Scarborough wonders: Is Palin still a viable presidential candidate?

posted at 9:27 pm on June 10, 2009 by Allahpundit

Answer: Yes, but time’s running out. As much as you guys may hate Kathleen Parker, there’s some wisdom in her latest Palin-bash. Even Ann Coulter, in naming Palin 2008′s conservative of the year, acknowledged that she needs to master national policy before making another run at higher office. There’s been precious little evidence thus far that she’s done so; on the contrary, aside from a pro-life speech or two, most Palin headlines have been devoted to her photo op in front of the turkey slaughterhouse or the endless Johnston/Palin family drama or the “will she or won’t she” attendance sagas at GOP events, from the congressional dinner clusterfark to the CPAC clusterfark. No more drama. Either buckle down as a serious candidate or declare now that you’re not running and let the freak-show coverage run its course. Can we agree at least on that?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10

Fed45 on June 11, 2009 at 1:51 PM

There it is, in black and white. Our National Founding.

+100!

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 1:57 PM

I don’t really care about what the Constitution says in regards to gay marriage, I just wanted to get the point across that Mr. Limbaugh does not really believe in freedom for all Americans in a consistent manner. I think that has been established.

There, FIFY

Fed45 on June 11, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Who are you talking about?

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Those Americans, whom you have declared guilty, whom you want to convict and punish of some amorphous “social crimes” without trial or representation, and take from them what they have legally earned for their families, and who are the most generous people in the world when allowed to give of their own free will.

The Americans who are being targeted by our President. Those who make this country work by producing wealth, creating jobs and supporting all kinds of charities here at home and all around the world.

You want to deny them their right to defend themselves against these charges that are implied by the term “social justice”. If justice is needed, somebody committed a crime, right? Well, here in America we have due process for those charged with a crime. You want to deny them those rights, and just take what they have earned because you FEEL they don’t deserve it.

That is not justice, that is theft.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 2:03 PM

SouthernGal:

A fetus can survive outside the womb (with medical intervention) at around 21 weeks. If it is still in the womb, is it just a fetus with no rights, or an unborn baby with rights?

My youngest daughter was born at 37 weeks gestation. Normal gestation is 41 or 42 weeks. Was my daughter “human” before her birth, or just after?

If she was “human” before birth, at what point did she become human? At what point in her gestation should she have received rights for her own person, rather than rights derived from being a part of me, her mother?

To help you out, maybe you would enjoy reading the following site:

http://pregnancy.about.com/od/yourbaby/a/pregcalendar.htm

It’s a gestational/pregnancy guide week to week, including ultrasound pictures.

ElvenPhoenix on June 11, 2009 at 2:09 PM

A Newt-Palin coupling would be very interesting.

Newt Gingrich? For President? As John McEnroe would say: “You CANNOT be serious!”

Gingrich is smart, and compelling, on a scholarly level. He has no chance in hell of winning the nomination, let alone getting elected. His personal life baggage will quickly render him impotent as a candidate

Fed45 on June 11, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Those Americans, whom you have declared guilty, whom you want to convict and punish of some amorphous “social crimes” without trial or representation, and take from them what they have legally earned for their families, and who are the most generous people in the world when allowed to give of their own free will.

The Americans who are being targeted by our President. Those who make this country work by producing wealth, creating jobs and supporting all kinds of charities here at home and all around the world.

You want to deny them their right to defend themselves against these charges that are implied by the term “social justice”. If justice is needed, somebody committed a crime, right? Well, here in America we have due process for those charged with a crime. You want to deny them those rights, and just take what they have earned because you FEEL they don’t deserve it.

That is not justice, that is theft.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Who are these people you are talking about? And why do you think social justice means punishing people unjustly?

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Who are these people you are talking about? And why do you think social justice means punishing people unjustly?

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM

And what about people like you who like to dole out justice unjustly to advance your own political agenda?

Loxodonta on June 11, 2009 at 2:19 PM

And what about people like you who like to dole out justice unjustly to advance your own political agenda?

Loxodonta on June 11, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Why would I do that?

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM

I don’t really care about what the Constitution says in regards to gay marriage, I just wanted to get the point across that Mr. Limbaugh does not really believe in freedom for all Americans in a consistent manner. I think that has been established.

The abortion debate is, like the president said, above my paygrade. It is not for me to judge anyone for their deeply personal and private feelings on this issue.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Gay people have the same freedoms I have in regards to marriage.
The can marry someone over a certain age and is not there direct kin and is of the oppostite. So we are in fact treated equally in regards to marriage.

kangjie on June 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM

AlahPundit,
As someone else said earlier, the freak show will never stop.

You need to read Alinsky. One of the left’s main tools IS a perpetual freakshow.

Check this out.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314
An excerpt:
“Moreover, said Alinsky, whenever possible the organizer must deride his enemy and dismiss him as someone unworthy of being taken seriously because he is either intellectually deficient or morally bankrupt. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength,” said Alinsky.[79] He advised organizers to “laugh at the enemy” in an effort to provoke “an irrational anger.”[80] “Ridicule,” said Alinsky, “is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”[81]

According to Alinsky, it was vital that organizers focus on multiple crusades and multiple approaches. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag,” he wrote. “Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time … New issues and crises are always developing…”[82] “Keep the pressure on,” he continued, “with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”[83] “

rspock on June 11, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Who are these people you are talking about? And why do you think social justice means punishing people unjustly?

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM

I thought I explained that clearly. Let me try again.

The President has been explicit in his rhetoric, dividing Americans along the lines of income, race, gender, what have you.

Social Justice, is a class warfare construct. He drew the line in the campaign at $250,000 per year income. Those above the line will be punished for their crimes by confiscatory taxation, those below will be exempt, or rewarded with the wealth stolen from those above the line.

This is really unconstitutional. Sure, as compassionate Americans we all want to help those less fortunate, those who cannot help themselves.
The so-called “rich” do this all the time of their own free will, through voluntary charitable donations.
The arbitrary taxation puts the Government in between the individual and his legally earned private property, in order to redistribute that property to others, based on political considerations, not real need or merit.

The lazy and unproductive by choice will be rewarded with the stolen wealth of others as long as they vote the right way, knowing they are dependent on the politician for their income.
The more who do not pay taxes, and are dependent on the handouts by choice, not circumstance, the more power the politician has over the rest of the population who carry the burden by earning taxable income.

When the taxpayers are outnumbered by the taxtakers, there is the secret to perpetual election victories.
The only problem is, the taxpayers will not put up with being ripped off in perpetuity.
The system leads to lower and lower tax revenues to the Treasury, due to fewer and fewer taxpayers.
That leads to ever increasing tax rates, leading to fewer taxpayers, and on and on it goes.
It will kill our free market economy, and everyone will suffer in the end. Remember the ’70′s? That is where we are headed all over again.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 2:31 PM

Where do you get this rhetoric and why do you think punishing working families has anything to do with social justice?

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 2:33 PM

First of all, a fetus is not a human. It has no rights.
SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 1:43 PM

wow, talk about a sheeple of a troll.

Sweetheart. So when you have sex, and let’s say you find out you are pregnant. Is it a monster? Is it a hybred?

You didn’t have sex with a dog or an animal (even if a man is a jerk, he still in human) so WTF is it then?

I think you are trying for the word Zygote:

Main Entry: zy·gote
Pronunciation: \ˈzī-ˌgōt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek zygōtos yoked, from zygoun to join — more at zygoma
Date: circa 1887
: a cell formed by the union of two gametes ; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell
— zy·got·ic \zī-ˈgä-tik\ adjective

To bad you are even to stupid to understand this.

upinak on June 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Where do you get this rhetoric and why do you think punishing working families has anything to do with social justice?

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Ok then, why don’t you give us your definition of social justice, since you haven’t said what you think it means?

I know what it really means. It means punishing some current Americans for the actions of long dead Americans, and rewarding some current Americans for the victimization and oppression of some other long dead Americans.

We are not supposed to punish the son for the sins of the father in this country. That is what this is all about.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 2:41 PM

quite while you are ahead with this one.

She isn’t the brightest star in the sky.

upinak on June 11, 2009 at 2:43 PM

upinak on June 11, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Well, I’m in a feisty mood today, and these things should be talked about. Ignorance is our most expensive commodity.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Ok then, why don’t you give us your definition of social justice, since you haven’t said what you think it means?

I know what it really means. It means punishing some current Americans for the actions of long dead Americans, and rewarding some current Americans for the victimization and oppression of some other long dead Americans.

We are not supposed to punish the son for the sins of the father in this country. That is what this is all about.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 2:41 PM

You should not get your definition of social justice from Rush Limbaugh for starters! Hahaha.

Here is the definition:

Social justice, based on the concepts of human rights and equality, refers to the concept of a society in which “justice” is achieved in every aspect of society, rather than merely the administration of law.

It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society.

Nothing about punishing Workers or “punishing current Americans” or whatever rubbish conspiracy theory Rush Limbaugh said.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 2:50 PM

A major announcement on the AGIA pipeline is pending where Exxon/Mobil Oil has agreed to work with Trans-Canada pipeline to build a gas pipeline to the lower 48.

technopeasant on June 11, 2009 at 2:59 PM

You should not get your definition of social justice from Rush Limbaugh for starters! Hahaha.

Here is the definition:

Social justice, based on the concepts of human rights and equality, refers to the concept of a society in which “justice” is achieved in every aspect of society, rather than merely the administration of law.

It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society.

Nothing about punishing Workers or “punishing current Americans” or whatever rubbish conspiracy theory Rush Limbaugh said.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 2:50 PM

There you go, wanting to discredit the source you assume, rather than dealing with the substance of the argument presented.
Rush Limbaugh is beside the point now.
You are now insulting me by assuming that I’m just repeating what I’ve been told to think.
I am sourcing the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, The Bill of Rights.
Those happen to be Rush’s sources, too.

That definition of social justice proves my points even further. “Justice is achieved in every aspect of society, not just the administration of law.” That means economic justice too. Equal outcome, regardless of effort put in.

“Individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society.

Impartial share of the benefits, regardless of what you may or may not have done to earn those benefits.

Denies the private property rights enumerated in the Constitution.

You cannot give groups rights without infringing on the rights of individuals. The Constitution speaks of individual rights, not groups. If individual rights are protected, then groups of individuals are not in need of further guarantees.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Do you see the similarity in these statements?

That last one is from Karl Marx, in the Communist Manifesto, and we have seen how well that worked out for the Soviet Union and it’s satellite nations.

I will stick with the Constitution of the United States, thank you.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 3:06 PM

You’re wrong.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:12 PM

You’re wrong.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Please back up your statement, preferably with sources.

I am a Southern woman, and I am beginning to take great offense at your “name”, as I hold that generally people from the South have common sense.

ElvenPhoenix on June 11, 2009 at 3:16 PM

The end result of social justice is illustrated by a famous quote from a man who lived under the Communist regime in Romania. He said this:

We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.

Equal outcome regardless of effort destroys the initiative of individuals to excel in their field.
If you are not going to be rewarded for working harder and longer than the lazy guy next to you, why bother being excellent?
Just do the minimum required, and take the same as everyone else.
This will kill the foundation of the greatest economy the world has ever seen, which built this country and advanced the human condition around the world.

No Microsoft.
No Boeing.
No Wal Mart.
No competition driving innovation and excellence.
The whole economy will function like your local DMV office.
Scary stuff, and it must be fought at all costs if we are to preserve this nation and our way of life.

Social justice only results in everyone being equally miserable.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 3:16 PM

You’re wrong.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Wow, that is persuasive.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 3:18 PM

SouthernGal, everyone has the right to choose to have sex. Everyone should have the right to choose to use birth control. Everyone has the right to choose adoption for their fetus. Do you see where your “choice” is? How is allowing someone to vacuum out a fetus a right? As far as marriage goes, I should not have the right to marry my brother, sister, mother, dog or a football team.

infidel on June 11, 2009 at 3:21 PM

I don’t care.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:22 PM

SouthernGal, everyone has the right to choose to have sex. Everyone should have the right to choose to use birth control. Everyone has the right to choose adoption for their fetus. Do you see where your “choice” is? How is allowing someone to vacuum out a fetus a right? As far as marriage goes, I should not have the right to marry my brother, sister, mother, dog or a football team.

infidel on June 11, 2009 at 3:21 PM

I’m not talking about your right, I’m talking about Mr. Limbaugh and his contention that millions of Americans should not have the same rights we do.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM

*sigh*

I think Rush believes the following:

Every American has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, with restrictions on age and consanguinity that differs by State.

Every woman has the right to choose whether or not to have sex, and whether or not to utilize birth control – as well as whether to keep or adopt out an unintended baby.

As far as I can see, this is the basis of what you disagree with Rush on. You believe that people of the same gender should be able to marry and that women should be able to abort their unborn children.

Arguing that Rush believes that millions of Americans should not have the same rights we do is disingenuous.

ElvenPhoenix on June 11, 2009 at 3:32 PM

I’m not talking about your right, I’m talking about Mr. Limbaugh and his contention that millions of Americans should not have the same rights we do.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Please provide references to support your allegation

infidel on June 11, 2009 at 3:32 PM

I’m not talking about your right, I’m talking about Mr. Limbaugh and his contention that millions of Americans should not have the same rights we do.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM

You truly are one of the dumbest posters we have ever had on here and that is saying something.
Rush Limabugh is a private citzen of the united states and he ejoys the same right as you or me. One of those rights is freedom of speech.
He is advocating that homosexuals do not have a right to marry someone of the same sex. In this regard they are the same as hetrosexuals and elderly and minorities of every stripe.
I’m tired of trying to expalain basic concepts to you like a three year old child.
I can not have a special right to marry my sister and homosexuals can not marry soemone of the opposite sex(nor can hetros) So there is NOT any discrimination under the marriage laws.
Homosexuals want to lift a restriction, some states say no and others say yes.

kangjie on June 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM

I’m not talking about your right, I’m talking about Mr. Limbaugh and his contention that millions of Americans should not have the same rights we do.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Back to Limbaugh again. All Americans have the same right to marry an of age individual of the opposite sex. The rights are equal under the law.
If some people decide to enter into a relationship that is not marriage, then that is their choice, isn’t it?
You want to change what marriage is, not give rights to people who do not have them.

No response about the meaning of social justice, or what rights we as Americans have, and what they mean?

Maybe you need to read up on the Founding of our Nation before you presume to put down others who have a different point of view based on what is actually in our Founding Documents.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 3:36 PM

I’m not talking about your right, I’m talking about Mr. Limbaugh and his contention that millions of Americans should not have the same rights we do.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM

I don’t know why I’m bothering to do this, because I know it won’t sink in to her thick skull, but….

SouthernGal, please provide evidence where Mr. Limbaugh hasa ever advocated denying legal rights as they are currently defined both at the Federal and the State level, to any class of person. And please be specific. Otherwise, you might as well be saying you know for a fact Elvis is still alive.

Fed45 on June 11, 2009 at 3:37 PM

No more drama. Either buckle down as a serious candidate or declare now that you’re not running and let the freak-show coverage run its course. Can we agree at least on that?

Yes, agreed. I like Palin, but she needs to deliver the goods or go off into the sunset quietly.

PersonalLiberty on June 11, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Mr. Limbaugh cannot say he embraces freedom for all Americans if he engages in the sophist claim that all People are free to marry others of the same gender.

He knows he is engaging in sophistry, which is why I think his claim to support freedom for all Americans is indeed just rhetoric.

True freedom means all Americans are free, not just some of us.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Yes, agreed. I like Palin, but she needs to deliver the goods or go off into the sunset quietly.

PersonalLiberty on June 11, 2009 at 3:43 PM

You mean right now? What other Republicans are “delivering the goods” for 2012 in 2009? No one I have seen. Sarah will be fine, because she believes in, and fights for all the things I have just been talking about here.

She is a fighter with courage, and I respect her more and more. Give this process time to advance, and Sarah will let us all know what her intentions are. I have a strong feeling I know what they are, but we shall see soon enough.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Most of the drama does not come from Governor Palin. It comes from those on both the right and the left who are trying to derail her possible future run for President.

For example, the Levi Johnston interviews. The tasteless Letterman jokes. The frequent and unsupported ethical charges laid against her. (How DARE SHE travel out of state and make personal appearances!!) And so on.

It is a freakshow largely engineered by the media. Blaming her is blaming the incorrect party.

ElvenPhoenix on June 11, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Most of the drama does not come from Governor Palin. It comes from those on both the right and the left who are trying to derail her possible future run for President.

For example, the Levi Johnston interviews. The tasteless Letterman jokes. The frequent and unsupported ethical charges laid against her. (How DARE SHE travel out of state and make personal appearances!!) And so on.

It is a freakshow largely engineered by the media. Blaming her is blaming the incorrect party.

ElvenPhoenix on June 11, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Maybe I’m just speaking for myself, but nothing would be better for us libs if Palin is the 2012 nominee.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:55 PM

Mr. Limbaugh cannot say he embraces freedom for all Americans if he engages in the sophist claim that all People are free to marry others of the same gender.

He knows he is engaging in sophistry, which is why I think his claim to support freedom for all Americans is indeed just rhetoric.

True freedom means all Americans are free, not just some of us.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:49 PM

You are still attributing things to Limbaugh that you have never heard him say.
The statements about all Americans are equally able to marry the opposite sex are words from me, and a few other commenters.
Nobody said a word about Rush in their replies to you.
You have not refuted the substance of anything that has been put to you.
You just want to sneer and insult Rush and his audience, which is about 25 million now, without a substantive argument to back you up.

That is your right, under the First Amendment. You are not persuading anyone, however.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 3:55 PM

I am saying that Mr. Limbaugh believes men should not have the freedom to marry men.

Like it or not, he is saying that hundreds of millions of Americans should have less freedom.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:56 PM

Maybe I’m just speaking for myself, but nothing would be better for us libs if Palin is the 2012 nominee.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:55 PM

You just keep on thinking that. It’s perfect for our plans. Underestimate her at your own risk.
You could not debate your way out of a wet paper bag, Sarah Palin would deconstruct all of this nonsense you have said with ease.

If Sarah is not the nominee, her endorsement will be critical to deciding who is. She will still get the biggest crowds, even campaigning for someone else.
She is a force to be reckoned with, any way you look at it.

Also, she was right about Obama all along the campaign trail, and slowly but surely, people are waking up to that fact. You have no idea what things will look like in 2011-12, and neither do I or anyone else.

Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:56 PM

Less freedom than what?

Is it opposing freedom to say we are not “free” to smash windows of businesses we oppose? That we should not be free to place religious symbols on the roofs of public buildings? To marry underage persons?

Where does “freedom” end for you?

cs89 on June 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Less freedom than what?

Is it opposing freedom to say we are not “free” to smash windows of businesses we oppose? That we should not be free to place religious symbols on the roofs of public buildings? To marry underage persons?

Where does “freedom” end for you?

cs89 on June 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Either Mr. Limbaugh believes in freedom for all Americans or he doesn’t. It’s a simple concept.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 4:04 PM

I am saying that Mr. Limbaugh believes men should not have the freedom to marry men.

Like it or not, he is saying that hundreds of millions of Americans should have less freedom.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:56 PM

There are not hundreds of millions of men who want to marry men, even though that is not marriage, it is something else, whatever you want to call it.

Nobody has the freedom to change marriage to something it has never been. Since you have nothing new to say, I’ll leave you be. For now :)

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Either Mr. Limbaugh believes in freedom for all Americans or he doesn’t. It’s a simple concept.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 4:04 PM

What is the obsession you have with Rush? Why must you include his name in every comment, while not addressing the important substance of the arguments that you can’t win?

You don’t know the first thing about what Rush believes in, and you don’t really care. Men pretending to marry other men is not what I am concerned with. There are much bigger issues to address, like the future solvency of our country. You don’t seem to be able to talk about those things with any depth, so, again, I’ll leave you to your Rush fixation.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Okay, so you don’t believe in freedom. Just making that clear.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Okay, so you don’t believe in freedom. Just making that clear.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Hahaha! That’s really comical, hilarious even! Reread what I have written, at length, about freedom and what it is all about. To you, it’s a cheap talking point on a side issue that your President is not even in favor of!
Where are you insulting your President and Vice President? They oppose gay marriage as well.
Is Obama not in favor of freedom?
I don’t think he is, but for different reasons, see “social justice” above.

Brian1972 on June 11, 2009 at 4:17 PM

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 4:04 PM

So, are you unable or unwilling to answer simple questions?

How is the “freedom” to marry someone of your own gender different than the “freedom” to marry a minor? Not equating the two, just trying to get a handle on your definition of “freedom.”

cs89 on June 11, 2009 at 4:18 PM

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 4:04 PM

So, are you unable or unwilling to answer simple questions?

How is the “freedom” to marry someone of your own gender different than the “freedom” to marry a minor? Not equating the two, just trying to get a handle on your definition of “freedom.”

cs89 on June 11, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Surely you are not calling Dick Cheney’s daughter a child molester, are you?

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 4:25 PM

*shakes head*

Must. Not. Feed. Troll.

ElvenPhoenix on June 11, 2009 at 4:29 PM

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 4:25 PM

Nope. Just trying to get an answer. Guess that’s not going to happen today.

Guess I should know better than to expect intellectual honesty from you.

cs89 on June 11, 2009 at 4:52 PM

The woman is a three-ring circus with a carnival barker. Her family should be on Jerry Springer. She craves attention and is ditzy. Please, put her out on the national stage and watch the freak show begin. The gop has officially imploded.

athensboy on June 10, 2009 at 9:49 PM

Are you kidding me?? Did you not see her on the national stage in ’08? She rallied the troops and generated more excitement than I have seen in a long time. I realize that we lost, but I think that had more to do w/ people wanting to try something different (in other words anyone except for another Republican). The only freak show I can think of is the one inside the WH.

Callie C. on June 11, 2009 at 5:05 PM

I am saying that Mr. Limbaugh believes men should not have the freedom to marry men.

Like it or not, he is saying that hundreds of millions of Americans should have less freedom.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 3:56 PM

I know you won’t understand this, but what you are essentiallly saying is that people should have the freedom to break laws they don’t like.

For the record, I’m ambivalent on the issue of gay marriage. If my state, at some point, changes the law to allow same sex couples to marry, well, so be it.

I understand it’s frustrating for gays that the majority of people in this country oppose gay marriage and that everytime it comes up on a ballot it gets voted down. That’s freedom too, you know.

But, to repeat, NO ONE is being denied any FREEDOM. The example are looking for is when blacks were not permitted to marry whites. Now THAT was denying someone their freedom to observe a law.

Simply stated, your position is flawed. Gays have all the freedoms heterosexuals do, according to the law.

Fed45 on June 11, 2009 at 6:46 PM

Simply stated, your position is flawed. Gays have all the freedoms heterosexuals do, according to the law.

Fed45 on June 11, 2009 at 6:46 PM

Not per Rush Limbaugh; he wants gays to have the right to marry other gays.

SouthernGal on June 11, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10