The Perils of Palin

The Bare Knuckled Pundit

Grand Inquisitor
Alaska Governor and soon-to-be-Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin will address the Republican National Convention at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minnesota this evening. Stepping into the eye of a media storm that has grown in intensity since her announcement as Senator John McCain’s running mate, Palin will essentially be introducing herself to the nation.

Having been excoriated for a lack of gravitas and experience; lambasted for entering a national political campaign while being the mother of an infant with Down’s Syndrome and having been labeled a hypocrite over revelations of the pregnancy of her unwed 17 year-old daughter; the intensity of the media spotlight and resulting public scrutiny presents Palin with an opportunity of momentous potential. Rife with opportunity as well as potential pitfalls, the Governor’s address may well be a watershed moment in the current presidential campaign.

Should Palin present only a Gidget-like sense of optimism and an endearing and warm smile, her credibility as a candidate will immediately evaporate in the unforgiving spotlight’s glare. Revealed as nothing more than a Conservative political pin-up, her impact on the campaign will be limited solely to rallying the Republican base.

However, should the Governor present herself as a governmental reformer; a seasoned executive; a person of substance as well as character; in addition to being an example of how American women can be successful in both the Governor’s Boardroom as well as the family room, she will have boldly planted her flag on the political battlefield. In the process, she will have taken great strides to dispel Democratic assertions she is nothing more than a political beauty queen.

Coming little more than a week after what has been characterized by many as the best speech of her political career, comparisons to Senator Hillary Clinton's address to the Democratic National Convention will naturally follow in the wake of Gov. Palin’s address. Though this is sure to be the case, one wonders how fair and balanced the media’s critique will be after the feeding frenzy that erupted in the wake of revelations of the pregnancy of Palin’s 17 year-old daughter, Bristol.

Furthermore, given the malicious and disgusting vitriol unleashed by Liberal bloggers on both the Governor and Bristol, one can already imagine the caustic criticism that will be barely disguised as “objective analysis”. One questions, though, how fair a comparison can be made between Palin - that has yet to truly ascend the national stage for the first time - and Senator Clinton who has played a leading role in one form or another for the past sixteen years; including her own ultimately failed bid for this year’s Democratic presidential nomination.

Little doubt both Clinton and the Obama campaign will be watching the Governor’s address closely this evening.

Having acknowledged Clinton in her remarks following her announcement as McCain’s running mate Friday, Senator Clinton welcomed Governor Palin’s “historic nomination” and hailed her as adding “an important new voice to the debate.” Little doubt the Obama campaign would have been far happier had Senator’s remarks been more perfunctory and far less congenial.

Is that the sweet aroma of Charley I detect drifting from the podium, faithful readers? Or perhaps the faint refrains of Nancy Sinatra I hear in the distance? Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and Sarah brings home the moose bacon and fries it up tonight.
 
Good write.

she's just a people gaaaal--living in a peoples world--shes just a people gal--living amoung the peoples woooorld-aahhooo--it's not the party---it's not the paaaarty!
 
Well, I was defending her to a point. But if I can verify what I just heard on the news, I will do all I can to talk people OUT of voting for McCain.

According to one news reporter, when she was mayor she called the local PUBLIC library and asked "How do we get started banning these books people have been complaining about?".

Sorry sparky, but banning books is one of those things that I will not abide and will not put any support behind those who will.
 
Well, I was defending her to a point. But if I can verify what I just heard on the news, I will do all I can to talk people OUT of voting for McCain.

According to one news reporter, when she was mayor she called the local PUBLIC library and asked "How do we get started banning these books people have been complaining about?".

Sorry sparky, but banning books is one of those things that I will not abide and will not put any support behind those who will.

Time magazine has already reported that this is true, and they say they have the old newspaper articles to prove that she also threatened to fire the Librarian for "not being supportive" of this.
 
Time magazine has already reported that this is true, and they say they have the old newspaper articles to prove that she also threatened to fire the Librarian for "not being supportive" of this.

Pretty much settles my choices then.
 
You need a thesaurus, you are wearing that word out, but not literally, I bet!
 
I speak the truth, after all these years, he's still the only one!
 
Thanks! it is always nice to get kudos!

I bet you are the same way!
 
Thanks! it is always nice to get kudos!

I bet you are the same way!

Yeah, the crazy little wench stole my heart and life hasn't been the same since. Not really interested in anything outside.
 
Well, I was defending her to a point. But if I can verify what I just heard on the news, I will do all I can to talk people OUT of voting for McCain.

According to one news reporter, when she was mayor she called the local PUBLIC library and asked "How do we get started banning these books people have been complaining about?".

Sorry sparky, but banning books is one of those things that I will not abide and will not put any support behind those who will.

Yea--I agree. Some of the Christians go to far--assuming that is actually the case with Palin.

But--this is not nearly as bad as the liberial mafia trying to get rid of consertative talk radio---and internet consertative talk.

Who really has time to read books anymore in comparison to radio and the internet? Free speech is free speech. It is not only the speech someone else desires.

There is no way Palin will ever ban books in a liberary--unless they may be a national threat like bomb building books. The people won't let one person do that. But--the people might not have much to say about a whole party trying to stifle themajority voice with talk radio and the internet influence.

it was called "the fairness doctrine", and got beat. it is coming back with a new name. Liberials always pitch--innocent people have to catch.

Now--your write you pasted says that the people wanted some books banned from the local think tank. If the people brought it up to her attention, espically if it was a large segment in that small town--she would have to take it under consideration, or she would not be doing the people who elected her a service--right? So--how did it turn out? Did the books get banned or not?

You folks are just not smart enough for me--I am like a judge that actually follows the law. You folks are just swaying in the wind--pointing at funny shaped clouds and blaming them for global warming (cooling now--whoops--discussion open again).
 
Last edited:
Yea--I agree. Some of the Christians go to far--assuming that is actually the case with Palin.

But--this is not nearly as bad as the liberial mafia trying to get rid of consertative talk radio---and internet consertative talk.

Who really has time to read books anymore in comparison to radio and the internet? Free speech is free speech. It is not only the speech someone else desires.

There is no way Palin will ever ban books in a liberary--unless they may be a national threat like bomb building books. The people won't let one person do that. But--the people might not have much to say about a whole party trying to stifle themajority voice with talk radio and the internet influence.

it was called "the fairness doctrine", and got beat. it is coming back with a new name. Liberials always pitch--innocent people have to catch.

Now--your write you pasted says that the people wanted some books banned from the local think tank. If the people brought it up to her attention, espically if it was a large segment in that small town--she would have to take it under consideration, or she would not be doing the people who elected her a service--right? So--how did it turn out? Did the books get banned or not?

You folks are just not smart enough for me--I am like a judge that actually follows the law. You folks are just swaying in the wind--pointing at funny shaped clouds and blaming them for global warming (cooling now--whoops--discussion open again).

First of all, banning books still happens. It is only when people (like me) raise hell that it stops. More people will pay attention to what happens to talk radio shows than what happens at their local library. And that, my egotistical friend, is a shame.

And yes, I think banning books is FAR worse than banning talk radio shows. Banning books is banning ideas for those who seek them. Talk radio is all too often just hate mongering and spin. I am not saying talk radio has no place, just calling it what it is.


If the books presented a clear danger, like how to make a bomb, I could see restricting access to them. But this sounded more like banning books because of language. As in the case in Tuscaloosa Alabama in the mid 90s. A christian group tried to ban Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men because it had "goddamn" in it 52 times. They nearly succeeded in getting it removed from the public library and actually succeeded in getting it removed from the high school library for almost a month.

The reason talk radio will have defenders when banned books go unnoticed is simple economics. Talk radio is a big money game. Public libraries are not.

And if you would like to bump intellects with me, I would be happy to do so. But please do not equate intellect with political belief. They are not the same, regardless of which side of the fence you are on.
 
First of all, banning books still happens. It is only when people (like me) raise hell that it stops. More people will pay attention to what happens to talk radio shows than what happens at their local library. And that, my egotistical friend, is a shame.

And yes, I think banning books is FAR worse than banning talk radio shows. Banning books is banning ideas for those who seek them. Talk radio is all too often just hate mongering and spin. I am not saying talk radio has no place, just calling it what it is.
You're a nazi fuck for the above statement. There is no difference between the two, nazi fuck.
If the books presented a clear danger, like how to make a bomb, I could see restricting access to them. But this sounded more like banning books because of language. As in the case in Tuscaloosa Alabama in the mid 90s. A christian group tried to ban Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men because it had "goddamn" in it 52 times. They nearly succeeded in getting it removed from the public library and actually succeeded in getting it removed from the high school library for almost a month.

And if you would like to bump intellects with me, I would be happy to do so. But please do not equate intellect with political belief. They are not the same, regardless of which side of the fence you are on.
Except you're a cretin subject to manipulation as evidenced by your inability to see your idiocy and moral failings as a result of your globalist brainwashing.
 
You're a nazi fuck for the above statement. There is no difference between the two, nazi fuck.

Except you're a cretin subject to manipulation as evidenced by your inability to see your idiocy and moral failings as a result of your globalist brainwashing.

Au contraire, there certainly IS a difference. One is broadcast from a privately owned radio station with little or no obligation to report the truth or to provide both sides of a story.

And the other is a repository for literature, art and knowledge from our entire civilization.
 
First of all, banning books still happens. It is only when people (like me) raise hell that it stops. More people will pay attention to what happens to talk radio shows than what happens at their local library. And that, my egotistical friend, is a shame.

And yes, I think banning books is FAR worse than banning talk radio shows. Banning books is banning ideas for those who seek them. Talk radio is all too often just hate mongering and spin. I am not saying talk radio has no place, just calling it what it is.


If the books presented a clear danger, like how to make a bomb, I could see restricting access to them. But this sounded more like banning books because of language. As in the case in Tuscaloosa Alabama in the mid 90s. A christian group tried to ban Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men because it had "goddamn" in it 52 times. They nearly succeeded in getting it removed from the public library and actually succeeded in getting it removed from the high school library for almost a month.

The reason talk radio will have defenders when banned books go unnoticed is simple economics. Talk radio is a big money game. Public libraries are not.

And if you would like to bump intellects with me, I would be happy to do so. But please do not equate intellect with political belief. They are not the same, regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

Consider the socical science books you may have read in one of our famous liberial universities. Is that not America hate mongering and liberial spin?--much like talk radio.

Lies and spin were introduced to books first. Some people even burn them. Personally--I would not mind if every book by marks, or inspired by marks (like Obama's books) that is indoctorined to our youth at 50,000/year tuition was banned in this country. Yes--that may be seen as fascist--but observe---only by fascists who want to take your freedom away----as is the case through out history. Yes--a religion that says to cut off all guilty (race related--ya know?) heads---would be banned also.

Remember--there is a difference between being nice---and being stupid.

Persoanlly--I don't have time to go to the gorcery store lately, let alone a library. I can listen to the radio, which has millions of listeners compared to 35 in a public library, while I work. Savage is on right now. He does not like Palin--so I have to go to work and see why.


my intuition usually serves me better than conditioned intellect (politically speaking on a political talk board). Sorry--it works.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top