Did a Scandal Sink the U.S.S. Palin? - The Daily Beast - [shar.es]

One only needs to listen to the Democratic tone to understand the Signifigance of this news. The Democrats welcomed McCain with little retoric because we knew he would be beaten easily in the 08 election. The Fact that the news media continues to bash every move Palin makes.... tells you all you need to know. Anyone that can pull 20,000 fans at an unadvertised engagement AFTER the election... well... is a threat! Democrats are afraid and rightfully so! Spend Thrift vs. "Screw you and your neghbor while I pay off by Buddies!"..... Keep Spending Obama, we may just have a 2012 Race!

O ne
B ig
A **
M istake
A merica

Blue Eyed Indian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Watched the whole speech. She stupidly did the
> whole thing without a teleprompter. Who in the
> hell does she think she is? Ronald Reagan?
> A lot of frightened to death liberals out there,
> but there is no need to worry! I have it from a
> good source she is going to head up the Washington
> Post's $25,000 per head influence peddaling
> scheme. That way if it ever came to light it
> could be blamed on her middle daughter!
> This woman is smarter than all the liberals in the
> world combined. Hide and watch! Quiver in fear!


Well said. She is the real thing.

I'm thinking shrewd moves are something Bill Kristol knows a lot about. After all he's the one who gave us these gems of intelligent prose:

August 26, 2002:

Reading the Scowcroft/New York Times "arguments" against war, one is struck by how laughably weak they are. European international-law wishfulness and full-blown Pat Buchanan isolationism are the two intellectually honest alternatives to the Bush Doctrine.

April 4, 2003:

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

April 28, 2003:

The United States committed itself to defeating terror around the world. We committed ourselves to reshaping the Middle East, so the region would no longer be a hotbed of terrorism, extremism, anti-Americanism, and weapons of mass destruction. The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably. But these are only two battles. We are only at the end of the beginning in the war on terror and terrorist states.

July 26, 2004:

What the Bush administration did say--and what so many reporters seem to have trouble understanding--is that Iraq and al Qaeda had a relationship that, by its very existence, posed a potential threat to the United States.

March 7, 2005:

Just four weeks after the Iraqi election of January 30, 2005, it seems increasingly likely that that date will turn out to have been a genuine turning point. The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, ended an era. September 11, 2001, ended an interregnum. In the new era in which we now live, 1/30/05 could be a key moment--perhaps the key moment so far--in vindicating the Bush Doctrine as the right response to 9/11. And now there is the prospect of further and accelerating progress.


April 4, 2005 (re: Terri Schiavo)

After all, we are a "maturing society," as the Supreme Court has told us. Perhaps it is time, in mature reaction to this latest installment of what Hugh Hewitt has called a "robed charade," to rise up against our robed masters, and choose to govern ourselves. Call it Terri's revolution.

November 7, 2005:

Last week the Bush Administration's second-term bear market bottomed out.


November 30, 2005 (column titled "Pelosi's Disastrous Miscalculation"):

All this made me think the 2006 elections could result in a Speaker Pelosi. I now think that unlikely. Pelosi's endorsement today of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq makes the House Democrats the party of defeat, the party of surrender. Bush's strong speech today means the GOP is likely to be--if Republican Congressmen just keep their nerve--the party of victory. Now it is possible that the situation in Iraq will worsen over the next year. If that happens, Bush and the GOP are in deep trouble. They would have been if Pelosi had said nothing. But it is much more likely that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less the same, or improve. In either case, Republicans will benefit from being the party of victory.

December 26, 2005 (column titled "Happy Days!"):

If American and Iraqi troops continue to provide basic security, and if Iraq's different sects and political groups now begin to engage in serious, peaceful bargaining, then we may just have witnessed the beginning of Iraq's future.


nuff said. This idiot couldn't find his butt with to hands and a map.

Don't count her out. She has great appeal to many Americans. She may even be the magical third party candidate, running on a platform of what's good for America: True energy independence, not the one which is just disguised taxation (cap and trade) that will ultimately make America even more dependent on Mid East Oil; returning to values that most Americans still hold to be important; and clearing out the corruption throughout the government, which both the Democrats and Republicans have made a way of life. These and other issues may propel her into a successful national figure within a few years. Get ready.