You Are There?
Is who where?
I read Scumpup’s post as “are you there?”
Oh well.
Yes, that’s the show. 
Palin made some typically choice comments when she talked to Sean Hannity yesterday. She said that she wouldn’t allow Katie Couric to interview her if she (Palin) were to run for president:
“I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism”? That’s a sentence from someone with a Communications degree? Admittedly, it does seem that some Communications degrees these days are designed mainly to train people to look good and read a teleprompter, but jeez. She sounds like some of my least capable undergraduates.
When I heard it I didn’t get homosexual vibes from it. Nor did I instantly think of Sarah Palin. All I got from it was hyperpartisanship.
Listen pal, grammar am for people who can’t think for myself. Understanded me?
I still think we need to be fair:
Reagan>Palin>StarvingArtist>fencepost>Susanann>YouTube commenter.
So are you conceding that the MSM is biased in your favor, or outing yourself as a real liberal?
You have to follow the rightard logic here. “Regular Average American Sarah” makes millions of dollars a year speaking. If you don’t get paid at least as much for speaking, you should clearly shut the fuck up.
The woman can do no wrong, which we be hilarious (were the likes of our resident teabaggers not immune to hypocrisy and irony) of they were to recognize that’s what they used to accuse Obama supporters of doing.
-Joe
I read your post wrong. Yes, Are You There is the program I remember. :smack:
Thanks
“I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism. And I have a communications degree.”
I should have known this would get picked up by my fellow Dopers. I read this on CNN this morning and just cackled with glee. If Tina Fey had written that into a skit, it would have been rejected as sounding too retarded.
In all seriousness, can a Palin supporter tell me what was unfair in the Couric interview? I admit I have not seen the whole thing, only excerpts.
That sounds vaguely threatening and my reaction is to ask Palin “Meaning what, exactly?”
I feel the same way about the OP’s:
Meaning what, exactly? It’s letting people get away with bullshit that hurts the debate.
Yo, grammar’s for chumps, bro.
And those were the last words Sean Hannity would ever hear from her as she abruptly hung up on him.
(In the parallel universe where Palin actually means what she says.)
And Ronald Reagan and Thomas Jefferson and FDR for terms 2,3 and 4 and both JFK and RFK (she said RAN not WON)
Heck, even if we only count non-incumbents, Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and Thomas Dewey in 1948 were well-known to voters, simply by virtue of having been their party’s previous candidate. It’s not like the 22 million Americans who voted for Dewey in 1944 (representing 46% of the popular vote) forgot who he was when he ran again (to similar popular-vote totals, though he picked up more Electoral votes) in 1948. Stevenson picked up over 25 million votes in each of his unsuccessful bids, so one can hardly say he was an unknown during his second run in 1956.
Susanann has the political memory and knowledge of a goldfish, and a particularly clueless goldfish at that.
First, Ronald Reagan was anything but dumb. And secondly, I’m on the right but if Palin got the nomination in 2012 and she was running against the pig that the Yippies put up for President in '68 then I’d vote for the pig.
Pigasus 2012
Vote early and vote often.