Must be her looks.

Wanderlust on April 9, 2009 at 1:31 AM

One of the few intelligent comments in this whole string.

The troll you’re giving all this spotlight to hasn’t had this much attention in months … especially from his cheerleader wife.

give it a rest.

McCain had name recognition running for president before. By your logic McCain should of had no chace being beat by Bush in 2000.

Poptech on April 9, 2009 at 9:49 AM

You’re claiming McCain had a name recognition advantage over George W. Bush? (Pssst- the Bush name had a little publicity of it’s own. Don’t tell anybody).

Hahahaha.

Would Sarah Palin even be talked about if she was not an attractive women? Would she have ever been the VP pick?

You know the answer but no one will answer it honestly.

Poptech on April 8, 2009 at 11:49 PM

The question itself is, of course, absurd. As another blogger pointer out, all of this misogygy is intended to ridicule and demean a sucessful female governor — nothing more. Keep it up pop — the legal defense fund contributions will soar with every hate-filled rant!

So good that he lost to McCain after spending enormous sums of his own money.

chunderroad on April 9, 2009 at 8:55 AM

McCain had name recognition running for president before. By your logic McCain should of had no chace being beat by Bush in 2000.

…will not help you get into her pants any quicker.

Poptech on April 8, 2009 at 9:01 PM

LOL. Finally, something poppy really is expert in! No self-repecting woman could put up with his obsessive/compulsive misogyny long enough for him to invade her personal space.

Romney was not a Libertarian, just the best of who the GOP had running.

Poptech on April 9, 2009 at 12:56 AM

So good that he lost to McCain after spending enormous sums of his own money.

They can’t even get simple stories about her right.

Allah forgot to add the note..

Note: To all Palin’s Male supporters (which are most of them) donations will not help you get into her pants any quicker.

Poptech on April 8, 2009 at 9:01 PM

Dropping trou and bending over to grab your ankles in front of Mitt won’t guarantee “you” a date either.

ddrintn on April 9, 2009 at 12:11 AM

portlandon on April 9, 2009 at 12:05 AM

Come on guys, no homosexual jokes. If you want Poptech to be more civil taking cheap shots will not help.

terryannonline on April 9, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Poptech being civil? I take it you’re into recreational impossibilities.

Palin will rip Obama’s throat out of his body in any debate he is stupid enough to show up to…and she will do it with a smile and a you betcha!

She couldn’t even beat Biden, dude.

Allahpundit on April 8, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Except she did beat Biden. Of course, she could never top Biden in the eyes of the media, but we all know they always call it for the Democrat.

Still, it is a subjective judgment. But the fact that Biden told several whoppers trying to hold even with Palin should be enough to declare him the loser.

But there’s your problem: the media isn’t bright enough or honest enough — your pick — to catch those mistakes.

Just like Biden told the brilliant Katie Couric that FDR came on television after the stock market crash of 1929 and talked to the American people directly. She swallowed it all the way.

BTW, I see Beavis and Butthead are back, sniggering over “how dumb is Sarah Palin!” Predictable. But at least they have each other….

The only thing to say about “it” is that he/she makes the effort to cut and paste. In Obambi’s education world, that should count for *something*, right?

cs89 on April 9, 2009 at 12:33 AM

Ain’t gonna happen, as my friends in NC say. “It” craves bloviating.

For all the ones doing hatin’ on AP about Sarah, I’d like to offer an opinion: most cynics are burned-out optimists. Regardless of how badly McShamnesty acted during the election last year, SP still had a responsibility to manage her own affairs regarding both the media and the base. She didn’t do well on either one, and allowed the MSM to tar her terribly. She had a lot of potential “red meat” Conservative issues upon which she could have remained focused, including energy, executive experience, and even missile defense. Instead she allowed herself to be tarred by McShamnesty’s milquetoast stance on immigration enforcement and failed to consistently remain on message.

Like it or not, anyone wanting to run as a Conservative now faces a much more difficult hurdle with the media and the Republican Party than did Reagan back in 1980. Doubly so for a woman simply because of all the reasons Libs hate Conservative women, from being pro-life down to being just plain successful. Sarah has her successes, yes, but not against the East Coast establishment. Not yet, at least.

She’s gonna have to figure out eventually that trying to be all things to all people doesn’t work; as many here have said, people are looking for someone to be principled and conservative at the same time.

From what I have seen AP write about Sarah, I think he became somewhat cynical after her meteoric rise was stopped so quickly. But don’t count him out just yet.

I follow blogs like HA, Ace, and Michelle’s blog because the authors are principled conservatives (and yes, I like Ace because he’s a potty-mouthed one at that).

Oh, and even though sometimes they make me want to throw up in my mouth, I don’t mind the Dude posts.

Keep up the good work, AP.

It must be Romney’s looks, because judging from his record I don’t see much to attract a libertarianish type.

ddrintn on April 9, 2009 at 12:44 AM

Romney was not a Libertarian, just the best of who the GOP had running.

Come on guys, no homosexual jokes. If you want Poptech to be more civil taking cheap shots will not help.

terryannonline on April 9, 2009 at 12:16 AM

It’s not a homosexual joke. Expecting Poptech to be civil? Fuggedaboudit.

Nah, I’m into Qualifications, Relevant Education, Economic Literacy and Private Sector experience for POTUS. I don’t consider running for president an American Idol contest.

Poptech on April 9, 2009 at 12:17 AM

It must be Romney’s looks, because judging from his record I don’t see much to attract a libertarianish type. RomneyCare? Increased taxes in the camouflaged form of increased fees? Yep, must be the hair.

Oh sure they repeat the talking points but never fail to add an extra point like gorgeous, beautiful, nice to look at, easy on the eyes, looks good in a dress.

Poptech on April 8, 2009 at 11:49 PM

I’ve responded to your inanity on several occasions, and made other comments supportive of Palin.

Please point to a single post of mine which refers to her appearance. (Yes, I’m male)

Put up or shut up time.

Come on guys, no homosexual jokes. If you want Poptech to be more civil taking cheap shots will not help.

terryannonline on April 9, 2009 at 12:16 AM

This was not a homosexual crack. I would feel bad for any man who would romance Pooptech in any way. Infact, I apologize to all NFL Lineman for associating them with Pooptech.

Of course. You’re more into the blow-dry gameshow-host Mitt look. Gotcha.

ddrintn on April 9, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Nah, I’m into Qualifications, Relevant Education, Economic Literacy and Private Sector experience for POTUS. I don’t consider running for president an American Idol contest.

ddrintn on April 9, 2009 at 12:11 AM

portlandon on April 9, 2009 at 12:05 AM

Come on guys, no homosexual jokes. If you want Poptech to be more civil taking cheap shots will not help.

This is why I was able to be objective from day one and did not fall for the Naughty Librarian look, like the male Palintologists.

Poptech on April 8, 2009 at 11:55 PM

Of course. You’re more into the blow-dry gameshow-host Mitt look. Gotcha.

I have an ex-eagle’s cheerleader lineman as my lady so I have no need to lust after the average looking Palin.

Poptech on April 8, 2009 at 11:44 PM

Fixed. And look, I made it all bold just like pooptech. ROFLMAO!!

But there is difference between commenting on a women’s looks and sexualizing her? Your comment crossed the line into sexualization.

terryannonline on April 8, 2009 at 11:56 PM

I’m just being honest, the women don’t see it because well they are not men and the men are too cowardly to admit it (especially to their women). I’m not lying, I am telling you exactly how it is. But this is not the case of people thinking she is stupid because of her looks, they think she is stupid because of her media appearances.

Again, this also applies to Obama:

Would Sarah Palin (Barrack Obama) even be talked about if she was not an attractive women (black man)?

Many do, seriously. Oh sure they repeat the talking points but never fail to add an extra point like gorgeous, beautiful, nice to look at, easy on the eyes, looks good in a dress. The give away is when they try to slam those who find her unqualified as “afraid of strong good looking women”. It is a typical psychological defense they are trying to project for their real reasons they like her, her looks.

Would Sarah Palin even be talked about if she was not an attractive women? Would she have ever been the VP pick?

You know the answer but no one will answer it honestly.

Poptech on April 8, 2009 at 11:49 PM

I really don’t like it when the media and others focuses too much on what a woman politician is wearing and looks like. I thought it was stupid the media reported how much Palin’s clothes cost. It was trivial and I know they wouldn’t do that to a man. But I wouldn’t call that sexist. But there is difference between commenting on a women’s looks and sexualizing her? Your comment crossed the line into sexualization. Reminder of what u wrote:

Note: To all Palin’s Male supporters (which are most of them) donations will not help you get into her pants any quicker.