Krauthammer to liberals: Conservatism is bigger than just Sarah Palin
posted at 3:30 pm on November 27, 2010 by Allahpundit
Via the ‘Busters, here’s the first and last time that a Krauthammer critique of the left will end up irritating more conservatives than liberals. His basic point is unobjectionable — every movement is bigger than its most charismatic champions, as the endless number of lefties who are disappointed in Obama could tell you — but his obvious exasperation with Palin’s present status as de facto conservative spokesman-in-chief has commenters in Headlines buzzing. Kraut famously said in July 2009 that she wasn’t a serious candidate for president, which means there’s already a strike against him in the minds of those who are forever grumbling about “Beltway establishment” Republicans like Rove. This, er, won’t help matters. And let’s face it: While no one would claim that conservatism begins and ends with Palin, some of her more devoted supporters do seem to regard her as an avatar of the movement. In which case, what better way to promote it than to have lots and lots of coverage of her? So long as it’s fair/flattering, it’s practically impossible for there to be too much, right?
Exit question: Colbert King’s trying to bait Krauthammer here, right? I think he is.
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: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »
Would they vote for Gov. Palin to get rid of The Won?
Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 2:04 PM
Rip people to shreds? A little overly dramatic wouldn’t you say?
darwin on November 28, 2010 at 2:05 PM
I don’t know that answer for sure Cindy. My gut tells me they would vote for Sarah, but one never knows with Liberals. Hatred for Sarah runs deep with these people, they are so led around by their noses by the media brainwash. I was at a funeral recently where I saw these folks for the first time in over a decade. I was taken back as to the hatred they have for Obama, and the anger they have for those who lied to them about Obama and his ideology. These folks truly believed that the Liberal ideology would work and that this was the golden once in a lifetime opportunity to prove that Liberalism works when given the full opportunity. I kept my mouth shut and observed. I will never understand the way this breed of human thinks.
Keemo on November 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM
It’s a similar story in every Palin thread I’ve read. Poster X is skeptical of Palin, and then said poster is insulted, starting more often than not with “troll”.
The Palin true believers are similar to the global warminsts in that they have something akin to a religious conviction to their cause.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:14 PM
Do you understand how you sound? How many posts do you have in this thread alone? Spam much with your same talking points over and over and over again?
Opinions are not baseless words. You need to learn that and respect it for what it is. You can catch more bees with honey than you can with vinegar.
CannedTomatoes on November 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM
They are frauds, in a word. Frauds who know they are being exposed. Including Sauerkraut and Tokyo Rove.
james23 on November 28, 2010 at 2:19 PM
Do you like being called a “hater”, a “troll”, an “idiot”, “stupid”, “delusional”?
Didn’t think so.
CannedTomatoes on November 28, 2010 at 2:19 PM
Small minded analysis at best. Take a good look at what you just wrote. Not sure what a Palin true believer actually is. However, there are plenty of actual examples as to why Sarah is a popular figure given within this thread. As I stated earlier, I would rather she stay in her current status this cycle. I don’t know who I support for potus in 2012 as of yet. I do have a great deal of respect for Sarah and her husband based upon facts and nothing to do with emotion.
Keemo on November 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM
lol … whatever. I’m sure you expect to be taken seriously now that you’ve insulted Palin supporters. It goes both ways. You realize that … right?
darwin on November 28, 2010 at 2:21 PM
CannedTomatoes on November 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM
Unseen contributes greatly to every thread entered, and has been an asset to this community for a very long time.
Keemo on November 28, 2010 at 2:21 PM
Nice try at getting cheap sympathy, trolls.
Pretend you aren’t liars and flamethrowers yourselves but simple, unassuming skeptics…
Uh-huh.
And in defense of unseen, I have never, ever known him to call anyone names in a Palin thread on HA.
Unseen takes copious amounts of time to lay out informative, researched and thoughtful arguments for supporting Sarah Palin.
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM
The Palin true believers are similar to the global warminsts in that they have something akin to a religious conviction to their cause.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:14 PM
yeah because being called a troll is soo much worse then being label a “global warminsts” do you people not understand how stupid you appear?
you yell about namecalling then precede to name call and wonder why people return fire. Freaking idiots. It has been my experience that the only smart people on these threads are Palin supporters. The really dumb ones simply mouth the anti-palin talking point memo of the day.
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM
Palin true believers ignore the facts and believe whatever she says w/out a healthy skepticism. They absolutely love her. I don’t think you are one of them Keemo, even though you are a strong Palin supporter.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM
You can catch more bees with honey than you can with vinegar.
CannedTomatoes on November 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM
right back at you. I would suggest you buy a mirror because you are not who you think you are. Oh yeah and the holier than thou talking point is getting old too.
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM
I don’t think Palin really likes it either, but it sure rolls off her back a lot easier than it does yours.
Lighten up … why in the world do you expect supporters of anyone to just sit back while people take potshots at their candidate of choice?
See, here’s how it works here. A Palin piece gets posted, Palin gets attacked, Palin gets defended, then the anti-Palin folks start whining about how mean everyone else is.
Exactly what do expect folks to do? Agree with her detractors?
darwin on November 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM
We never ignore the facts!
In today’s world, that’s just not possible.
And I’m way too old and wise to believe anything anyone says without healthy skepticism.
We do and with good reason.
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM
Do you like being called a “hater”, a “troll”, an “idiot”, “stupid”, “delusional”?
Didn’t think so.
CannedTomatoes on November 28, 2010 at 2:19 PM
ROFLMAO…..we have been called worse than that for two years you don’t hear us crying about it like 5 yearolds with a skinned knee do you? grow up.
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Your convictions and hostility are similar to those of global warmists. This is proven by your second paragraph. Try dailing back the emotion.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Every faction has a group of totally convinced. I don’t think we see anything abnormal here.
Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 2:29 PM
I don’t suppose you’ve ever denounced yourself for believing Gore’s lies about global warming, huh?
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:29 PM
And in defense of unseen, I have never, ever known him to call anyone names in a Palin thread on HA.
Unseen takes copious amounts of time to lay out informative, researched and thoughtful arguments for supporting Sarah Palin.
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM
well I slip a little once in a while and call them idiots but come on….you almost have too after a certain point…
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 2:29 PM
You told me last night you believe what she says w/out skepticism. She’s not a family member; she is a politician – better than most granted, but still a politician.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM
Why?
Because it only makes Sarah Palin that much more attractive?
Or because it makes you uncomfortable that she’s beloved and you aren’t?
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:31 PM
You keep proving my point about the Palin true believers. Why would you assume I believe in Gore’s AGW hype machine?
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Your convictions and hostility are similar to those of global warmists. This is proven by your second paragraph. Try dailing back the emotion.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM
well einstein your not. i guess you will have to remain in your own ignorance…
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Why? Because too much emotion leads to a lack of rational thinking.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Just wait until candidacy announcements are made and people take sides here. Folks will get a taste of their own medicine I think.
darwin on November 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Really?
Call names, insults, all the same.
Ouch!
CannedTomatoes on November 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM
I knew when she gave her speech at the RNC convention that every word she spoke was the truth.
I still watch to see if she’s not totally truthful or forthcoming but I haven’t caught her making a mis-step yet.
It’s one of the reasons I come to HA: if she even appears to make a faux pas, slip or lie, AP will post about it, as will Conservatives4Palin.
Her every move is chronicled, dissected and gone over with a fine tooth comb by the MSM and yet she passes the integrity test every time.
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM
which “facts” do we ignore? this should be good…..
do we ignore the “fact” that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to city finainces and Palin’s early career? Nope we didn’t ignore that fact.
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 2:36 PM
Yeah, well, so what?
“unseen” has his limits,as do we all. I can hardly blame him!
Love you, unseen!
As for you, Tomatoes, you started your comments with insults, name calling and wielding a TrollMaster™ flame-thrower and that’s all. you’ve. got.
Pathetic.
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM
Problem with reading comprehension, I see.
CannedTomatoes on November 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM
CannedTomatoes on November 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM
since when is it insulting to state one’s opinion. you yourself say people should be allowed to state their opinion without getting “ripped to shreds” My honest opinion is most anti-palin people are idiots led around by the nose by the liberal MSM and GOP establishment. Thos ein glass houses shouldn’t really throw stones you know…bring some facts to show where I am wrong in that belief….so far you have not.
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 2:40 PM
A fact like Wasilla going into debt [that what a bond is, a debt instrument] for a couple of years to finance a public work. I said it’s not a sin, but at least admit that bonds sold have to be paid back – it’s borrowed money.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM
Not always or in all cases.
Sometimes, you can only really love something because you have rationally acquired so much knowledge of it.
Ask around.
Look up the definition of “amateur”–someone who does something because they love it.
In the case of Sarah, my desire to know all about her rationally preceded my emotions.
To know her is to love her.
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM
For example, when you cite USA Today’s erroneous Wasilla budget figures, which would easily have been proven wrong to you by taking a couple minutes to follow the links to the actual Wasilla financial reports I provided for you. But you ignored those facts I laid out for you and insisted in repeating the lies about Sarah’s fiscal management. You did the same thing with the State of Alaska’s budget. Copious information disproving your assertions was provided by posters here, but you dismissed all of the documents and sources they cited and linked.
steebo77 on November 28, 2010 at 2:43 PM
??? You first brought that up trying to somehow tie it to Palin as if it was her idea and then added that she was thrilled with going into debt … or as you put it, “she liked it”.
Very disingenuous
darwin on November 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM
Oh, no!
You are *NOT* going into this again after we spent 2 pages on this thread telling you why were you were wrong and/or lying to paint Palin in a bad light!
Alert: If you are just now joining this thread!
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM
You bumble the concepts of bond elections, bond proceeds, debt service, deficits vs. debt, assets and liabilities vs. revenues and expdenditures, operating budgets and capital budgets, and you expect us to take anything you say about financial matters seriously? We all patiently explained these concepts to you, provided you with the facts regarding Wasilla and Alaska, linked to sources, but you ignored it all. I think you must have an agenda other than the truth.
steebo77 on November 28, 2010 at 2:47 PM
I said it’s not a sin, but at least admit that bonds sold have to be paid back – it’s borrowed money.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM
nobody ignored that fact. We told you that it was voted on by the people. you ignored that fact. We told you the people voted to raise the sales tax not Palin you ignored that fact, we told you the bond has been paid back before its due date and the sales tax removed. You ignored that fact. You want to smear Palin with increasing debt when it was not Palin but the people who increased the debt. You ignored that fact.
the only person I see ignoring facts and sticky blindly to your worldview is you.
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM
i didn’t post the USA Today link. I posted another one that said spending went up a bit while Palin was Governor. I said she slowed the growth of government, which is not a bad thing.
She thought the whole deal was a good idea.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM
When you budget money you don’t have, what is that called? When you borrow money to cover what you don’t have….what is that called? No amount of spin can change it.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM
I don’t know if she did or not but apparently the majority of Wasilla thought it was.
Exactly what point are you trying to make anyway?
darwin on November 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM
We all patiently explained these concepts to you, provided you with the facts regarding Wasilla and Alaska, linked to sources, but you ignored it all. I think you must have an agenda other than the truth.
steebo77 on November 28, 2010 at 2:47 PM
It’s at this point I usally throw up my hands and just label them idiots….yeah its a gift and a curse…..
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM
As both mayor and governor, Palin did neither.
Sarah Palin is a proven fiscal conservative.
And what happened to “your love for Palin turns me off” whine?
Moving the goal posts again, I see.
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM
She thought the whole deal was a good idea.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM
to put it to the people to decide? Yeah I think that’s a good idea too.
isn’t that a definiton of democracy in action. you have/are given an idea you put it to the people the majority wins? wow she is evil evil i tell you…
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 2:53 PM
How do you know this?
Did she call you at the time and share her private thoughts?
Is she supposed to declare herself publicly at odds with the people of Wasilla who elected her mayor?
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Many think she’s a super-duper fiscal conservative. While she’s better than most, she was not adverse to going into debt to pay for a rec center. Not a sin, but let’s be honest.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM
This thread needs a self help group.
Logboy on November 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM
darwin on November 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM
the point he is trying to make (and doing a great job of it if i might add) is that we need better trolls.
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM
This thread needs a self help group.
Logboy on November 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM
now that right there was funny…
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 2:56 PM
I know this because she said so many times on the campaign trail. She said Alaska has long dark Winters and the rec center would be a nice thing to have.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Honest about what? The town voted for it, the town agreed to a sales tax increase to pay for it. You’re telling me she should have ignored the voters?
I have no idea what your point is … if you have one.
darwin on November 28, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Is she supposed to declare herself publicly at odds with the people of Wasilla who elected her mayor?
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM
I think she campaigned for it if I’m not mistaken. Palin supported the sports complex as long as they could pay for it.
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM
Is she supposed to declare herself publicly at odds with the people of Wasilla who elected her mayor and who voted to go into debt via a bond issue to be paid for with local sales taxes?
Being honest will be a first for you if you commence to be so with your next post, which I doubt you will.
It’s crystal clear that you’re anything but honest.
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:58 PM
I’m saying she was OK with going into debt to pay for a rec center. My comment last night has been harped on as some sort of lie. Some people defend a bit too much.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Sure seems like it.
darwin on November 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Got any links?
Maybe it was what Wasilla needed. Who knows?
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM
So you admit a debt? Now we are making progress.
Sometimes a leader takes unpopular stances because he or she thinks it’s the right thing to do. Leaders have been known to do such from time to time.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:02 PM
Whatever. I still have no idea why you’re bringing it up or what point you’re trying to make.
darwin on November 28, 2010 at 3:02 PM
Let me try this one more time:
Proceeds from voter-approved bond issue = ASSET
Voter-approved municipal sports comples = ASSET
Outstanding principal on voter-approved bond issue = LIABILITY
Receipts from voter-approved sales tax = REVENUE
Investment income on unspent bond proceeds = REVENUE
Debt service payments on voter-approved bond issue = EXPENSE
Assets in this equation roughly equal liabilites, so there is pretty much no net change in the City’s balance sheet.
Revenues more than cover liabilities, so the City’s income sheet shows a positive change (i.e., a SURPLUS, not a deficit).
In the 7 fiscal years Palin had a role in the City’s budget, she averaged an annual SURPLUS of $77,625.
Your argument is invalidated by the facts which you continue to ignore.
steebo77 on November 28, 2010 at 3:03 PM
If it was a bond issues that was voted on, why is that a problem?
Is “going into a debt” because it’s smart financial sense never a good thing to do?
Why do businesses get loans to expand?
Why do I have a mortgage?
Why do you?
Isn’t it using good business sense to use debt to work for you to build capital?
Debt isn’t always bad and sometimes it’s quite good to make a small amount of cash work for you.
If you’re mayor and the voters give you the permission to go into debt for the town because it will bring the benefit of a new, modern sports complex, what’s the problem?
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 3:03 PM
steebo77 on November 28, 2010 at 3:05 PM
The debt Zerobama’s racking up is neither sustainable, merited or even voted on as he did not run on a platform of the Socialization of the medical sector.
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM
as a side note allah as a nice post up on the wkileaks. good read.
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM
Are proceeds from Federal debt an asset?
I’m a real estate guy, so I love leverage. I’m just saying Palin is not as “small government” as some think. Having said that, she is for smaller government than most Republicans.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM
I’m not admitting or conceding your premise which was that Palin isn’t a fiscal conservative, when in fact she is.
You are attempting to paint her as a deficit spending Liberal who’s hiding behind a facade of fiscal conservatism.
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM
Whereas, in the case of the Wasilla sports complex, the voters used a one-time debt issue to finance something that provides a benefit to them (merited in their eyes) and it was paid for by a temporary sales tax which the voter also approved, not causing Wasilla to run deficits on its account (sustainable).
steebo77 on November 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM
question? Is the water starting to seep into that hole you’ve dug yet or should you continue to dig alittle deeper?
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM
Our Federal debt will sink us eventually. I just pointed out that Palin was not anti-debt as mayor of Wasilla. Don’t mistake me for saying she’s fiscally irresponsible like Washington DC.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:11 PM
If your argument made sense I might agree with you … since it doesn’t, I don’t.
Why don’t you try to find something else, this one really sucks.
darwin on November 28, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Hypocrite.
While you’ve been going after Palin for the smart use of just that.
And that says a lot!
Most Republicans like Mittens, for instance, when he was Governor of MA, go into a lot of debt, don’t cut budgetary pork and earmarks and start or continue big programs.
We need Palins and more Chris Christies!
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 3:12 PM
Sustainable yes, but the taxes were raised to pay back a debt – to pay back money already spent.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:13 PM
From an accounting standpoint, yes.
Difference here is, the Federal government habitually runs severe deficits, whereas Wasilla under Palin’s supervision did not. Its fund balances increased in her tenure (meaning it actually saved more than it spent). Between FY 1997 and FY 2003 (Palni’s tenure), Wasilla ran a cumulative surplus of $543,376.
steebo77 on November 28, 2010 at 3:13 PM
So?
darwin on November 28, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Our Federal debt will sink us eventually.
Because Wasilla was a town on the move that was going to benefit from the smart use of leverage.
Apparently, the voters thought so, too.
Bud, a few pages back, you definitely said “she’s not a fiscal conservative like she pretends to be…”
You were going to connect the dots to a potential presidential run eventually.
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Private investments are different than raising taxes to build a public basketball court.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:16 PM
The proceeds are an asset, the outstanding principal is an offsetting liability. The problem with accruing massive amounts of debt (like the Federal government does and unlike Wasilla did under Palin) is the increasing burden of servicing the debt. There is nothing wrong with having a small, sustainable debt load – most healthy companies rely on short-term financing (commercial paper programs, etc.), as do individuals (who use credit cards but pay off the balances quickly).
steebo77 on November 28, 2010 at 3:16 PM
The voters of Wasilla held a special election specifically to vote for raising local sales taxes to service the debt.
Palin didn’t raise taxes.
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 3:16 PM
I don’t recall Palin talking about the Wasilla Recreation Center at all on the campaign trail, let alone “so many times.”
bw222 on November 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM
Ok guys after reading the last several posts can anyone refute my contention that the anti-palin people are iditos? Yes its my opinion but the facts seem to back it up…
unseen on November 28, 2010 at 3:19 PM
So from your accounting viewpoint, we aren’t really running deficits then, since the Treasuries used to finance the debt are assets.
And yes i know that Wasilla did something small compared to the Federal Government.
She’s not the fiscal conservative many think she is, yes. She’s still better than most DC Republicans.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:20 PM
When the Democrats dug up the bond issue nugget and blew it out of proportion, she had to defend herself. I don’t make the same claim that the Democrats made btw.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Yes…and no, but it doesn’t seem to deter you from mixing the two up in your mind.
Ideally, a private company would have invested the money and built the sports complex in Wasilla (as has happened in so many cities), but when that didn’t happen, the residents voted to have one and fund it with a bond, paid for by local sales taxes.
The public basketball court paid for with taxes (either state, federal or local) is a boondoggle and not a valid use or function of government.
At least Palin and Wasilla did it the right way, which is that they targeted a bond issue for a specific project and voted on a sales tax rise that would specifically fund the sports complex and only the sports complex for a limited period of time (i.e. until the complex was paid off).
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM
It’s a hockey rink, not a basketball court. It’s Alaska, not inner-city Cleveland. Can’t you get anything right? You
‘restarting tohave become very boring.bw222 on November 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Small local projects are the “right way” I agree.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Here’s you: “But that wouldn’t include me…”
“And that also wouldn’t be me…because mine is more nuanced and charitable. Isn’t it?”
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM
I sense, whether justifiably or not, a note of derision when you write “public basketball court.” In actuality,
If you read local news accounts, the center actually draws a lot of visitors from the surrounding area, and even a bit further afield. I don’t have the link handy, but I recall one local motel manager mentioning how a large percentage of his business came from visitors to the center.
steebo77 on November 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM
It’s both and more, but let’s not let facts get in the way.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905483.html
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:25 PM
AP sounds snarkier than Charles K.
mizflame98 on November 28, 2010 at 3:26 PM
No. Again, you are wrong. From “my accounting viewpoint” we are running deficitis BECAUSE OUR EXPENDITURES EXCEED OUR REVENUES. It has nothing to do with ASSETS or LIABILITIES, which I have reminded you (probably 10 times by now) are BALANCE SHEET items. Revenues, expenses, and surpluses or deficits belong on the INCOME STATEMENT.
steebo77 on November 28, 2010 at 3:27 PM
As a former basketball player, she spoke of the rec center having that capacity on the campaign trail. That’s what I remember.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:27 PM
What “Treasuries?”
If Social Security and Medicare aren’t invested (which they aren’t) and are paid out as fast as their claims come in (which they are), then there are no “treasuries.”
Scary, but true.
Yes, she is the fiscal conservative we think she is.
And she is head and shoulders ahead of the rest of the GOP elite crowd in the fiscally conservative department.
Small point, but she’s one of the few public figures who’s held any kind of a job in the private sector or who has had so little money that she had to budget how she spent her personal income.
Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 3:28 PM
LOL…. The tread has deteriorated.
Keemo on November 28, 2010 at 3:29 PM
We are spending money we don’t have, and this is financed through the “asset” we call bonds. Wasilla did the same on a much smaller scale for a few years.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Jen;
I’ve been supportive of your point-of-view on this blog, but here’s a good place to dial it back a bit.
annoyinglittletwerp is a long-time thoughtful poster here (as I know you are.) The position she takes on this and other threads comes nowhere near either nastiness or trollery.
And, she has, in the past, acknowledged that she has Aspergers’ Syndrome, which is on the mild end of the Autism spectrum.
massrighty on November 28, 2010 at 3:30 PM
I don’t know – if you really ponder the choice, Obama is the only one with consistent principles,(evil principles but like Ted Kennedy, at least he was consistent) Mitt’s symbol, to compare with Obama’s silly rainbow road to Marxism, would be that of the weather vane. Consistently changing with the trend, lacking character and a firm set of values, and an ideology worthy of America. When he’s in Rome he’ll pretend that he’s Italian.
(Think Kerry’s “Can get me a license here?”)
Don L on November 28, 2010 at 3:32 PM
You describe the fraudulent trust fund.
Saying she’s “head and shoulders above” most Republicans id nice, but it also isn’t saying much if you know what I mean.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:32 PM
Kickoff soon. Have fun guys and gals.
toliver on November 28, 2010 at 3:33 PM
Wasilla clearly had the means to finance its spending and to pay off all liabilities in a short horizon. The Federal government, on the other hand, can never hope to cover all of its existing liabilities and its debt burden is much larger and longer-term. The issue here is not “deficit spending;” it is a question sustainable financing practices. The need to procure financing at some point is inevitable for individuals, small businesses, large corporations, municipal governments, and the Federal government. Debt/financing makes the world go ’round. However, the manner in which that debt is incurred and the strength of the plan in place for repaying it are the differentiating factors.
steebo77 on November 28, 2010 at 3:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »