Palin: No, I’m not speaking at the Reagan Library next week

posted at 10:32 pm on July 30, 2009 by Allahpundit

Palin fans have been murmuring excitedly about this event for awhile now, with good reason. It’s a natural venue for her to make her first post-gubernatorial appearance. It’s closed to the press, her pal John Ziegler is emceeing, and it would let her symbolically lay claim to the Reagan mantle that her fans have bestowed on her. The organizers of the event, the Republican Women Federated of Simi Valley, went so far as to say a few weeks ago that she was scheduled to attend.

And now, this.

As repeatedly stated to several in the media over the last week, former Governor Sarah Palin is not committed to attend the Simi Valley Republican Women’s event at the Reagan Library and in fact is not attending the event. Neither the Governor’s state staff nor SarahPAC has ever committed to attending this event or speaking at this event, and even requested that the Governor’s name be removed from the invitation several weeks ago. The Governor has other work and commitments to take care of at that time. She looks forward to visiting her friends in California soon.

All event requests must be confirmed with Meghan Stapleton of SarahPAC. Additionally, all invitations bearing the Governor’s name must be approved by her attorney before proceeding.

Thank you.
Meghan Stapleton

Conservatives 4 Palin is quick to point out that Palin herself never said she would be there, or at least not publicly. I’ll be curious to hear what the organizers have to say about that tomorrow, especially given her track record of miscommunications when being booked for events. If it’s true that they invented the fact of her attendance in hopes of pressuring her to come, they owe her a groveling apology for getting her fans’ hopes up. In the meantime, though, what could she have scheduled that’s so critical that she can’t skip it for a big lower-48 debut on Ronald Reagan’s home turf? It’s political gold. Stay tuned.


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 3 4 5 6 7

When cutie Katie Couric asked her what she reads, Palin had no answer. Deer in the headlights. The woman is ignorant.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 1:57 AM

Your brash side is showing again.

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:08 AM

here is a VERY good article on whats to come from Sarah in the coming months and years:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/sarah_palin_a_leader_without_a.html

ousoonerfan15 on July 31, 2009 at 2:08 AM

I think judging her whole career and intellect on one question is rather unfair. Believe what you want, it’s a free country last time I looked, but I take exception to this attitude when the evidence abounds to contradict it.

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 2:01 AM

Hmmm

At the moment, it’s been more than the one question that turned me off (actually the Gibson/Couric interviews weren’t what did it).

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:08 AM

Is nationalized healthcare not a “social issue?”

PIMF!

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 2:05 AM

No, it’s not. Not at all. It’s an issue of government intrusion into private matters. Which is what we

should

be campaigning on.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:08 AM

That’s one poll, which had it 51/49. There are many other recent polls that show higher support for the “pro-choice” stance.

I guarantee you that if Roe v Wade were overturned tomorrow, there would probably be only one or two states that would outright ban abortion.

So what’s the point of banging that drum? It just mobilizes the feminist vote and makes the GOP look like a tool of evangelicals to the moderates.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:06 AM

replace ‘abortion’ with ‘slavery’ and you’d fit in well in the 1850s

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:08 AM

Your brash side is showing again.

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:08 AM

Yes, and he’s asking for a b*tch slapping. Again.

atheling on July 31, 2009 at 2:09 AM

At the moment, it’s been more than the one question that turned me off (actually the Gibson/Couric interviews weren’t what did it).

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:08 AM

Me, either. It was her speeches on the campaign trail after the convention, when it became obvious that she was way, way in over her head.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:09 AM

When cutie Katie Couric asked her what she reads, Palin had no answer. Deer in the headlights. The woman is ignorant.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 1:57 AM

stupid stupid stupid

if she said NYTimes, she couldnt have attacked it ever again or the ‘liberal media’ if she reads them

if she DIDNT say NYTimes, she’d be painted as a hick. she should have said “sure katie ill answer, but first what did joe biden say when you interviewed him?”

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:10 AM

replace ‘abortion’ with ’slavery’ and you’d fit in well in the 1850s

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:08 AM

He is an amoral squish.

atheling on July 31, 2009 at 2:10 AM

We should note that with the way the Southwest is changing demographically, we will be unlikely to win all the Bush 2004 states in the future.

Speedwagon82 on July 31, 2009 at 2:10 AM

No, it’s not. Not at all. It’s an issue of government intrusion into private matters. Which is what we

should

be campaigning on.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:08 AM

See, now you just gotta go tell those SoCons that they don’t want the gov’t interfering with their worship, parenting, or educational systems.

That would be one way to win some over to the libertarian side.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:10 AM

Me, either. It was her speeches on the campaign trail after the convention, when it became obvious that she was way, way in over her head.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:09 AM

BS she gave stump speeches. what was “obvious” about her lack of intellect from a stump speech in front of 20K people?

im just curious. was it the “john mccain is a strong leader” lines?

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:11 AM

Me, either. It was her speeches on the campaign trail after the convention, when it became obvious that she was way, way in over her head.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:09 AM

Too much populism, too much playing the victim, too much democracy

to name a few

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:12 AM

We should note that with the way the Southwest is changing demographically, we will be unlikely to win all the Bush 2004 states in the future.

Speedwagon82 on July 31, 2009 at 2:10 AM

AHEM…

guess which republican is the only one with favorability ABOVE 50% with hispanics……

PALIN. 51-43

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_720.pdf

But yeah, its not like nominating a WOMAN that is the only republican popular with HISPANICS would be a good electoral strategy or anything…..

BRING ON HALEY BARBOUR-TIM PAWLENTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:15 AM

So what’s the point of banging that drum? It just mobilizes the feminist vote and makes the GOP look like a tool of evangelicals to the moderates.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:06 AM

It also mobilizes and energizes evangelicals like nothing else does, and if you’ve got two pro-choicers running, you de-mobilize a large chunk of the voters who volunteer and knock on doors and man the phone banks for the GOP.

Look at it the other way, the best motivation for the GOP are these liberal policies that the Democrats are pushing on everyone. Yet they are still doing it. That’s politics.

Elections are to be won for some agenda. If you are trying to win just to win, you will wind up like McCain did, fighting on the enemy’s ground.

The three stools must be united again. The fiscal types, social types, and national security types are often the same person. When they are not, they must unite to beat the Democrats, and to take enough independents from the middle on principle, bring them to you, not pander to them.

That is the tricky part.

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 2:16 AM

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:08 AM

See, now you just gotta go tell those SoCons that they don’t want the gov’t interfering with their worship, parenting, or educational systems.

That would be one way to win some over to the libertarian side.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:10 AM

Yes. Thanks. And, if not winning over conservatives, at least letting us know that libertarians have a sense of where we are coming from and aren’t showing contempt for us. That would be good.

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 2:17 AM

Well, I always enjoy a spirited discussion with my Palinista and social con friends.

Once again, I would be thrilled to have Palin in the oval office, but I don’t think she has what it takes to get there and we cannot afford another losing Presidential candidate.

As for the SoCon thing, I simply think that abortion and gay rights are issues to be dealt with by the states and that it is ironic that so-called conservatives, who should be federalists, want to wield the power of the Federal government in those regards.

We’re all on the same side here. But sometimes ya wouldn’t know it.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:17 AM

The three stools must be united again. The fiscal types, social types, and national security types are often the same person. When they are not, they must unite to beat the Democrats, and to take enough independents from the middle on principle, bring them to you, not pander to them.

That is the tricky part.

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 2:16 AM

Palin-Romney-Rudy;

pick any two.

BUT — if palin isnt on the ticket, you cant have a pro choicer as pres.

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:18 AM

Wow. The Aged P’s piece on HA and Allahpundit has some bite:

The trouble with Allah’s diagnosis, of course, is the very fact that he has to give it so often. At least once every fortnight over the last nine months or so he has pronounced the lady politically dead. Like Conan Doyle he has tired of her and regularly sends her crashing over the Reichenbach Falls – yet, just as Doyle had to bring Sherlock Holmes back from the dead, so Allah has to regularly pull Palin out of the water and for the same reason – traffic! Doyle wanted to write other books but it was Holmes who sold and at Hot Air it’s Sarah Palin who generates the hits, not Romney, Huckabee or Jindal…

…We really should feel sorry for Allah – he is like Sisyphus, constantly trying to move his rock (aka Sarah Palin) out of the way and condemned to repeat the same action over and over again…..it couldn’t happen to a nicer fellow…..

atheling on July 31, 2009 at 2:19 AM

As for the SoCon thing, I simply think that abortion and gay rights are issues to be dealt with by the states and that it is ironic that so-called conservatives, who should be federalists, want to wield the power of the Federal government in those regards.

We’re all on the same side here. But sometimes ya wouldn’t know it.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:17 AM

Agreed about the states rights…

Also, at the state level, I personally believe the gov’t should get out of marriage for the most part.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:19 AM

We’re all on the same side here. But sometimes ya wouldn’t know it.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:17 AM

No kidding.

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 2:20 AM

As for the SoCon thing, I simply think that abortion and gay rights are issues to be dealt with by the states and that it is ironic that so-called conservatives, who should be federalists, want to wield the power of the Federal government in those regards.

We’re all on the same side here. But sometimes ya wouldn’t know it.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:17 AM

i agree 100% with the states element, which is what repealing ROE would do…

….but this is exactly the opposite of what youve said for the last 100 comments

“fighting for state’s legal rights” is totally different than “going moderate (democrat-ish) on our platforms and positions on gay marriage and abortion”.

the first one wins over any small govt types…. the second one wins over….NO ONE. well, i guess it wins over ‘people that should be democrat but dont like the democrats for some odd reason, ie rich connecticut bankers?’

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:20 AM

Elections are to be won for some agenda. If you are trying to win just to win, you will wind up like McCain did, fighting on the enemy’s ground.

The only fighting on enemy ground McCain did was in Vietnam.

RightOFLeft on July 31, 2009 at 2:21 AM

It just mobilizes the feminist vote and makes the GOP look like a tool of evangelicals to the moderates.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:06 AM

Having a female candidate also mobilizes the feminist vote. Many Hillary supporters voted for Palin. Not all feminists are rabid abortion zealots. Many regard it as “one issue among many”.

atheling on July 31, 2009 at 2:22 AM

We’re all on the same side here. But sometimes ya wouldn’t know it.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:17 AM

I believe we have many areas of agreement, which sometimes get overlooked when discussing our areas of disagreement, especially when we get disagreeable about them. If you’re signing off, please do take good care of yourself.

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Upstater85, guntotinglibertarian, Loxodonta as well as myself are witnesses to the greatness that was RWR.

That said, I would like these other gentlemen to promote the candidate that they would support if the election was to held tomorrow.

Condescension and ridicule was not an attribute of RWR. Although I have witnessed it here on this thread by all of the aforementioned gentlemen with exception of myself.

Chose for us now your candidate & give at least five strengths that they have that Palin doesn’t.

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Many Hillary supporters voted for Palin.

I doubt that very much.

Kerry won 51% of women.

Obama won 56%

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:25 AM

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:25 AM

You’re comparing apples to oranges.

I said “Hillary supporters”. You said “women”.

atheling on July 31, 2009 at 2:28 AM

Chose for us now your candidate & give at least five strengths that they have that Palin doesn’t.

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Giuliani

1. He transformed NYC under against the most rabid Leftist opposition.

2. He didn’t quit when the going got tough.

3. He is a terrific communicator, when not restrained by the ridiculous charades we laughingly call Presidential debates.

4. His moderation on social issues doesn’t scare off moderate voters.

5. He’s freaking tough as nails and in a dangerous world, I want tough in the WH.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:28 AM

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Please tell me what I’ve done wrong now. Point out the posts, please.

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 2:29 AM

I said “Hillary supporters”. You said “women”.

atheling on July 31, 2009 at 2:28 AM

I doubt any Hillary supporters voted for Palin. Prove me wrong. Where is the data?

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:29 AM

I doubt that very much.

Kerry won 51% of women.

Obama won 56%

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:25 AM

youre forgetting how many black & hispanic women voted for bush in 04, so the numbers for obama would go up anyway.

i think bush got like 15% of blacks & 40% of hispanics

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:30 AM

I doubt any Hillary supporters voted for Palin. Prove me wrong. Where is the data?

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:29 AM

These Hillary supporters didn’t.

Is this the only place you go to for news?

atheling on July 31, 2009 at 2:32 AM

i think bush got like 15% of blacks & 40% of hispanics

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:30 AM

Actually, it was 11% and 44%, but your point is intriguing. Nevertheless, the ticket with a woman on it in 2008 only pulled 44% of women.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:32 AM

I doubt any Hillary supporters voted for Palin. Prove me wrong. Where is the data?

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:29 AM

http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:32 AM

Is this the only place you go to for news?

atheling on July 31, 2009 at 2:32 AM

I’m still waiting patiently for you to provide data to support your assertion, rather than meaningless ridicule.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:33 AM

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Well, I was pretty young when Reagan was President, but… I’ll give this question a shot. See this is a hard question to answer, because I’m not particularly gaga over anyone.

If Newt was in a primary with say Palin, Giuliani, Mitt, or Huckabee , I’d probably vote for him.

Strengths
-Very articulate, especially when having an interview with friend or foe. Newt knows how to have a reasonable argument.

-Knowledge of History. Newt has a strong knowledge of history (which he should…). I believe it is very important that our future leaders have a strong sense of the history of both America and the world so as to learn from the mistakes that were made.

-Political Understanding. Although not the most savvy or cunning if you will, I’d say Newt has a reasonable strong understanding of the American political system. He’d need this to form coalitions and such.

-Ideas. Without doubt Newt at the moment is dominating the GOP with ideas – good or bad. We need more of this. Further, for the most part his ideas are not huge government plans

-Realism. I’m not sure if this is really what I mean, but I once saw him on a Charlie Rose interview talking about current American foreign policy. He pointed out that Americans don’t have the stomach for nation building. I appreciated this true and honest statement.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:34 AM

http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:32 AM

No empirical data there. Nice try.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:35 AM

I’m still waiting patiently for you to provide data to support your assertion, rather than meaningless ridicule.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:33 AM

You said that you didn’t think ANY Hillary supporters voted for McCain/Palin. I showed you some who did. Stop your lying. You’re really starting to stoop pretty low now.

atheling on July 31, 2009 at 2:36 AM

You said that you didn’t think ANY Hillary supporters voted for McCain/Palin. I showed you some who did. Stop your lying. You’re really starting to stoop pretty low now.

atheling on July 31, 2009 at 2:36 AM

this is a good point, guntoting. :) atheling got your there

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:37 AM

Well, atheling and battleofpanto, I’ll give you all night to dig up some empirical data that supports atheling’s foolish assertion about Hillary fans voting for Palin.

Good night.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:37 AM

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:35 AM

Hey, I thought AnninCA voted for Palin ;)

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:37 AM

Chose for us now your candidate & give at least five strengths that they have that Palin doesn’t.

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:24 AM

I am uncommitted for 2012 and intend to remain so through the 2010 election, and for as long as possible thereafter. I will say this though, regardless of the nominee, I will vote for the GOP candidate over Obama. Period.

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 2:38 AM

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:33 AM

Ready for your b*tch slap?

The last few comments from you were pretty telling. You stated that NO Hillary supporters voted for Palin. I, and battle showed you evidence of some. Then you MOVE THE GOALPOST.

What a dissembler you are! How dishonest! It’s no great wonder that you’re not a conservative. You’re not even a libertarian. You are a LIBERTINE. No morals. No ethics. No integrity.

Pathetic.

atheling on July 31, 2009 at 2:39 AM

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:24 AM

The above said,

I could also vote for a version of Ron Paul.

Any guy that carries the Constitution around in his pocket is worth considering at least.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:40 AM

Well, atheling and battleofpanto, I’ll give you all night to dig up some empirical data that supports atheling’s foolish assertion about Hillary fans voting for Palin.

Good night.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:37 AM

You want some more, you lying coward?

You runaway. You quitter. We proved you wrong and you scurried away like a little pantywaist.

I recall you bragging about the money you threw at Palin and how you own a home in Italy. You accused me of envy, of which I disabused you, as I have no problem with anyone who works hard and earns their money to live well.

But from your dishonest game playing, I suspect that you did not earn that money honestly.

atheling on July 31, 2009 at 2:44 AM

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:37 AM

I know it might surprise many of you here.

But I really am a supporter of Sarah’s.

LOL*

If only Sarah would do a little reading and support Obamacare, abortion on demand from conception, Gay Marriage and vote Democrat in 2010 and 2012, I think she would make a great candidate.

LOL*

Yes, I do.

— CannedinCA

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 2:44 AM

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 2:44 AM

You must be Ann, cause only she could write in that style ;)

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:45 AM

Please tell me what I’ve done wrong now. Point out the posts, please.

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 2:29 AM

Hey it was on this thread:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/30/encore-master-thespian-reads-palins-twitter-free-verse/comment-page-4/#comments

When did ridicule and contempt become evidence of fear? I see little evidence of fear of Sarah Palin at the moment, because too few of her opponents fear she has any chance to get elected to national office.

Loxodonta on July 30, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:46 AM

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:46 AM

Lox may have had a point.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:47 AM

— CannedinCA

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 2:44 AM

I

was

thinking

that

72%

of

Americans

support

health

care

reform

.

Get

behind

it

GOP

or

be

defeated

!

!

!

1

!

1

LOL

AnninCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:48 AM

I could also vote for a version of Ron Paul.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:40 AM

It’s moments like this that I sit here with my dentures fallen onto my keyboard, wondering what is blazes going on in that brain of yours.

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 2:48 AM

Thanks Upstater85, guntotinglibertarian & Loxodonta for your responses.

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:50 AM

When did ridicule and contempt become evidence of fear? I see little evidence of fear of Sarah Palin at the moment, because too few of her opponents fear she has any chance to get elected to national office.

Loxodonta on July 30, 2009 at 8:21 PM

i dont like dennis kuchinich but i dont ridicule him every day

i dont like barbara boxer but i only ridicule her when she makes some outlandish statement that makes national news

i dont like john edwards but the late night comics dont touch him and i dont ridicule him every night

palin has been the butt of jokes whether shes in wasilla or juneau or anchorage, loud or quiet.

whats the difference?

the ‘media’ doesnt like mccain, and how many mccain jokes have you heard?

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:51 AM

It’s moments like this that I sit here with my dentures fallen onto my keyboard, wondering what is blazes going on in that brain of yours.

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 2:48 AM

He loves the Constitution

He’s personally Pro-Life

He has some good ideas/views about monetary policy

He wants a smaller gov’t

Even with his Truffer friends, it’s hard not to gaze enviously at the man’s positions.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:51 AM

I could also vote for a version of Ron Paul.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:40 AM

hm, ron paul – ron paul’s foreign policy moronicness – ron paul’s gold standard rants – ron paul’s past turner-diaries-like nutjob associations?

sure.

ron paul as is? no way.

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:52 AM

Even with his Truffer friends, it’s hard not to gaze enviously at the man’s positions.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:51 AM

true, he is a true conservative on many issues. but its the kooky stuff that make you go “whaaaaa?”

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:53 AM

He loves the Constitution

He’s personally Pro-Life

He has some good ideas/views about monetary policy

He wants a smaller gov’t

Even with his Truffer friends, it’s hard not to gaze enviously at the man’s positions.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:51 AM

You think that little whiny man is going to win anything?

No, no, no, no. I won’t ever vote for that isolationist 9-11 truther. He is, ya know.

Besides, you’re dreaming. Paul won’t get through a GOP primary and you know it.

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 2:54 AM

hm, ron paul – ron paul’s foreign policy moronicness – ron paul’s gold standard rants – ron paul’s past turner-diaries-like nutjob associations?

sure.

ron paul as is? no way.

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:52 AM

Well, like I said, version of Ron Paul.

As far as foreign policy, he brings up good points. We shouldn’t be stationed around the world. Don’t agree with him on Israel though. True, Israel in the end should be more self-sufficient, but we can’t just leave them. The same would probably go for a country like South Korea – at the very least it is our historical obligation (given as they are still in harms way).

I like his Gold Standard rants – ain’t gonna happen, but at least he’s talking about an alternative to the Bernake model.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:55 AM

true, he is a true conservative on many issues. but its the kooky stuff that make you go “whaaaaa?”

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:53 AM

Yep… but he’s in our camp. Not ready to kick him out yet…

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:56 AM

Lox may have had a point.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:47 AM

Part of your answer for my previous request made me laugh. Upstater85 quoted “Well, I was pretty young when Reagan was President.” Then I fell of my chair when you mentioned Ron Paul. Wow, Ron will handle those tyrannical regimes & terrorist really well, not!

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:57 AM

You think that little whiny man is going to win anything?

No, no, no, no. I won’t ever vote for that isolationist 9-11 truther. He is, ya know.

Besides, you’re dreaming. Paul won’t get through a GOP primary and you know it.

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 2:54 AM

So I’ve been told

BTW, I did vote for him in the primaries – and I’m not ashamed.

Least some of you have soiled yourselves, don’t worry. I vote in a solid Donk State … I think it went for Giuliani.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:57 AM

Wow, Ron will handle those tyrannical regimes & terrorist really well, not!

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:57 AM

Precisely. I disagree with him here, but he wouldn’t have been a Carter either…

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 2:58 AM

I’m not worried, just I’m puzzled why anyone could possibly think of RonPaul for half a nanosecond.

Talk about personality deficit, gadzooks.

He is borderline nutty, and I just don’t like him, never have.

On top of that when you call my country an empire just like the leftists do, you piss me off. He didn’t just lose me, he pissed me off.

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 3:02 AM

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/30/encore-master-thespian-reads-palins-twitter-free-verse/comment-page-4/#comments

When did ridicule and contempt become evidence of fear? I see little evidence of fear of Sarah Palin at the moment, because too few of her opponents fear she has any chance to get elected to national office.

Loxodonta on July 30, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:46 AM

Please tell me how you can possibly construe my statement about the views of Palin’s opponents to justify stating I have been using condescension and ridicule? As you did here:

Upstater85, guntotinglibertarian, Loxodonta as well as myself are witnesses to the greatness that was RWR.

That said, I would like these other gentlemen to promote the candidate that they would support if the election was to held tomorrow.

Condescension and ridicule was not an attribute of RWR. Although I have witnessed it here on this thread by all of the aforementioned gentlemen with exception of myself.

Chose for us now your candidate & give at least five strengths that they have that Palin doesn’t.

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:24 AM

I confess that tonight I have been harshly critical of both sides in these Palin wars. Both those who have shown condescension and ridicule for Sarah Palin and those who have abusively treated other posters who merely express doubts or fair criticisms.

Do you not understand what I meant in that post? Do you need me to ask me some questions? Or, are you looking to silence me? I really don’t understand your labeling me as you just did.

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 3:02 AM

I’m not worried, just I’m puzzled why anyone could possibly think of RonPaul for half a nanosecond.

Hmm

Talk about personality deficit, gadzooks.

He is borderline nutty, and I just don’t like him, never have.

PaulDS? At one time even Palin thought he was cool or something, right?

On top of that when you call my country an empire just like the leftists do, you piss me off. He didn’t just lose me, he pissed me off.

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 3:02 AM

I also get POed when republicans either say or hint that my country is a democracy that needs to spread democracy.

I guess we’re equal here.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 3:04 AM

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Hey, wanna give us 5 of Palin’s strengths (I think you’ve said before you are for her)?

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 3:06 AM

Do you not understand what I meant in that post? Do you need me to ask me some questions? Or, are you looking to silence me? I really don’t understand your labeling me as you just did.

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 3:02 AM

I may have misinterpretted your intent. That said, I didn’t ask who you would be chosing in 2012. I said, “if the election was to held tomorrow.” Want to try that one again?

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 3:07 AM

RonPaul is his own derangement syndrome, he needs no help from me.

If you want me to get unreasonably nasty and critical of a Republican, you found the way to do it.

He called the United States an empire in a Republican debate on world wide TV, with troops fighting overseas.

That, I do not forgive.

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 3:10 AM

i dont like dennis kuchinich but i dont ridicule him every day

i dont like barbara boxer but i only ridicule her when she makes some outlandish statement that makes national news

i dont like john edwards but the late night comics dont touch him and i dont ridicule him every night

palin has been the butt of jokes whether shes in wasilla or juneau or anchorage, loud or quiet.

whats the difference?

the ‘media’ doesnt like mccain, and how many mccain jokes have you heard?

battleoflepanto1571 on July 31, 2009 at 2:51 AM

The difference is that Palin is a woman, from a rural state few in the media have ever visited, talks with a regional accent, does not have an elite educational background, has strong social and religious conservative views, son in the services, and so on.

The news and entertainment industries are dominated by elitist intellectual, liberal snobs. They have contempt for most Americans, but reveal it most for those like Sarah Palin. That contempt may be mixed with fear, but even if they have no fear of Sarah Palin ever again being on a national ticket, she represents all that they revile. So, they ridicule her.

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 3:11 AM

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Hey, wanna give us 5 of Palin’s strengths (I think you’ve said before you are for her)?

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 3:06 AM

I’ll start…

-Charismatic ~ in my opinion at least.
-Pro-life
-Interested in and successful when dealing with certain energy concerns.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 3:11 AM

He called the United States an empire in a Republican debate on world wide TV, with troops fighting overseas.

That, I do not forgive.

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 3:10 AM

OK

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 3:12 AM

Hey, wanna give us 5 of Palin’s strengths (I think you’ve said before you are for her)?

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 3:06 AM

If an election was to held tomorrow, I would vote for Palin.
You will have to excuse me for not giving a list of five but I’ll do my best:

Adherence to the Constitution
Reverence for American exceptionalism
Small Federal government
State’s rights
Low taxes
Minimal government intrusion into our lives
Strong national defense
Protection of national sovereignty
Teaching our children Judeo-Christian values

I’m sure there is more but I getting a little tired. I didn’t take a power nap today like Lox did earlier. My eyes are blurring so the spelling could be a little off on this comment.

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 3:15 AM

I may have misinterpretted your intent. That said, I didn’t ask who you would be chosing in 2012. I said, “if the election was to held tomorrow.” Want to try that one again?

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 3:07 AM

You may have misinterpreted me? But, you are not going to retract that you labeled me as condescending and ridiculing? And that label should just be left to stigmatize me? But, I should do as I’m told by you? Is that the gist of what you just posted to me?

Or, have I misinterpreted you?

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 3:18 AM

I’ll start…

-Charismatic ~ in my opinion at least.
-Pro-life
-Interested in and successful when dealing with certain energy concerns.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 3:11 AM

Son in the military

Husband in the Steelworkers Union

Really good on taxes, economic liberty

Really good on fighting big government

Draws in people who were not interested in politics before

Drives all the right people crazy

Photographed in public holding “Liberty and Tyranny”

Much cuter than Ron Paul

Constantly quotes Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher

Life time member NRA, great on 2nd amendment

Great on 10th amendment

Great on 1st amendment

Never misses a chance to praise and encourage military and their families

Great on exposing corrupt idiot media

Those are off the top of my head

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 3:20 AM

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 3:18 AM

Relax, its late, I tired & I sorry if I offended you.

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 3:21 AM

Oh, the one I forgot

Never said America is an empire stealing resources from the rest of the world

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 3:22 AM

Relax, its late, I tired & I sorry if I offended you.

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 3:21 AM

I am relaxed, and I’m sorry that you’re tired. I am not offended by what you said about me because it isn’t true of my comments about Sarah Palin. Ever.

However, I am very sensitive to posters here stigmatizing others and attempting to silence civil debate through bullying. As a result, I do go after those that take that approach, and sometimes harshly. I also go after those who demonstrate unreasonable contempt for Sarah Palin. But right now the pro-Palin bullies are causing far more disturbance to me.

It would help me if you clarified what your views are about me and my posting here tonight in the Palin threads. Am I or am I not condescending and ridiculing of Sarah Palin? What is your judgment of me?

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 3:30 AM

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 3:20 AM

Sarah Palin could have warts all over her face and it wouldn’t change how I voted for her.

I like someone that is good with the entire Constitution, but her NRA membership is a +

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 3:30 AM

Good night everyone

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 3:30 AM

Good night everyone

Americannodash on July 31, 2009 at 3:30 AM

Goodnight. I look forward to reading your response to my question. Please take good care of yourself.

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 3:32 AM

I like someone that is good with the entire Constitution, but her NRA membership is a +

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 3:30 AM

Those are the parts of the Constitution I have specifically heard her address. She is terrific when talking about the Declaration of Independence also. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The way she has treated the State Constitution in Alaska, talked about the founders and what they meant, and how it guided her governance, that tells me that the US Constitution to her is what is written on the paper, what the framers intended, not “emanations and penumbras” invented to circumvent the elected lawmaking branch or the elected executive branch.

Sarah Palin is great on the whole Constitution, when she addresses it as a whole document. I just remember some speeches about those specific parts, and what they mean for the country today.

She is for freedom of the individual, American exceptionalism. I think she has been really offended by the Obama apology tour, and what Michelle said about being proud of America for the first time. She hits that one often, about not apologizing for America.

I like what I hear from her, and I like how she connects with everyday people when she says it.

Until further notice, that’s my girl. The rest are going to have to step up and take it away from her.

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 3:40 AM

Whether or not you think evangelicals and other social conservatives are an essential component of a future resurrection of what we wistfully recollect as the Reagan coalition, at least one hot button social issue will be front and center by the time the 2012 campaign rolls around, i.e., gay marriage. Within the next two years, the Ninth Circus will have declared Proposition 8 to have violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, following the reasoning of the 6-3 majority in Roemer v. Evans (1996).

In Roemer, a 6-3 majority of the United States Supreme Court struck down a state initiative amending the Colorado constitution to prohibit municipalities from recognizing sexual orientation as a suspect classification for purposes of housing and other anti-discrimination ordinances. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy applied the rational basis test (i.e., the “white male” test which usually guarantees the constitutionality of a statute by concluding that white males adversely impacted possess the political wherewithal to repeal it if they so desire, so there must only be a rational basis for its enactment), but held that there was no rational basis for treating those individuals who engage in homosexual intimacy differently from those who engage in heterosexual intimacy. Kennedy also included a gratuitous slap at the proponents of the Colorado initiative (anticipating the Left’s treatment of Proposition 8 supporters) by concluding that they were motivated by “animus” (a nice Latin term for enmity or hatred) toward individuals with a homosexual orientation.

Even with Justice O’Connor replaced by Justice Alito, the likely replacement of Justice Souter by Justice Sotomayor will leave a 5-4 majority on the United States Supreme Court for the application of Roemer to Proposition 8 (assuming either the survival and continued service of Justices Stevens and Ginsberg or their replacement by “empathetic” doppelgangers).

With the survival of traditional marriage at stake, and the more clear probability, based upon events in Massachusetts and other gay marriage jurisdictions, that religious conviction on the issue will be treated as unlawful bigotry and discrimination, despite the Free Exercise Clause, what should be the Republican presidential candidate’s position on gay marriage? Accomodation? Capitulation?

Although fiscal and foreign policy issues are important to them, the continued deterioration of our country’s moral and social fabric truly animates evangelicals and other social conservatives. It was their reaction to Governor Palin’s selection this past election that truly spooked the Left, and their reaction was born out of complete frustration with the tendency of Republican candidates to talk the talk, but not walk the walk. By failing to defend traditional marriage on the Ellen Degeneris Show the week after the California Supreme Court struck down the 2000 marriage initiative, Senator McCain tacitly agreed with her caricature of social conservatives as bigots. Don’t expect a lot of support from people who you refuse to defend.

Ironically, Governor Romney has a better record on gay marriage than does Governor Palin, but does anyone truly see a GOP moderate who supports gay marriage having any chance to win either the nomination or the general election without the support of evangelicals and other social conservatives?

Mongo Mere Pawn on July 31, 2009 at 3:44 AM

Mongo Mere Pawn on July 31, 2009 at 3:44 AM

With the survival of traditional marriage at stake, and the more clear probability, based upon events in Massachusetts and other gay marriage jurisdictions, that religious conviction on the issue will be treated as unlawful bigotry and discrimination, despite the Free Exercise Clause, what should be the Republican presidential candidate’s position on gay marriage? Accomodation? Capitulation?

If you view support for civil unions an accommodation, then I support that accommodation. However, I want to be sure that religious freedom regarding homosexual acts is strictly protected, and also want to ensure that children are adopted by those living in traditional marriage.

Capitulation is not only out of the question, it’s a loser.

…does anyone truly see a GOP moderate who supports gay marriage having any chance to win either the nomination or the general election without the support of evangelicals and other social conservatives?

Some apparently do. I don’t, and see no evidence how this is possible. However, building and maintaining bridges between the various wings of the party, and bringing us together to win, at times seems a hopeless cause to me. The anger, contempt, divisiveness, and suspicion seems overflowing and the bridge builders are being kicked out and silenced by all sides. For me, tonight is ending without the humor and hope I felt this morning during the Obamateurism thread.

Congratulations, Purists of the Pup Tent Republican Party.

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 4:00 AM

The problem here is the same problem in the GOP. Too many CINOs. Palin speaks for and lives American core values and beliefs. That alone is the reason her detractors hate her, and ginning up phony criticism of her intellect betrays you all for the ideologues you are.

davecatbone on July 31, 2009 at 4:18 AM

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 4:00 AM

Unfortunately, accomodation inevitably leads to capitulation through the courts. Through their Assembly, Californians instituted civil unions as a means of accommodating the stated concerns of individuals with homosexual orientations over access to loved ones in hospital, intestate inheritance, etc. The Gay Rights Lobby pocketed the accommodation, then went to court and ultimately convinced the California Supreme Court, with the assistance of a sympathetic AG’s office, to force the state’s capitulation on the issue of marriage, in part, by arguing that the recognition of civil unions was not an accommodation, but unlawful discrimination.

As to how we can avoid the pup tent mentality, even on issues as controversial as gay marriage, why is it so hard to simply unite behind the principle of self-determination? Representative government? What a concept. If you oppose gay marriage due to your religious sensibilities or you favor gay marriage as a means of treating individuals with a homosexual orientation with dignity, you should nevertheless be able to agree that the voters should make the determination, not the courts, and to commit to nominating jurists who respect the rights of the people, through their representatives, to govern themselves. The only way you get gay marriage through the courts is through living constitutionalism which is inherently inimical to the concept of republican government. If the people of a state want to enact or repeal legislation recognizing gay marriage, they should be able to do so, after due deliberation. There is no express prohibition in the Constitution to such enactments. They should not be forced to enact such legislation based upon a majority vote of unaccountable lawyers.

Mongo Mere Pawn on July 31, 2009 at 4:31 AM

Unfortunately, accomodation inevitably leads to capitulation through the courts. Through their Assembly, Californians instituted civil unions as a means of accommodating the stated concerns of individuals with homosexual orientations over access to loved ones in hospital, intestate inheritance, etc. The Gay Rights Lobby pocketed the accommodation, then went to court and ultimately convinced the California Supreme Court, with the assistance of a sympathetic AG’s office, to force the state’s capitulation on the issue of marriage, in part, by arguing that the recognition of civil unions was not an accommodation, but unlawful discrimination.

Mongo Mere Pawn on July 31, 2009 at 4:31 AM

They wouldn’t even have a case if everyone’s “marriage” was only recognized as a civil union by the government.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 4:40 AM

Until further notice, that’s my girl. The rest are going to have to step up and take it away from her.

Brian1972 on July 31, 2009 at 3:40 AM

Though I might take issue with some of your points, fair enough.

Upstater85 on July 31, 2009 at 4:44 AM

Mongo Mere Pawn on July 31, 2009 at 4:31 AM

Thank you very much for your thoughtful post.

I am quite willing to let the people decide these issues on a state by state basis. I very much support allowing states to be the experiments of democracy and for different states or counties or towns to have different laws, within basic constitutional limits. I agree with much of what you have written.

However, what happens when one state does not recognize the Gay Marriage performed in another state? Currently, we have a federal Defense of Marriage Act. Should we drop it? I think not, or Gay marriage will be imposed nationally by the Supreme Court, including restrictions on religious freedom due to their “discriminatory” impacts. And so, we have a divisive national issue.

Ronald Reagan was a fiscal, national security and social conservative who was a Big Tent Republican. He was able to reach out to and work with people with whom he disagreed. He was supported by many who disagreed with him on this or that. He supported candidates who disagreed with him on this or that. How did he do it?

Ronnie had a lot of character, charisma and charm. he wasn’t a Rhodes Scholar, but spent time thinking about and discussing in depth the central themes of his campaigns. He also was great at disarming others with humor, especially self-deprecating humor. And he also had a policy that is so utterly alien to contemporary political culture, it seems quaint, old fashioned and rustic in the extreme:

Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.

— President Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment

But today, anyone adhering to or even proposing such a policy is a squish, a traitor, a CINO, a RINO, condescending, ridiculing, a troll, a narcissist, juvenile, a crybaby, you name the insult, it’s given. And there are attempts to bully such people into silence.

And these same tactics can be applied to any supporters of any potential presidential candidate other than _________, as well as any supporter, opponent or compromiser on any federal, state or local issue, as well as anyone trying to stop these tactics from being used.

This is not a family Thanksgiving gathering, it is not even a childish food fight, it’s a systematic dehumanization and desecration of the inherent value of other human beings because they dare to have a different opinion.

Frankly, contemporary political culture reminds me of the Taliban, Iran or Wahabi Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no dissent. However there is enforced submission. And this is not my vision for America.

Goodnight all. Take very good care of yourselves and one another.

Loxodonta on July 31, 2009 at 5:48 AM

They wouldn’t even have a case if everyone’s “marriage” was only recognized as a civil union by the government.

Of course, but then marriage would cease to exist as traditionally understood and our capitulation would be complete.

The governmental interest in recognizing and encouraging traditional marriage was the creation of a familial relationship conducive to the having and raising of children and, thereby, the perpetuation of the community.

What’s the governmental interest in civil unions? To impose gay marriage, the courts have either discounted or flat ignored the governmental interest in procreation. Ostensibly representing the people of California in support of Proposition 8, Jerry Brown’s briefing to the California Supreme Court intentionally downplayed this interest to the point of permitting the majority to discount its relevance to the constitutional issue.

The Iowa Supreme Court expressly held that there is no basis for the government to conclude that children need both a mother and a father for optimal nurturing and development.

In other words, the government’s interest in traditional marriage has now been replaced by the government’s interest in the happiness of the uniting partners, however they decide to pursue such happiness. That is an infinitely malleable interest that creates an exception that swallows the rule.

It also divorces the instution of marriage from its underlying religious foundations and permits the exclusion of those who choose a religious foundation for their marriage from the public square. By choosing religious matrimony, and eschewing secular civil unions, they will lose all of the legal benefits of marriage. Just as we now have to pay for both public and private schools if we desire a religious education for our children, we will have to pay more for our private, religious marriage through the loss of tax exemptions, etc.

Will we still get child credits, etc.? Or will those only be available to parents who choose a civil union?

Don’t think this is not about coercing the devout to give up their religious sensibilities. It is. You’re children will be taught that your beliefs are bigotry, and there won’t be a thing that you can do, legally, to stop it.

There is never any real compromise with progressives or “moderates” under these circumstances. What they can’t coerce legislatively, they always manage to coerce judicially.

Again, the ultimate result of accommodation is capitulation because their negotiations are never in good faith.

Mongo Mere Pawn on July 31, 2009 at 6:00 AM

This is not a family Thanksgiving gathering, it is not even a childish food fight, it’s a systematic dehumanization and desecration of the inherent value of other human beings because they dare to have a different opinion.

I understand your concern, and I share it. Unfortunately, as I just indicated in my last post, the Left really doesn’t care to negotiate or compromise in good faith and it is the Left that tends to dehumanize evangelicals and other social conservatives who feel strongly about these issues.

I attend a fairly large Bible church. We rarely talk about these issues in our community groups, and rigorously avoid their discussion in the pulpit for fear of the IRS. I don’t see a desire to dehumanize individuals who engage in homosexual intimacy. No one’s burning crosses. No one’s invading bedrooms.

But there is no such hesitation on the Left. They want to teach our children that sexual intimacy that we consider immoral due to our religious sensibilities, and inherently unhygenic and unhealthy as a matter of simple common sense, is both moral and healthy, and that anyone who thinks to the contrary is a bigot. And they want the full weight and coercion of the law to enforce that teaching.

What I see among evangelicals and other social conservatives is a reaction to this attempt to coerce.

Finally, a Supreme Court that agrees that religious sensibilities concerning sexual orientation are mere animus or bigotry is a Supreme Court that will have no problem holding DOMA unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. We are no longer a self-governing people. We are the subjects of judicial oligarchs who are completely unaccountable to the people over whom they sit in judgment.

Again, executive or legislative accommodation inevitably becomes judicial capitulation. That is why there are so few among evangelicals and other social conservatives who see compromise as even a reasonable possibility. Although we are called to it by our Lord, loving those who despise us and treat us with such contempt is a common obstacle of the flesh.

Good night.

Mongo Mere Pawn on July 31, 2009 at 6:22 AM

When cutie Katie Couric asked her what she reads, Palin had no answer. Deer in the headlights. The woman is ignorant.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 1:57 AM

Lets see, Kate Couric is a complete embarrassment to CBS
in ratings and in actions….

Frankly gorgeous Palin just displays more wisdom in all her interviews….and is now sought after more than Katie can
ever dream of.

It will be great to see Palin when she finally gets here
in California on her own schedule.

dec5 on July 31, 2009 at 6:55 AM

If she’s so inarticulate and rambling in her oratory, as has been claimed, why make a big deal out of her NOT speaking?

Darned if she does and darned if she doesn’t.

pugwriter on July 31, 2009 at 7:04 AM

When cutie Katie Couric asked her what she reads, Palin had no answer. Deer in the headlights. The woman is ignorant.

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 1:57 AM

I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact that Palin was on guard for gotcha questions and (rightly) assumed any answer she gave would be parsed in such a way that would support the state run media’s opinion of her.

powerpro on July 31, 2009 at 7:10 AM

I doubt any Hillary supporters voted for Palin. Prove me wrong. Where is the data?

guntotinglibertarian on July 31, 2009 at 2:29 AM

Hillbuzz.org
TexasDarlin.wordpress.com
hillaryclintonforum.net (now commongroundpolitics.net)
noquarterusa.net

I could go on…

powerpro on July 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM

According to exit polls 19% of people who voted for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in the primaries said they voted for John McCain in the general election. I don’t have a link, but I remember seeing that number on FOX and CNN on election night. That’s about double what would be expected. Usually supporters of primary opponents to the nominee break 90-10 for the eventual nominee in the general election.

Ted Torgerson on July 31, 2009 at 7:47 AM

This is the third or fourth event that she was scheduled to appear only to cancel. She needs to fire whomever is managing her schedule, image.

Chekote on July 30, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Rockefeller/Frum Republican alert!
/topic
The invitation was extended awhile ago, she never committed. Now this is an issue? There is a completely different standard for Sarah.

True_King on July 31, 2009 at 7:49 AM

Just read that hate piece about AP on the C4P

they are scary people there

commentera couldn’t help themselves from letting things devolve into an anti Michelle Malkin party screed

blatantblue on July 31, 2009 at 7:52 AM

You’d think a tiny blog that gets copious hits from AP and Eds links would be a bit more

Gracious

blatantblue on July 31, 2009 at 7:53 AM

Just read that hate piece about AP on the C4P

they are scary people there

commentera couldn’t help themselves from letting things devolve into an anti Michelle Malkin party screed

blatantblue on July 31, 2009 at 7:52 AM

You’d think a tiny blog that gets copious hits from AP and Eds links would be a bit more

Gracious

blatantblue on July 31, 2009 at 7:53 AM

That is such a ridiculous thing to say I don’t even know where to start.

If you had bothered actually reading the comments, you’ll see that some people wondered where Michelle Malkin stood on this…some people certain that she’s anti-Palin and being upset about it…and then others calling them out for jumping the gun and making bad assumptions. At no time did it turn into an anti-Michelle Malkin screed. Some folks jumped the gun and others corrected them.

So don’t you dare try to isolate and freeze C4P as a hate site. It’s pathetic and transparent… just like our president.

powerpro on July 31, 2009 at 8:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7