What Fresh Hell Is This?

September 26, 2008

More On Sarah Palin

She's lost a fan at the National Review Online (surely a liberal rag if ever there was one).

Point one:
As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.
Point two:
Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
Point three:
If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.
Final point:

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

Again, this is from the NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE.


John K. said...

John K: Wow are you off the mark. She energizes the conservative base.

Mike said...

I know what is going to happen.

Biden will be waiting for Palin (Is Tina Fey prepping him?), and McCain shows up with Romney and says he is the new VP candidate.

Bob said...

This week, my wife met a couple from Alaska. Of course her co-workers asked what they thought of Palin.
They (AK folks) accused her of blatant corruption and lying. A lot of AK hates her (not necessarily her hometown, JohnK).
Then a co-worker asked if they were Democrat. AK folks said they were dissappointed to say they're Republicans and can't believe McCain had picked a person like her for running mate.

Bob said...

BTW, Mitt Romney might be crazier than Palin. Hmmm... I think Romney is JohnK-crazy.

John K. said...

John K: Speaking of VP candidates, have you folks heard the gaffes Biden makes on a regular basis. Limbaugh has a good skit replaying these and FOX news points these out. My take, I do not think Biden can separate truth from fiction. He just makes it up.

John K. said...

John K: Who is the fool that says Alaska hates Palin. LMAO Man are you stupid. Her approval ratings within the state are anywhere from 85% to 92%. Man the left in here just make it up.

jaywillie said...

Actually, you're the fool, John (big surprise there, huh?)- the latest Alaska polling showed her tanking down to about 60%. Still high but the same poll also showed that more Alaskans think Biden is qualified in comparison to Palin.

I suppose you can just stick your head in the sand and ignore what a lot of prominent conservatives are starting to say. I'm not sure what good that will do you.

And whether she rallies your base or not is pretty irrelevant - this isn't an eleciton where getting your base out is a path to victory, considering voters ID with Democrats by about +12 points compared to Republicans.

You can get your base out, but you simply don't have the numbers to win without significant appeal to independents and conservative Democrats - and Palin does not appeal to these voters, no matter what you try to tell yourself.

dayvoe said...

John K shows us again his dubious connection to facts/evidence/logic/reality.

Sarah Palin's approval ratings are no longer sky-high. John would know that if he did his homework before commenting.

Her approval rating in Alaska has tumbled 14 points to 68%. Her DISAPPROVAL rating has DOUBLED to 27%.

Take a look.

John K fails to do his homework AGAIN.

John K looks like an idiot AGAIN.

And John *I* own this blog.

John K. said...

John K: Now I am really laughing at you liberals. 60% is Bad? LMAO LMAO LOL LOL LOL LOL Hussein Obama can't crack 46% and 60% os bad. LOL LOL Hey Dayvoe, open mouth, insert foot. LOL

John K. said...

John K: And her disapproval is 27% LOL LOL LOL Dayvoe you just proved what a fool you are using those numbers. Thanks for doing the homework for me. And making me look good in the process. I own this blog. 27% disapproval. LOL LOL Hillary was at 52% disapproval and you guys were defending her. LOL LOL LMAO Way tooooo funny dayvoe, way too funny. Post some more stuff Homer. LOL

John K. said...

John K: This is too funny to let go. Soooo If your numbers are right, and 60% approve of her. It seems to me, Bob the nutjob, that 60% is a majority. Which makes you a flat out liar to claim "AK hates her". By your own numbers a flat out lie.

dayvoe said...

John, John, John...

Nice try, John.

YOU were the one who said her approval ratings were "85% to 92%" percent, right?

YOU were the one who was WRONG with those numbers, right?

YOU were the one who looks like an idiot for posting the wrong numbers and then trying to change the subject when you were shown to be wrong, right?


I own your ass.

billrott said...


Please just ignore the troll that refers to itself as John K. These individuals just lurk around blogs such as this one hoping that someone will confirm their existence in a response to their absurdity.

What you have from John is nothing more than the rantings of an individual who is truly deranged and disturbed.

If you don't agree with me, ask yourselves this question:

If John K created his own blog would anyone read it?

I think the answer speaks for itself. Just don't respond to the troll and it will go away to bother some other blog.

and John, personally I hope you seek help. You need it for your illogical rants/postings clearly show someone with projection and anger issues.

billrott said...

I said it when she was first appointed/selected to the vice presidency position and I will say it again today, Sarah Palin's selection has doomed McCain's chances, crippled the party, and jeopardized the down ticket candidates this election cycle.

For all we know, Palin may have one day been an incredible politician. It was clear she was on track to take the senate seat of Ted Stevens via an appointment post this election. This view is of course assuming Stevens' holds onto the seat.

With time as a senator, she may have been able to gather experience and expertise within national issues and foreign policy.

Even if she did not become senator, she would have arisen as the head of the Alaska Republican machine.

Unfortunately, Palin was thrust onto the national stage prematurely.

Now, the issue is overblown. Palin can't be taken off the ticket. She can only pull herself off the ticket, and I personally hope she does so soon.

Watching these interviews is just painful. I don't like watching people suffer and Palin is suffering due to her lack of skill and preparation in this process. No one likes to watch someone be kicked when they are down.

No, I don't think sympathy will equate to votes though. It is clear that the Palin fad like so many other one such as the Budweiser frogs, the Hansens, acid wash jeans, etc. is over. Now people realize there is nothing there behind the hype.

Perhaps things would have been different if Palin would have been able to immediately talk to the press. Perhaps if she was not shielded from the media, the media would not have had to create their own narrative on her. Now though it is too late and everyone sees her as a "bucket of air."

I pray for the many seasoned politicians that will go down in this debacle. There were many unwise people that came out and vouched for Palin's credentials and now these people will pay the price. These politicians such as cantor, Guiliani, Huckabee, Boehner, Lieberman, Graham, etc. will now be openly questioned on their judgment. Perhaps they will just scoot by the next election. If so, they still will have to face the inner party politics and I doubt anyone in the vast majority of the party is going to want them in leadership positions after the Palin bomb explodes.

As for McCain's campaign staff, their careers are officially over. They will be lucky if they can fall back into the cushy job at the National Review that Dan Quayles' former chief of staff holds, Bill Kristol.

Then their is the party dynamics itself. Palin is a poster child for the ultra-religious right. While they are a vocal part of the Republican party, they are not a majority. Palin's selection will now be the high water mark of their impact on the party.

In time, the party will either come back to the center and embrace their fiscal conservatism and states' rights over federal rights viewpoint or the party will spend the next ten to forty years locked out of power.

For the Democrats may very well end up controlling the Senate with a filibuster proof majority, the house, and the presidency. The Democrats are now going to pass some major reform and have two years for it to take affect. Coupled with the viewpoint that the Republicans are to blame for the current economic crisis, the Republicans will receive the cold shoulder come election time in two years.

With no achievements during the next two years, it is likely that the Republicans will only lose more positions in the mid-term election. Unless the Democrats screw up royally, the Republicans will be locked out for probably eight years.

Ask yourself, does Obama really look like he is reckless in his decision process enough to open the door to the Republicans? My view is Obama is no John McCain per his decisions. Yes, I put that in here so trolls can misconstrue it.

So in conclusion, Palin's pick has doomed the party.

Oh well, at least Romney had enough sense not to vouch for her. I imagine we will see Romney as the next candidate for the presidency of the party. The question is will Romney step in this year or in four years?

John K. said...

John K: Now Billrott is amusing. This is an individual who has no associations with conservatives yet devines to read how the conservative base is reacting. I can tell you this, since I am a conservative, you folks are way off here, way off. If Romny/Ridge/Pawlenty had been the VP coandidate it would have been ho hum. But Palin has energized the base to show up and vote. And that is exactly what the polls reflect. And that irritates the left. They can't fathom this. So they put it into their terms and as suchs draw false conclusions. Heck even Limbaugh, who is no fan of McCain, is now supporting the ticket. So Billrott and the left crowd, keep living in your dream world. It just makes my job easier.

John K. said...

John K: This one is free of charge. Gab, the next time you perform in front of the drunken liberals, try this joke. How stupid are conservatives, they are so stupid they think approval ratings of 60% and disapproval ratings of 27% are a good thing. LOL LOL LOL LMAO that someone even posted those numbers thinking it was a negative. Ha Ha Ha

jaywillie said...

Time to help explain things to the low-fuctioning moron:

John, you said her approval was around 80%. And I pointed out that it had dropped 20 points since McCain announced her as his VP choice. Check the Anchorage Daily News if you don't believe.

Now, you're going to argue that a 20 point drop in approval over the course of a few weeks is a good thing?

That's a free-fall.

Can you grasp the concept of trends, John?

Having your disapproval DOUBLE and your approval COLLAPSE by 20 odd points over the course of a few weeks IS NOT a good thing.

If you want to pretend it is, be my guest.

If you want to ignore what a lot of conservatives are now saying about Palin, be my guest.

She DOES NOT appeal to the voters who will decide this election.


So if you want to make this all about getting your base out, good for you, because you'll lose in an electoral route.

Reading you is sort of like listening to a guy hanging out of the 3rd floor of a building that's on fire screaming down to everyone that the building isn't on fire. If you want to ignore the weaknesses of the Republican ticket, good for you.

But let's just do rundown of where the race stands:

Obama 50
McCain 44

Gallup Daily
Obama 49
McCain 44

Obama 48
McCain 43

Research 2000
Obama 49
McCain 43

The bad thing for your team, John, is that McCain's bounce from his convention has not only been completely erased but Obama has now opened up a consistent lead over him, and there aren't many opportunities for McCain to turn it around.

His little gimmick of "suspending" his campaign and returning to Washinton didn't work. Most voters saw it as just that - a gimmick.

The only thing being discussed about the debate is how angry McCain came across and why he wouldn't look at Obama.

And Palin is about to go on national tv this Thursday and completely humiliate herself. If she couldn't handle questions from Couric and Gibson, she's got no chance in a debate.

Plus, McCain has more of his lies he has to deal with.

He said Rick Davis was no longer be paid for his work as a lobbyist - except he was paid last my $15,000 by Freddie Mac and McCain has made his lobbying firm of Davis Manafort nearl a million dollars in web services.

Palin has been caught telling another whopper regarding trade missions to Russia. Funny thing is, no one can find ANY evidence of these trade missions she's talking about, mostly because they never happened.

If you want to keep your head in the sand and tell yourself that everything is just great with McCain's campaign, be my guest.

John K. said...

John K: An advisor to McCain was paid by Fannie Mae? I don't think so. The man has no basis in his company and completely divested himself of all interests in 2006. Now Jaywillie ignored Fannie mae contributed 100,000 + to both Dodd and Hussein Obama. Plus there is the fact that Franklin Raines gives Obama economic advice. LOL Jaywillie you would sell your soul for Palin's approval ratings. LMAO LMAO 60% is the number homer. You know I am right and your post shows how desparate the left is. LMAO

billrott said...


Responding to your comment. Not responding to the trolls that lurk on this website and I really hope you would refrain from such as well. Seriously, I have witnessed people just ignore trolls such as John K on other boards and after a brief period of escalation, the troll gets the message and leaves.

If the troll added anything of value, I would not deem them a troll. In this case though, John K is nothing more than a pathetic troll.

billrott said...


It is clear that some do not seem to understand that not everyone in the Republican party is a fundamental religious conservative. In fact, many of the party just use the religious right to get votes.

Now, Palin's approval ratings are dropping like jumper from a skyscraper.

Yes, the Republican machine is currently behind her since McCain has selected her; however the machine leaders will pay the price for such blind support. With the coming election loss and only further Palin crisis, the party members that are questioning the decision behind closed doors will air their concerns openly.

In the end, the people that are attempting to prop up this lack luster veep selection will be ostracized in the party. Say goodbye to graham, lieberman, guiliani, etc.

At least Romney had enough sense to not vouch for Palin. He still remains the only person put forth by the party that had half a brain.

billrott said...


It is laughable reading trolls attempting to align themselves to others viewpoints. "I am a conservative..." Yeah not. The troll is nothing more than a fringe wacko that is too polarizing and unseemly to support its own blog. As such, it lurks on this board.

John K. said...

John K: It is amazing to me that the left ignores Hussein Obama and his taking of $105,000 + from Fannie Mae and use of Franklin Raines while criticizing a McCain advisor, that is advisor, for being associated with Fannie Mae two years ago. Only a lefty can rationalize that fact. But then only a left can try to tell me 60% approval is bad. LMAO

John K. said...

John K: Hey Billrott your real problem is I exist. Because if I did not exist then you could live in your fantasy world and get away with all the lies you spill. LMAO Like I have said, the left sees the real threat to the world not some irrational bomber as in Bill Ayers (an Obama associate) but a conservative with access to a microphone and a pen and paper. Ideas scare the heck out of liberals. LOL

EdHeath said...

You know, Kohn K, if you would present "ideas" (the things you say scare liberals) in a dispassionate way, you would likely score some points. I would agree, 68 percent approval (someone said) and only 27 percent disapproval is pretty good. And if two people don’t like Palin in Alaska, that is just an anecdote. Even the polls showing Obama ahead show only a slight lead, within the margin of error. Whoever wins in the next election, it seems likely it is going to be close, and it seems unlikely anyone will open up a substantial lead before election day.

But of course, you want to laugh at us, much like I imagine Rush Limbaugh laughs at liberals. The thing is, unlike Limbaugh, you are laughing at liberals on a blog friendly to liberals. I give you credit for commenting on this blog, but not for the disrespectful laughing. Anybody should know that you are not disrespectful to people in their own house, even if you disagree with them and say so. The fact that the polls are so close should indicate to you that many people, some smart and some not, disagree with conservatives and that should make you think. The fact that 80 percent (or whatever the number is now) of people in fact disagree with how government is now proceeding should give you pause. If you want to rail at Maria and David for being disrespectful to the current President/Vice-Presdient, that would be your right (as it would be their right to explain to you why they have no respect for the current President/Vice-President). But I personally think you are over the line with the cackling.

That said, here’s my little partisan shot. You were right, it was three grand total that Alaska sent it’s citizens as energy profit money from the state. That’s in addition to getting more earmarks, per capita, than any other state. So that is about 900 million in one year, the total amount of earmarks Obama has been said to have taken in some three years. Alaska’s 900 million came out of oil company (windfall) profits and were given not to poor people, rather they were given to Alaskans (who already get more out of federal taxes than any of the rest of us). And yet Palin’s approval rating went down this year, her disapproval rating went up? She must have shown a really vicious side to Alaska. Impressive.

John K. said...

John K: No you don't get it yet Ed. The facts are liberals cannot and will not tolerate having their actions exposed. Biden can lie, FDR on TV in 1929 assuring America about the stock market, is an acceptable lie as long as the conservatives do not expose it. Hillary talking about being shot at by snipers in Bosnia (she said this twice) is acceptable provided the conservatives do not expose it. The truth is, you left wingers would die for a 60% approval and a 27% disapproval on one of your candidates. What aggravates you, is my candidate has it. LMAO LMAO And that along with other things is why I win all the time. LOL Which is why the left wants and needs the fairness doctrine and Olbermouth needs FOX off the air. Liberalism never survives in the light of day. LOL I am the man.

John K. said...

John K: And I can't wait for the VP debate. Biden cannot stop himself from lying. He does it on the stump, in prepared speeches and just in the normal course of life. And watching you lefties tell me it isn't a lie is just so much fun. Stand up for Chuck!

jaywillie said...

Jesus, John...you'd think after telling SO MANY lies yourself, you'd know what one is!

Biden made a gaffe - that's not a lie. But everyone knew what he was saying - unlike the Republicans who have not only helped caused the financial mess by undoing many of the regulations FDR put in place to protect American taxpayers but they've stood by for months knowing something was wrong and have offered no long term solutions until the entil market was at risk.

Now, maybe you just don't like the fact that Biden pointed out how a real leader like FDR behaves - maybe that bothers you.

But let's talk about some other lies:

Sarah Palin said Alaska conducted trade missions with Russia since she's been governor - but no one can find ANY evidence that this ever happened.

McCain says Sarah hates earmarks but as mayor of Wasilla she hired a lobbyist associated with Jack Abramoff to secure the small town earmarks. And as governor she's requested some $750 million in earmarks.

If John McCain hates earmarks as much as he says, maybe he should have looked at the career of his running mate instead of repeatedly lying about her record.

Palin said months ago that she would cooperate in the ethics investigation going on in Alaska - then she changed her mind. Why? Is she "Sarah Palin, fighter of corruption" or "Sarah Palin, professional Republican stonewaller?"

I'll take Biden over a know-nothing like Palin any day of the week.

EdHeath said...

If you mean that I do not see life through your partisan lens, then, no, I do not get it, John K. I will admit I can fall victim to partisan views, and that's unfortunate. But I do try, and I try not act as though I am superior to conservatives, I *try* (at least occasionally) to talk directly to ideas. By the way, your response was positively restrained, compared to other things you've said, and had some merit. You should be commended for that. Still, let me say that the first time I saw the Biden clip, it was on the Daily Show. So even if they picked it up from a conservative, those liberals were willing to skewer Biden, in typical Daily Show fashion. I think it was the (supposedly liberal) media, in general, that exposed Hilary Clinton’s hypocrisy.

But you make a reasonable point, liberals have trouble (like conservatives) policing themselves. They do, eventually, but they hate doing it. Like liberals obvious torment about Bill Clinton having his affair in the White House, when we knew in 1992 what he was like, and some people voted for him and some people didn’t. Maureen Dowd still has not gotten over it.

It would be more pleasant for liberals if Obama had better approval ratings, had ratings up to 68% or even 60%. McCain doesn’t have them either, and Palin having them in Alaska doesn’t help her nationally. I think it is interesting to note her ratings have dropped, but at the end of the day it will be the election that matters. Everything else, what I say, what you say, will be so much talk.

Now, you like to say that liberals want to censor conservatives, and there is something to that. But you speak (or lol) rather rudely to the rest of us, so I think you have no right to expect us to treat you better.

Music Wench said...

I'd say all intelligent Republicans know Palin is a problem. The only ones who think she's ready to be VP are the morons who will buy anything the Rove crew want to sell. Live in denial all they want I suppose.

Now I'm hoping they keep her on the ticket. She's better than any McCain explosion or faux pas

billrott said...


Thank you for backing up my point. The majority of conservatives feel that the pick of Palin was dreadful. It is only recently that some of them have openly stated such reservations on the record. Normally, such individuals tow the party line or simple refuse to comment on the topic.

In this case, Republicans are beginning to openly question the pick.

For the discussions on lies, Andrew Sullivan, who is an Obama Supporter but not a liberal, has been following the known lies of Sarah Palin. To date, he has tallied up thirteen lies in which she has openly contradicted her known record. Go to the Daily Dish and review for yourself. WIth that said, please realize that Sullivan is openly against McCain.

As for the debates, I think Palin has such low expectations that she just might pull it off. She will probably attack Biden as being the old guard. Similar to how she took on the former governor of Alaska during her gubernatorial debates.

The warning though is that if she makes one mistake during the 90+ minutes, she is done. That is a very difficult feat.

In the end, Palin's nomination in my opinion is going to be the high water mark of the ultra-right religious conservatives and the doom of the current manifestation of the Republican Party.

The only people that Palin's selection seems to be impressing are the low information ultra-conservatives that seem incapable of processing any information on their own. These are the people that are running around saying Obama is not a US citizen, that Obama is a Muslim, and other absurd theories that have been disproved on multiple occasions.

billrott said...

Ed and Jaywillie,

I am somewhat new to this blog, but like it since it provides a local flavor on politics. I have commented from time to time. I have also read some of the comments and am usually annoyed to see the abundance of just utter spam posted by the individual John K. The person is nothing more than a troll in my opinion and my recommendation is that he simply be ignored.

I have read how you have attempted to debate with this individual and while it is commendable, it is also not wise. As my father said, "You can not win an argument with an idiot and we you attempt to do so you only look foolish for trying."

You are not going to change the opinion of the troll that lurks on this blog. He is nothing more than a fringe wacko that I personally hope does not buy what he is attempting to sell.

So, try to continue your debate with the guy and all you will get are quality posts with roughly 80% of the comments that are nothing more than Spam from some troll calling itself, John K.

jaywillie said...

Hey Billrott,

I used to have a policy of ignoring John but now I just have too much fun blowing up his pathetic arguments.

I have no allusions about changing his mind; for me, it's a lot like a cat playing with a dead mouse.

It's just fun.

But I hear what you're saying. Don't worry - I don't take my interactions with the troll seriously.

John K. said...

John K: Just curious? In your arrogance, has anyone of you changed my mind? I WIN!

John K. said...

John K: And Palin still has 60%.

Clyde Wynant said...

billrott -

Glad to have you around. David and Maria do a great job....with the notable exception of not IP blocking John K. I like the give and take here, but it is hard to ignore a troll who is as loud as a cicada and as invasive at the Ash Borer. So D and M, can't you do something? I know you like to be all open and such, but, in the end, this dipwad is "ruining it for all the rest of the class." And in this case, unlike junior high, I don't have to come back tomorrow unless I want to :-)


jaywillie said...

While John K. certainly displays an obstinancy and ignorance that is off-putting, I don't think he's ever done anything to deserve being banned from the website.

He might not be the most eloquent or well-versed defender of conservatism but I think he should be allowed to reflect his views or not.

Sadly, I think the fundamentals of John's perspective and his way of thinking are not different from most conservatives. His approach is far rougher and often less coherent but is, nonetheless, representative of the other side.

Simply because we disagree with the arguments he makes or consider them weak, factually incorrect or outright dishonest doesn't mean we should ignore him or outright dismiss him.

Frankly, there is a way to argue John K. and I don't think we should ever pass up the opportunity to present the superiority of progressive ideas and policies.

Yes, he obfuscates and engages in ad hominem attacks - but isn't that what we've come to expect from conservatives?

What is John K. but a Dennis Prager or Rush Limbaugh on a small scale?

The sad truth is that this mindless conservatism is precisely the ideology and mindset that dominated American politics between 1980 and 2006 and our electoral politics since 1972. To ignore it will not make it go away. Considering that the only terms they understand are those definded in black & white, it should come as no surprise that relinquishing their grip on American politics will require a clearly defined victory for progressives.

The only way to unseat this mindlessness is to confront it straight on.

If we truly do represent ideas for the future of this country that are superior to those offered by conservatives - even those like John K. - it should be no problem for us to win the arguments and lay out a better alternative.

In terms of the general tenor of the debate, if one wishes to ignore someone, then do so.

But John K. causes no harm and, to be honest, he provides much of the entertainment around here.

I suppose the real lesson is to not let John K. get to you, which he clearly must when we start imploring others to ignore him.

billrott said...


Once again, you can not win an argument with a fool. I did not say John K should be banned. I simply said he should be ignored until he actually provides a factual response of quality.

No, he is not like most conservatives. He is like the low information fringe nuts that Republicans exploit for office. The type of people that believe anything that is said to them by Rush and others. You know these fools. They are the ones screaming bloody murder about alleged false birth certificates and Obama being a muslim.

My recommendation is still that this troll known as John K should simply be ignored; because all your response posts do is motivate him to post more of his lunacy and spam.