception. Palin qualifies.

Which part are you talking about Piston? I presume you are talking about the Democrats; the last time we checked the data, they had far more millionaires that the Republicans. And they outspent Republicans in most recent elections. And when you talk about the parrallels between today and the Jim Crow era, once again, I presume you are talking about the Democratic Party, for they were the keeper of the Jim Crow flame. And today, it is the Democrats who still insist that we see ourselves through the prism of race, ethnicity and social class, rather than as fellow Americans or fellow Christians.

[piston]

I am talking about a political platform which is based, in toto, on what the most fortunate of this country want to have as a government. The party is irrelevant; the platform is. That southern Democrat used to be the ones manipulating the less well educated Caucasian electorate to achieve electoral success merely serves to illustrate a current phenomenon far more noticeable on the Republican side today.

Incidentally, Cyril Ignatius, a Maine businessman, Jim Wellehan, struck a discordant chord to all this Tea Party populistic rhetoric serving the interests of the wealthiest one or two percent of society, this week, by rejecting an extension of tax cuts for the higher stratum of society in order to redistribute wealth and "prime the pump" of consumer spending -- the old FDR economic philosophy. His particular position is both moral (in the sense of the immoral nature of privileging one citizen to the detriment of nine others) and pragmatic: he wants people to buy his boots and shoes! How many boots and shoes can 0.5 percent of the population purchase anyway?!!
http://www.sunjournal.com/state/story/943978

[Cyril Ignatius]

I am talking about a political platform which is based, in toto, on what the most fortunate of this country want to have as a government. The party is irrelevant; the platform is. That southern Democrat used to be the ones manipulating the less well educated Caucasian electorate to achieve electoral success merely serves to illustrate a current phenomenon far more noticeable on the Republican side today.

Incidentally, Cyril Ignatius, a Maine businessman, Jim Wellehan, struck a discordant chord to all this Tea Party populistic rhetoric serving the interests of the wealthiest one or two percent of society, this week, by rejecting an extension of tax cuts for the higher stratum of society in order to redistribute wealth and "prime the pump" of consumer spending -- the old FDR economic philosophy. His particular position is both moral (in the sense of the immoral nature of privileging one citizen to the detriment of nine others) and pragmatic: he wants people to buy his boots and shoes! How many boots and shoes can 0.5 percent of the population purchase anyway?!!
http://www.sunjournal.com/state/story/943978

If purchasing boots for themselves was the main concern of that upper 1% or so, as in a medieval or 3rd World subsistance economy, your comment would make more sense, Piston. In a developed capitalist system, what that 1% has is the capital that actually makes the jobs happen and the capital that plays a critical role in economic expansion. The sad reality is, when you soak the rich in taxes, you destroy jobs for the poor. We need to return to a lower level of taxation; when taxation gets beyond a certain point, the rich start engaging in tax-avoidance behavior. The poor fare better when a society keeps taxes simple and at a basic level, and we are way beyond that at this point. The poor - and everyone else - fare better when we focus on creating the conditions for the opportunity society, and when we allow God, rather than the State, be the larger source of purpose.

[piston]

That is precisely the sales pitch of the wealthiest stratum of society, has always been, including in the 1930s. Problem is, of course, that the decision of how much and where to invest is absolutely critical to the theorem. The wealthy can squander instead of investing if they feel that the climate is not a good one for investment. They can also invest in such ways that bring absolutely no benefit, zero, to American citizens, such as in China or Indonesia.

Hence the dilemma of putting all trust on a decision that might not yield any fruit for the citizenry, none whatsoever!

It is a quantum leap of faith. What is represented by the Republicans as an automatic chain reaction is not in the least bit proven, demonstrated, factual.

[Cyril Ignatius]

That is the dillemma of freedom. And a practical reminder that if you want a society with plentyful jobs and a robust economy, you also need to have an environment conducive to entrepreneurs. Moreover, you need to be friendly to small busines, for they are central to economic grwoth and job creation. Government bureaucrats can't create the kind of jobs that build a large and vital middle class. State planners are an anethema to real world opportunity for the poor.

Did you ever notice how incredibly few people in the Obama Administration ever had a real job? Did you ever notice how far away these people are from the ideas conducive to economic growth? The poor have no hope as long as these people are in power.

That is precisely the sales pitch of the wealthiest stratum of society, has always been, including in the 1930s. Problem is, of course, that the decision of how much and where to invest is absolutely critical to the theorem. The wealthy can squander instead of investing if they feel that the climate is not a good one for investment. They can also invest in such ways that bring absolutely no benefit, zero, to American citizens, such as in China or Indonesia.

Hence the dilemma of putting all trust on a decision that might not yield any fruit for the citizenry, none whatsoever!

It is a quantum leap of faith. What is represented by the Republicans as an automatic chain reaction is not in the least bit proven, demonstrated, factual.

[piston]

I'm noticing that our models and theories are national ones, not global ones.

There's a crisis in Europe right now (not an invitation for US bashing of Europeans). Their original logic for a eurozone is being severely tested by Greece, Portugal and Ireland. Will "investors" in Germany,France, etc., rescue their poor brothers? If they don't, what will happen to that recently engineered eurozone?

There's a crisis in this very country where everybody is talking about "JOBS" but letting investors take their capital wherever it's going to be profitable, however detrimental the consequences for our nation (Now, that's a leap of faith!!!).

The old models and theories are outdated. Time to adapt.

[Cyril Ignatius]

Part of the moral and econimically rational response to problems that become international in scale is the protection of national sovereignty. We don't take our primary cues from European Statists, well until somewhat more recently that is.

I'm noticing that our models and theories are national ones, not global ones.

There's a crisis in Europe right now (not an invitation for US bashing of Europeans). Their original logic for a eurozone is being severely tested by Greece, Portugal and Ireland. Will "investors" in Germany,France, etc., rescue their poor brothers? If they don't, what will happen to that recently engineered eurozone?

There's a crisis in this very country where everybody is talking about "JOBS" but letting investors take their capital wherever it's going to be profitable, however detrimental the consequences for our nation (Now, that's a leap of faith!!!).

The old models and theories are outdated. Time to adapt.

[piston]

I'm telling you, Cyril, what is the virtue of closing a shirt factory in the "black", in this sovereign nation of ours, to make more money from the same outfit in Asia? Please answer!

[Cyril Ignatius]

National sovereinty doesn't mean ignoring or shutting out the world economy. It is about responding to that economy as you see fit. The best way the United States can deal with the world economy, and our weakening position, is to create the conditions under which business can grow and flourish. It basically means doing most things quite different from what the current Administration is doing. And to return to the essential issue of this thread; for all of Obama's alleged intelligence and all of Palin's alleged stupidity, why does she have so much better a grasp than he does of the issues our nation faces?

I'm telling you, Cyril, what is the virtue of closing a shirt factory in the "black", in this sovereign nation of ours, to make more money from the same outfit in Asia? Please answer!

[piston]

I beg to disagree. There will always be cheaper labor somewhere, away from this nation. If the whole point of the system we live in is to find the point of least resistance (in this era of extraordinary environmental costs right around the corner), then I cannot support such an irresponsible system. What this "chick" from NYC did when she closed down Hathaway in Waterville, ME, a company in the black, to make more profits in the Third World, was socially irresponsible. The Catholic Church said as much a century ago! Greed. Are we all about greed? Is that the essence of what we are?

Forget it! I'm not in.

[Cyril Ignatius]

So who should decide what this person does with their business? The government? Where will it stop?

I beg to disagree. There will always be cheaper labor somewhere, away from this nation. If the whole point of the system we live in is to find the point of least resistance (in this era of extraordinary environmental costs right around the corner), then I cannot support such an irresponsible system. What this "chick" from NYC did when she closed down Hathaway in Waterville, ME, a company in the black, to make more profits in the Third World, was socially irresponsible. The Catholic Church said as much a century ago! Greed. Are we all about greed? Is that the essence of what we are?

Forget it! I'm not in.

[piston]

Well, given the fact that a business is a collective outcome and an individual entity (or tends to be associated with an individual) that, too, is a dilemma. But if you are all about individual freedoms, in the old "Liberal Order" sense of the concept, sure, the owner is the sole determinant. And the owner can take money derived from the fruit of many people's activities and do what he (mostly he) ever wants to do. In this sense, the old "Liberal Order" is not conducive to a solid nation. It killed Great Britain, where it originated! It'll probably kill the USA the same way. Place the individual always ahead of any other interests and, eventually, it will be most damageable to a sovereign nation. That's the problem with "free trade" ideologues and "global" engineers: they're thinking about themselves, not communities, states, and nation.

We're faced with the ultimate contradiction of the very worldview we've bred: should the individual prevail, at all costs, even if it means the demise of the nation?

[Cyril Ignatius]

Of course not. The cult of the individual can be very destructive.

What killed Great Britain was a mixture of the rising power of America and many other economic powers along with an internal cultural collapse. Most great civilizations at the height of their power begin to lose the norms and values that drove them to success. Generally, these great civilizations begin battling a growing cultural decadence from within. Britain has gone decadent with a vengeance. I fear we in America are headed the same way.

Well, given the fact that a business is a collective outcome and an individual entity (or tends to be associated with an individual) that, too, is a dilemma. But if you are all about individual freedoms, in the old "Liberal Order" sense of the concept, sure, the owner is the sole determinant. And the owner can take money derived from the fruit of many people's activities and do what he (mostly he) ever wants to do. In this sense, the old "Liberal Order" is not conducive to a solid nation. It killed Great Britain, where it originated! It'll probably kill the USA the same way. Place the individual always ahead of any other interests and, eventually, it will be most damageable to a sovereign nation. That's the problem with "free trade" ideologues and "global" engineers: they're thinking about themselves, not communities, states, and nation.

We're faced with the ultimate contradiction of the very worldview we've bred: should the individual prevail, at all costs, even if it means the demise of the nation?

[piston]

Well, would you look at that! You and I have just converged!

Agreed. There surely exists a multiplicity of interpretations with regard to the source of decadence but I'm with you: we have been decaying.

Nevertheless, I still can't swallow the fact that a perfectly viable company in the very home town of our forthcoming Tea Party governor got shut down because greater benefits could be had by moving it outside of this country.

To me, that's an unswallowable pill.

[karlhenning]

Please, God, let Sarah Palin run in 2012.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Cyril Ignatius]

Please, God, let Sarah Palin run in 2012.

Cheers,
~Karl

She's a good, smart lady. But she should not run for President. To run for the President, win, and have enough firepower to deal effectively with a hostile press and a hostile ruling class the whole way through requires an extraordinary verbal facility and a very fast, strong intellect. While portraits of Palin as stupid reflect the ingrained ideological needs of the people doing such portraits, it's also the case that Palin doesn't have the facility that Reagan had in this regards. She will best serve as the spiritual leader of the Tea Party movement. She IS as intelligent or more so than most of those who mindlessly pass the "Palin is stupid" nonsense, but to lead the kind of revolution that must be had, she is not the one.

Who is that someone? Interesting question. No, it's not Huckabee or anyone like that. For the sake of our nation, and the world we leave our children, I hope that someone will emerge sooner rather than later.

[Barry]

Please, God, let Sarah Palin run in 2012.

Cheers,
~Karl

She's a good, smart lady. But she should not run for President. To run for the President, win, and have enough firepower to deal effectively with a hostile press and a hostile ruling class the whole way through requires an extraordinary verbal facility and a very fast, strong intellect. While portraits of Palin as stupid reflect the ingrained ideological needs of the people doing such portraits, it's also the case that Palin doesn't have the facility that Reagan had in this regards. She will best serve as the spiritual leader of the Tea Party movement. She IS as intelligent or more so than most of those who mindlessly pass the "Palin is stupid" nonsense, but to lead the kind of revolution that must be had, she is not the one.

Who is that someone? Interesting question. No, it's not Huckabee or anyone like that. For the sake of our nation, and the world we leave our children, I hope that someone will emerge sooner rather than later.

Someone should pump subliminal messages about the need to run for President into General Petraeus' room every night while he sleeps.

[Cyril Ignatius]

Please, God, let Sarah Palin run in 2012.

Cheers,
~Karl

She's a good, smart lady. But she should not run for President. To run for the President, win, and have enough firepower to deal effectively with a hostile press and a hostile ruling class the whole way through requires an extraordinary verbal facility and a very fast, strong intellect. While portraits of Palin as stupid reflect the ingrained ideological needs of the people doing such portraits, it's also the case that Palin doesn't have the facility that Reagan had in this regards. She will best serve as the spiritual leader of the Tea Party movement. She IS as intelligent or more so than most of those who mindlessly pass the "Palin is stupid" nonsense, but to lead the kind of revolution that must be had, she is not the one.

Who is that someone? Interesting question. No, it's not Huckabee or anyone like that. For the sake of our nation, and the world we leave our children, I hope that someone will emerge sooner rather than later.

Someone should pump subliminal messages about the need to run for President into General Petraeus' room every night while he sleeps.

WHY?? What would he do?

[karlhenning]

Please, God, let Sarah Palin run in 2012.

She's a good, smart lady.

Oh, she's got a certain sort of smarts, no argument there. It is more than I could answer to, to judge whether she be good. Many indications that she is calculatedly cynical; and the recent Alaskan senate-seat tussle was apparently vindictive on her part. But her strongest supporters are certainly very forgiving. Of her, at any rate.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Barry]

Someone should pump subliminal messages about the need to run for President into General Petraeus' room every night while he sleeps.

WHY?? What would he do?

Well ... it was a joke. He's made it very clear he's not running and I take him at his word.

I'd rather have him running our foreign policy and dealing with the leadership of Russia, China, Iran, etc. than Obama though if given a choice. And while we don't know what his domestic policies would be, I can't picture them making the non-liberal population of the country more unhappy than Obama's have.

As far as leadership qualities, he'd probably be tough to top.

A man can dream, can't he?

[Cyril Ignatius]

Please, God, let Sarah Palin run in 2012.

She's a good, smart lady.

Oh, she's got a certain sort of smarts, no argument there. It is more than I could answer to, to judge whether she be good. Many indications that she is calculatedly cynical; and the recent Alaskan senate-seat tussle was apparently vindictive on her part. But her strongest supporters are certainly very forgiving. Of her, at any rate.

Cheers,
~Karl

There's a history to this. Palin won the Governor's seat and went on to govern in a way that put her up against the good-old boy network inside the Alaskan republican Party. The Senate seat was one (as ballot count trends are going) by a women who is an immediate product of that old guard; a real creep, in fact. Any vinegar from Palin against these people has to be tken within that larger context. The new Senate elect is a typical example of a creepy republican.

[karlhenning]

There's a history to this. Palin won the Governor's seat and went on to govern in a way that put her up against the good-old boy network inside the Alaskan republican Party. The Senate seat was one (as ballot count trends are going) by a women who is an immediate product of that old guard; a real creep, in fact. Any vinegar from Palin against these people has to be tken within that larger context. The new Senate elect is a typical example of a creepy republican.

That is interesting. Now, to speak purely dispassionately, and with the understanding that this which you say may indeed be the case: Do we have this story through the filter of Sarah Palin?

Cheers,
~Karl

[Cyril Ignatius]

There's a history to this. Palin won the Governor's seat and went on to govern in a way that put her up against the good-old boy network inside the Alaskan republican Party. The Senate seat was one (as ballot count trends are going) by a women who is an immediate product of that old guard; a real creep, in fact. Any vinegar from Palin against these people has to be tken within that larger context. The new Senate elect is a typical example of a creepy republican.

That is interesting. Now, to speak purely dispassionately, and with the understanding that this which you say may indeed be the case: Do we have this story through the filter of Sarah Palin?

Cheers,
~Karl

No. Objective sources indicate that when Palin came head to head with the old boy establishment on big issues such as energy policy, she was very willing to oppose them whaen she thought it was wrong for Alaska. A close look at Sarah Palin reveal's that she means what she says. You may disagree with her, object to her proposed policies, even take issue with her sometimes lousy English; but she is one of the more honest people on the political scene today.

[living_stradivarius]

HOW EMBARRASSING

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/ ... ean-allies

During today's Glenn Beck radio show Sarah had to be corrected by the host on the current hostilities between the two Koreas.

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.

Scarce's diary :: ::
A slip of the tongue? Maybe, maybe not. But in John Heilemann & Mark Halperin's Game Change there was this telling point which suggests otherwise.

She knew nothing. She had to be taken through World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and Palin was not aware there was a difference between North and South Korea. She continued to insist that Iraq was behind 9/11; and when her son was being sent off to Iraq, she couldn’t describe who we were fighting.
------


Of course I can't tell her left boob from her right so she has me there. It would have been somewhat forgivable if she had mixed them up due to the name DPRK.

[Cosima___J]

Open season on the Palins
After unloading on mom Sarah, some take aim at daughter BristolAugusta Chronicle Editorial Staff
Friday, Nov. 26, 2010

Politico.com reported Tuesday that Bristol Palin was "causing controversy" on the show Dancing With the Stars .


How do you suppose she did that? With a bad attitude? With a political rant? With a wardrobe malfunction?

Nope. She "caused" controversy by being the daughter of Sarah Palin.

So much so that a Wisconsin man took a shotgun and fired at his television.

It wasn't enough for the left-wing media to assassinate Sarah Palin's character, which they obsessively continue to do on Web sites, on CNN and on late-night talk shows. One writer got a house next to the Palins' to dig up dirt on them. Someone else hacked into their private e-mail account. The idiocy abounds.

It might all be laughable and pitiable if not for the fact that the media, and the liberals they've whipped into a frenzy, have completely demonized this family for no reason. As a result, televisions get shot at and a beautiful young woman is the subject of death threats -- and terroristic packets of talcum powder masquerading as anthrax -- for having done nothing more than dance her heart out.

This is turning out to be one of this country's and the media's great shames of our day.

If conservatives in the media had stirred the public into a similar froth about, say, abortion clinics, the rest of the media would be apoplectic about conservatives creating the usual "climate of hatred and fear" they're always accused of creating, yadda, yadda, yadda. Just who's creating the climate again?

Likewise, if liberals had a Sarah Palin and family to drool over, rather than being demonized and threatened, they'd be the next Kennedy clan. Camelot! Look! Sarah is showing her bare arms -- how elegant! No woman's ever done that!

Oh, wait. The liberal media do have such a family -- in the White House. No demonizing there !

This is way beyond juvenile, for even the most spiteful of children can't do this much harm. Yet the media have long ago decided which kid we should all pick on out on the playground, and they've managed to paint that kid as "causing controversy." Exactly how she "caused" that controversy, no one seems to remember.

It's interesting to note, too, that liberal politicians can declare their children hands-off as far as the media are concerned -- Chelsea Clinton and the Obama children, for instance -- and the media respect that. They're too busy going after the Palin children -- such as when David Letterman crudely joked about an underaged Palin girl getting "knocked up" by one of the Yankees during the family's New York visit. Remember all those Chelsea jokes? Of course not.

It's pretty simple: Conservatives' children are always fair game for the liberal media.

The frenzy that has resulted from all this has revealed just how unhinged the far-left is in this country: Besides the violent, threatening behavior, some liberals even suggested Bristol Palin's dance competitors were voted off the show as part a Tea Party conspiracy. That's just loony. But it's the climate the media have created.

Comedian Jimmy Kimmel joked that eventual Dancing With the Stars winner Jennifer Grey was lucky she wasn't shot by Sarah Palin. Cute. But also quite perverse, considering that it's the Palins who have been targeted.

Once and for all: Whatever you think of her qualifications to be president or vice president -- they weren't much removed from Barack Obama's, and were arguably greater -- she did nothing to cause controversy except present a conservative point of view that a large plurality of the American public agree with (but elites in the media find abhorrent).

Could it be that that's why her daughter was so popular with viewers, to the chagrin of the media?

Along with the fact that people are dog tired of the Palins being demonized?

BTW, I am by no means endorsing Sarah Palin for any office whatsoever.

[lennygoran]

>The frenzy that has resulted from all this has revealed just how unhinged the far-left is in this country:<

But not everyone criticizing her credentials to be president is a far left person. Regards, Len [moderate Republican]

[Cosima___J]

Len, I don't think the article is criticizing people who challenge Sarah Palin's credentials (credentials? what credentials does this woman have?), but rather the personal attacks on Bristol Palin, who is not running for any office and who has the misfortune of being the daughter of a controversial person.

[lennygoran]

>but rather the personal attacks on Bristol Palin,<

Saw a newsclip of her dancing on the news or somewhere--I guess it's all over YouTube--well she dances better than me and looks pretty good too! Regards, Len

PS-ah, here it is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89yiGsd2ARA

[karlhenning]

Politico.com reported Tuesday that Bristol Palin was "causing controversy" on the show Dancing With the Stars .

How do you suppose she did that? With a bad attitude? With a political rant? With a wardrobe malfunction?

Nope. She "caused" controversy by being the daughter of Sarah Palin.

Isn't that roughly 100% disingenuous? Bristol Palin wouldn't be on Dancing With the Stars, were she not the daughter of Sarah Palin.

So, yes, one expects that when a "star's" "qualification" for a show consists entirely of being the daughter of a political celebrazzi, (a) there is controversy being caused, and (b) really, they're entirely pleased with the controversy, because it extends their 15 minutes of fame.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Cosima___J]

Karl, I guess you are not familiar with the show Dancing With The Stars. The contestants are never picked for their dancing ability, but for their celebrity status. And the celebrity status is not the cause of controversy for most of the contestants. Bristol Palin was harassed by some individuals in the media simply because those individuals don't like her mother. As the article pointed out, we have not learned what that supposed "controversy" that Bristol Palin supposedly caused consisted of.

And from the clip Len supplied, it looked like she did a credible job for an amateur --- certainly as well as a lot of the contestants on the show.

[living_stradivarius]

From what I hear the controversy comes from her advancement to the finals over a more qualified dancer.

[Agnes Selby]

From what I hear the controversy comes from her advancement to the finals over a more qualified dancer.

Well, you know, such decisions are very subjective. Judges often
disagree as does the public. Even in piano competitions, such as the
Cliburn, the favourites seldom win. Perhaps her being Sarah Palin's
daughter may be colouring some peoples' opinions. But she is her
own person and should be allowed to live her own life and not be the
subject of public censure.

[Jean]

I love watching ballroom dancing, and Dancing With the Stars is one a a few shows that I watch (and have for all 8 seasons). The controversy regarding Bristol palin is not surprising.

First, her only claim to being a celebrity is that she is a unmarried teenage mother, of a highly visible and controversial politician who is against birth control education. Add to that all the unsavory details about the baby's father. Not what I would call a "star".

Second, although she tried very hard and wasn't awful, she was not nearly as good as a few people (who also worked very hard) who were eliminated before her. That was really very apparent to anyone who follows the program.

There were several political groups that support her mother (and her mother too), who actively campaigned on the internet (through their facebook and twitter accounts) for people to vote for Bristol. The other celebrities did not similarly campaign. As a result, the voting was unprecedetly high in volume.

Popularity is always a factor in these things. However, this is the first season where popular vote totallywent awry of the judge votes.

There is no question of fair or unfair, since all the rules were followed. There is, I take it, a bad taste in some viewrs moths that politics got involved and resulted in undeserved results. I agree there (although I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it.) It clearly wasn't just a matter of there being a difference of opinion regarding her abilities.

[HoustonDavid]

I can safely say I have never watched DTWS, but my understanding from the many
ladies in my building who DO watch it, is that daughter Bristol Palin has had the lowest
scores from the judges two or even three times running, but a certain block of viewers
have voted for her overwhelmingly, giving her enough total score to advance to the finals,
where she ultimately did lose to a dancer the judges (and the public) thought was better.

The "conspiracy theory" seems to arise out of the fact that her "public" support just might
come from Sarah Palin fans and supporters voting as a large block for an "inferior" dancer
who happens to be her daughter. You simply must understand that it has nothing whatever
to do with my own personal lack of interest in the program. Please!!

[Agnes Selby]

What if in the future one of Obama's
daughters joined the program. Would you then say that Obama's
daughter's staying power in the program was only due to votes
given by Blacks and minorities? Palin's daughter's pregnancy and
her private life surely do not come under scrutiny in this
particular dancing program, but then, I have never seen the Australian
version of it and do not know what probing questions about the
contestants are involved. However, I do not think the political
party the contestant's parents belong to would play any part or
cause a controversy.

[Jean]

If she weren't a politician's daughter, she would never have been on the show.
Tea party groups were openly and actively campaigning for her.

Is this odd? Very. Is it political? Without a doubt.

If O'bama's daughters were tapped as contestant and then any poltical group campaigned for her to receive votes, it would be no different.

As for Bristol's pregnacy etc., she herself has made it an issue. It is her public identity. She makes a living speaking about it. It is her celebrity. It's just weird because the only reason she has become a celebrity in this way is because she is a politicians daughter. If my daughter were a unmarried teen mother, it is highly improbable she would be asked to be on the program. DWTS has always been, until this point, "stars" that are celebities because they are performers.

[Jean]

I can safely say I have never watched DTWS, but my understanding from the many
ladies in my building who DO watch it, is that daughter Bristol Palin has had the lowest
scores from the judges two or even three times running, but a certain block of viewers
have voted for her overwhelmingly, giving her enough total score to advance to the finals,
where she ultimately did lose to a dancer the judges (and the public) thought was better.

The "conspiracy theory" seems to arise out of the fact that her "public" support just might
come from Sarah Palin fans and supporters voting as a large block for an "inferior" dancer
who happens to be her daughter. You simply must understand that it has nothing whatever
to do with my own personal lack of interest in the program. Please!!

Exactly correct and it tainted the intent and fun of watching the program for, apparently, many viewers. Although it does amaze me how excited people get about these things. Although, I've never understood getting all excited about sporting events either.

[lennygoran]

>Although, I've never understood getting all excited about sporting events either.<

Yeah but what about World Wrestling Entertainment--you know Hulk Hogan, etc. Regards, Len

[Cosima___J]

Oh, I understand getting all excited about sports events --- especially the NFL. Go Falcons! They are among the top teams this year. Shoud be in the playoffs. Yeah, "Dirty Birds".

[piston]

In this long thread, did anyone mention that Barbara Bush wants Sarah P. to stay in Alaska.
In reply, Sarah P. naturally played the "class" card. After all, she is the spokeswoman for Jos six-pack.

[Barry]

NY Times
She Who Must Not Be Named
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: December 3, 2010

This is it. This is the last time I’m going to write the name Sarah Palin until she does something truly newsworthy, like declare herself a candidate for the presidency. Until then, I will no longer take part in the left’s obsessive-compulsive fascination with her, which is both unhealthy and counterproductive.

She’s the Zsa Zsa Gabor of American politics. She once did something noteworthy, but she’s now just famous for being famous.

She was a vice presidential nominee. But she lost. She was the governor of Alaska. But she quit. Now she’s just a political personality — part cheerleader, part bomb-thrower — being kept afloat in part by the hackles of her enemies and the people who admire her resilience in the face of them. The left’s outsize and unrelenting assault on her has made her a folk hero. The logic goes that if she’s making people on the left this upset, she must be doing something right.

Yet the left continues to elevate her every utterance so that they can mock and deride her. The problem is that this strategy continues to backfire. The more the left tries to paint her as one of the “Mean Girls,” the more the right sees her as “Erin Brockovich.” The never-ending attempts to tear her down only build her up. She’s like the ominous blob in the horror films: the more you shoot at it, the bigger and stronger it becomes.

Yes, she’s about as sharp as a wet balloon, but we already know that. How much more time and energy must be devoted to dissecting that? How is this constructive, or even instructive at this point? What purpose does it serve other than inflaming passions to drive viewership and Web clicks?

As Politico’s editor in chief, John F. Harris, and its executive editor, Jim VandeHei, very candidly expressed in August: “More traffic comes from an item on Sarah Palin’s ‘refudiation’ faux pas than from our hundreds of stories on the complexities of health care reform or Wall Street regulation.”

So left-leaning blogs like The Huffington Post plaster pictures of her and her family all over their sites with entries about her latest gaffe or sideswipe. But she’s barely mentioned on popular conservative blogs.

The same leftward skew is also true on television. An analysis of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News from Nov. 3 to Dec. 2, using data from ShadowTV, a monitoring service, found that CNN mentioned the name “Sarah Palin” nearly 800 times. (O.K., I had to write her name there. Sorry.) Left-leaning MSNBC mentioned it nearly 1,000 times. But Fox News, which employs her, mentioned it fewer than 600 times. (Secondary mentions like “Sarah” or “Palin” are not included in the count. Neither is “Mama Grizzly.”)

People on the left seem to need her, to bash her, because she is, in three words, the way the left likes to see the right: hollow, dim and mean. But since she’s feeding on the negativity, I suggest three other words: get over it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/opini ... ef=opinion

[rwetmore]

She's a good, smart lady. But she should not run for President. To run for the President, win, and have enough firepower to deal effectively with a hostile press and a hostile ruling class the whole way through requires an extraordinary verbal facility and a very fast, strong intellect. While portraits of Palin as stupid reflect the ingrained ideological needs of the people doing such portraits, it's also the case that Palin doesn't have the facility that Reagan had in this regards. She will best serve as the spiritual leader of the Tea Party movement. She IS as intelligent or more so than most of those who mindlessly pass the "Palin is stupid" nonsense, but to lead the kind of revolution that must be had, she is not the one.

Who is that someone? Interesting question. No, it's not Huckabee or anyone like that. For the sake of our nation, and the world we leave our children, I hope that someone will emerge sooner rather than later.

Wow. Extremely well put, Cyril. I only wish I could be as articulate as you.

Unfortunately, I am not optimistic that someone will emerge, and even if they do, that they will be able to significantly reverse what is going on. I mean look how many people actually went out and voted for these people again despite what they've done and how they've behaved? Look how many people think what's been done is actually going to be good? Pretty depressing to me.

[HoustonDavid]

Unfortunately, I am not optimistic that someone will emerge, and even if they do, that they will be able to significantly reverse what is going on. I mean look how many people actually went out and voted for these people again despite what they've done and how they've behaved? Look how many people think what's been done is actually going to be good? Pretty depressing to me.

Assuming by this you mean the Republicans in the House and Senate who refused to
vote for any Democratic legislation, we are in complete agreement Randall!! Will
wonders never cease.!!

[rwetmore]

Assuming by this you mean the Republicans in the House and Senate who refused to vote for any Democratic legislation, we are in complete agreement Randall!! Will wonders never cease.!!

David, my friend, the number of things you flat out don't know anything about......

[HoustonDavid]

David, my friend, the number of things you flat out don't know anything about......

Randall, my friend, the number of things you flat out don't know anything about......
which would seem to include a sense of humor.

[Cyril Ignatius]

I think Randall's central point is true. It's not that nobody opposed Obama among Republicans. It's just that their leadership right now is quite weak. If you step back and look at where and when leaders make a dramatic difference in a time of crisis, you see the current crop falling far short. It is not to say they are bad, or stupid, or of malign intent. Some are. And some are nice and well-meaning. It's just that they don't rise to the level we need. The Republicans today are generally a mixture of empty suits and earnest people. The leader we need isn't among their visible figures.

[HoustonDavid]

Cyril, I clearly said I agree with him, and I also agree with you. The Congress is
full of empty suits and a very few leaders, and that includes both Republicans and
Democrats. For some reason Randall chose to declare me among the empty suits.