Exactly. These are the sorts of people who on a clear day if Obama said the sky was blue and Rush said it was plaid, they would believe Rush unconditionally. They are immune to reason.
That’s the trouble with thinking of the Republican or Democratic party as a monolith. They’re not at all static across time. Republicans today may still be convinced that the stupidest candidate is the best but millions of Republicans who thought it would work well in 2000 and 2004 are now independents, having realized what an idiotic approach it is. They’re not fundamentally different - certainly haven’t turned into Democrats or liberals, but they won’t identify as Republicans either. Personally I don’t believe that for your average relatively uninformed voter was all that motivated by personality and certainly not by an understanding of what Bush did wrong. They just have an intuitive understanding that we gave complete control to the GOP at the start of the decade and the result was utterly disastrous in almost every aspect of life.
So are Republicans sticking to their guns? Yeah. But there aren’t many Republicans left.
They didn’t change their opinion of her. They changed their opinion of Obama/looked more favorably on the McCain camp after Palin was named.
Ah.
A different way to summarize is that the author of the piece lied 66% of the time and then you attack Bricker for pointing that out.
And your idea that the article shows that Palin “lies 33% of the time” is either dry humor or bad analysis.
While I welcome attacks on Palin I hate to see our minority members here (the comparitively conservative) get trashed for trying to keep the attacks accurate.
My insight into Palin’s fanbase is that fundamentalist Christians love her because she is one of them. That tops all other considerations and gives her a 10-20% core constituency.
Add in blue collar hunters and blue collar business owners and she has a solid base
But Obama didn’t have any real, objective “merits,” either! He had NO experience as an administrator, NO experience in foreign policy, NO experience in finance.
So, liberal Democrats certainly didn’t flock to him because of his qualifications. It’s either because of the way he made them feel (“What an orator! Swoon!”) or because he FELT like their kind of guy.
And THAT is every bit as silly and irrational as picking someone because he’d be fun to have a beer with.
What a crock of shit. You righties actually believe your own bullshit, don’t you?
I think most folks believe their own shit. Don’t you? 
I’m only defending her to the extent the attacks against her are incorrect. In my count when I stopped was 5 lies out of 9 statements, or 55% lies.
Since Palin=bad, that apparently means that any attack that targets her is valid, and any attempt to debunk a false attack is unjustified defense.
Well, he was constitutional law professor, but I guess that would only be relevant if on day one the prez had to take an oath swearing to defend such a document.
Oh, I forgot! HARVARD! ELITE! KORAN!
Let me correct your statement: Of the ‘lies’ Sarah Palin has supposedly said, 33% turned out to be something you could categorize as a lie.
Or let’s put it another way: After years of statements, a Vice Presidential campaign, and a large book, her enemies found nine ‘lies’. As it turns out, her enemies were actually the ones lying about six of them.
And this is the woman who can’t say the time of day without an army of media fact-checkers descending on her.
Would you like me to recount the lies of Joe Biden or Barack Obama? Politicians lie. Get used to it. Sarah Palin’s no different. And these lies aren’t particularly egregious. Oh no, lying about her support for the bridge to nowhere! That’s the typical kind of lie EVERY politician engages in. Would you like to count the number of Democrats who voted for the Iraq war and then later claimed they did not support it? Or the number of them who opposed the surge, and then later claimed that they were favor of it all the time? Politicians hitch their wagon to popular programs and over-state their opposition to unpopular ones. They all do it.
Hillary Clinton made up entire stories about being under fire in a war. So did Joe Biden. Biden also plagiarized a speech, and is known for telling lies all the time. And yet, you don’t seem to muster a lot of outrage against them. No one really believes that Barack Obama spent twenty years in Reverend Wright’s church and never had an inkling of his crazy talk. Bill Clinton lied under oath, yet you find it easy to dismiss that. But Palin? Well, her lies are clear proof that she’s the devil incarnate.
I watched Palin’s interviews with O’Reilly this week, and her interview with Oprah. And I was not impressed. She comes across as someone who has learned the Republican buzzwords, but has no real comprehensive understanding of the issues underlying them. She’s quick to quote Reagan, but I’ll bet she couldn’t tell you much about what the logic was behind many of his policies. She’s definitely no Reagan. If you asked Reagan to justify his belief system, he could lecture you all day on the roots of his conservatism, the major philosophical figures and economists of the right, how they differed, why he felt they were right, etc. The man knew his stuff. I never, ever get the sense that Palin knows anything other than sound bites.
But here’s the thing - you Palin haters need to tone down your rhetoric and get a grip on reality, because right now you’re the best thing she’s got going. Every time you make an outrageous attack on her, it puts her back in the news cycle. Every time you accuse her of some outlandish behavior or attack her family or treat her like Satan incarnate, you force people into her camp simply out of defense. There’s an awful lot of writing in the right-wing media right now that starts out, “God, why does the left keep forcing me to defend Palin? I’d rather just ignore her, but these attacks are ridiculous.” I feel pretty much the same way.
By the way, the O’Reilly interview was a model of how an interview should be carried out. He wasn’t easy on her at all. He didn’t ask her fluff questions about her family. He didn’t try to trap her with ‘gotcha’ questions. He simply asked her serious policy questions and expected serious answers. When she waffled, he called her on it. He treated her like a heavyweight politician - but she came across as anything but heavyweight.
CNN and the rest could learn a little bit from the way O’Reilly does things. The day he interviewed Palin, he brought someone from the left to criticize her. He admitted that one criticism was fair, and then when the person started going off on a rant and clearly let her emotions get away with her, O’Reilly started to defend Palin, then caught himself and said, “I said I’d give you the last word, so I won’t say anything. Thanks for being on the show and sharing your opinion with us.” Fair and balanced indeed.
Nobody knew who Palin was when she was nominated. Well, the Alaskan Democrats did. The McCain camp (it seemed at the time, at least) didn’t vet her, yet, there was a huge 20-page vetting document I had access to from the Alaskan Democrats that had all the stuff good, neutral, and bad about her.
As it was happening, and from that vantage point, it seemed like gross incompetency and made the two replies I brought up, and others like them, that more perplexing.
Again, being on the inside, and from my vantage point, the Obama campaign was running, what was practically a billion dollar start-up company, and it was run like it. It was incredible how big it was, and even for how big it was, how nimble it was and how resources were allocated and reallocated across the country.
The issue is not so much a revelation that a politician lies (though you can’t cite any lies from Obama’s book), but that Palin expects to get special treatment from the news media and not get called on it. I don’t recall hearing Obama, or Biden, or Hillary, or John McCain, or even GWB crying and whining about what victims they were because an objective news agency gave them a fact check.
There’s also the fact that she does it far more often, more egregiously, more demonstrably and more stupidly than anyone else in recent memory, yet constantly accuses others of dishonesty.
This I agree with completely. It’s one of the reasons she doesn’t look Presidential.
When Nixon petulantly said, “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around any more”, it’s not exactly remembered as a career highlight. In fact, it put him in the political doghouse for quite a while.
Part of the job of the president is to take the criticism in stride. So far, Palin hasn’t impressed in this regard. She’s about run out the clock on this. If she goes on about how poorly she’s been treated much longer, she’ll lose some of her supporters over it.
Sob! How can I HOPE to argue with someone so articulate, so rational, so persuasive! Sniff.
I assume a Mod will have the good sense to tell you “Take it to the pit, potty mouth.” Til then, I’ll just say that, for the sake of your family, I can only hope your REAL personality isn’t the one you show on these boards.
Now, if you REALLY think what I just said was bullshit, all you have to do is refute me with a LONG list of all Obama’s qualifications to be president. Let’s hear them, Dio. Eh?
P.S.: If “He went to an Ivy League college” is a qualification, guess what? I went to the same college he did, and graduated the same year. Guess I’M ready to be Chief Exec, right?
George W. Bush had an advanced degree from Harvard, too. Your point is…?
Mudflats has been doing page-by-page coverage of the book, for those sadists among you.
starting here
Bush was a legacy – i.e. Affirmative Action for rich, white people. H also went to a much less demanding program, did not distinguish himself when he was there (nothing to compare with being President of the HLR), and Obama’s education was only the beginning of his credentials, not the end of them. Twelve years as a Constitutional Law professor, a practicing civil rights attorney, Illinois state legislature, US Senator. Those are credentials. Being the part time mayor of a remote Alaskan meth lab community is not.
Well, part of the point is no one ever called Bush an elitist. In fact, according to conservatives, Harvard was a qualification for Bush, and a (bogus) disqualification for Obama.