The Bookstore

If there was one thing John McCain could take back and do differently...

The closest I want to be to Palin's comments are those that pop-up on tv before I can reach the remote.

Riding high on the somewhat successful attempt to derail health care reform by popularizing the phrase "death panels," used to describe medical care professionals who would individually guide people in how to create a living will, Sarah Palin seems to be quite buoyant in the deep and troubling waters that many Republicans seem to be treading lately.

Earlier this month, she had a hand in derailing the candidacy of a moderate Republican running in the NY 23 Congressional race, by endorsing the more conservative candidate -- a move that appears to have backfired. A Democrat was elected for that particular seat for the first time in more than 120 years.

Her book, "Going Rogue: An American Life," is poised to be a best seller. Even before the book's official release, Sarah Palin is being criticized for her propensity to depart from truth and reality. Those criticisms are more than justifiable.

In it, she claims to be proud for resisting the offer of federal stimulus money. She describes Alaska as a "practical, libertarian haven of independent Americans who don't want 'help' from government busybodies."

Mrs. Palin seems to be the only person unaware that Alaska is one of the states MOST DEPENDENT on federal subsidies. In 2005, the state received $1.84 for every dollar it sent to Washington. Alaska continues to receive subsidies at 18 times the national average. The state does not collect sales or income taxes. The state does collect oil revenue. Alaska is one of the few states currently running budget surpluses. That's no small wonder, and easily achievable considering that Anchorage banks $4,800 in subsidies each year, on average, for every man, woman, and child who resides in that state.

Steve Schmidt, one of John McCain's senior campaign advisors, is cited in the book as one of many who "forced" her to "stick with a script" continuously provided to her. Schmidt stated this past week that the campaign "repeatedly" had to little choice but to intervene to keep her from lying and misleading people while on the campaign trail.

Two of the more troubling lies involve the her claim to have rejected the funds to build the "Bridge to Nowhere", and deceptive statements about her husband Todd's assocation with the Alaska Independence Party.

If she can continue to keep herself in the limelight, she will attempt a run for President in 2012, but it will not be with the Republican Party's blessing. The woman appears to be on a rampage to burn all of her bridges, a tactic that will get her nowhere, and fast.

Sarah Palin is like a tornado. She knows just how to wow you until you are dizzy, dazed, and disheveled. Many people are blown away when she makes an appearance. And for sure, there's no denying that she sure knows how to bring down a house.

And very much like a tornado, her level of commitment is short lived, indiscriminate, and quite destructive.

I'm not going to read the book because I'm not interested. Same goes for anyone who's alive and writes their life story. Barack Obamas two books rank right up there. Where those books self serving? Smells like I've stepped in a big pile of hypocrisy.

alprova, Where did you cut and paste that from?

Jhenry states, "Barack Obamas two books rank right up there. Where those books self serving? Smells like I've stepped in a big pile of hypocrisy"

Uh, not quite, Jhenry.

First, President Obama actually WROTE the books himself, and secondly, they were books of substance.

His first book, 'Dreams from My Father', is a memoir focusing on personal issues of race, identity, and community. One review (ironically) begins like this:"This is not the usual self-serving 'autobiography' of a politician that was ghost-written by his speechwriter and rushed into print just before the primaries. It's a lyrical, beautifully written memoir, of a young man's struggles to come to terms with his heritage as a child of biracial parents."

His second (and more famous) book, 'The Audacity of Hope', explores political themes and shares personal views on faith and values and offers a vision of the future.

Obama’s writing has served up philosophy, personal exploration, and meaningful contributions to the public discourse on important social issues. Sarah Palin’s upcoming book is apparently little more than a spiteful, self-serving, attempt to repair a public image based on incompetence and ineptitude.

Their books are a perfect reflection of the individuals, Obama attempts to enlighten, whereas Palin simply attempts to inflame.

Ho-Hum. They're still runnin' scared, I see.

Next!

Jhenry whines, "alprova, Where did you cut and paste that from?"

What makes you think he did, Jhenry. I know it's difficult for someone who can barely make a noun and verb agree, to argue with a man who thinks in complete paragraphs, but you don't have accuse him of copying the words of others.

It's much easier to write for yourself when your able to think for yourself.

If the Alaskan Independence party had it way, the subsidies from us taxpayers would stop, so two of alprova's complaints cancel each other out.
My boss, a sharp guy, remarked last fall: I don't know if Sarah Palin would do any better than the other guys, but I do know she'd look better doing it. I've paid only casual attention to the lady, but I recall she had higher in-state approval ratings than any other governor, so I guess the people who knew thought she was doing something right. And rather than drift along in a job she was succeeding in, she tackled a big new job at short notice. And resigning did at least give Alaska a smooth succession (which is one advantage of monarchies over democracies: Prince Charles, for instance, has had 60 years of training for his next job, which is 59 more years than our President has had.) And how can a less qualified libertarian be a better leader than a more intelligent, harder-working liberal? (Think Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, for instance.) Because libertarians let everyone else use their own brains, but liberals want to do all our thinking for us. Obama had, what, 2000 bureaucrats to choose in 90 days, from Cabinet level on down, and he wants to pick the President of GM as well? He's making work for himself. Libertarians can concentrate of doing a few things well. If Mrs Palin knows this, and she may or may not, she can make a better President than anyone since Reagan, if not Coolidge, if not Polk. Freedom works because it lets (and makes) everyone work; liberalism does not work because it pays some people to not work and pays others to interfere with workers. And because Jesus Christ lived freely in a not-very-free world; he didn't seize power--politics was not his first or 2nd line, as it was for Marx and Mohammed--but he didn't let the only superpower of those days push Him around; in historical fact he reversed its death sentence. !!! So Mrs Palin might be a good President serving us all well, though I do not guarantee this.

Exactly why they are running scared, AndrewLohr.

rolando writes, " Ho-Hum. They're still runnin' scared, I see."

Oh, come on, rolando, this Sarah Palin book is a big story. You'll be seeing a lot of coverage of this book and her related book tour in the days and weeks to come, so I hope your boredom is not unbearable. But it's not Clay who keeps dredging up this sludge, it's Sarah Palin herself who keeps throwing it out there.

Seeing that she currently has the second-highest unfavorable rating of any national political figure (second, only to John Edwards)*, for you to dismiss any criticism her as fear for the left, is laughable.

*Oct. 19 Gallup Poll

Sarah Palin poses no threat to us on the left. In fact, we're quite thankful for the important part she played in the election of Barack Obama. The only fear that the left ever had of this woman, was the prospect that she might be one heartbeat away from the presidency.

It's a way for her to pay off her legal debts and maybe build a war chest for a possible campaign drive in 2012. Nothing wrong with a little entrepreneurship. I'm sure it will make millions. I hope she runs. I miss the Tina Fey SNL skits. Scared? Hardly.

AndrewLohr-

You only paid 'casual attention' to Sarah Palin? How is that even possible when it involves a woman who refuses to be ignored?

As for your boss's comment, "I don't know if Sarah Palin would do any better than the other guys, but I do know she'd look better doing it." Well, I'm not altogether sure this supports your claim that he's a 'sharp guy'.

I must give you credit on your defense of Sarah Palin, however. Never in my life have I heard 'dereliction of duty' described in such noble and honorable terms. Just a note to someone who (admittedly) paid only 'casual attention' to the woman: at the time of Governor Palin's resignation, not only was her approval rating in Alaska just slightly over 50% (down from the mid-80% level that the McCain campaign touted), but her relationship with the state legislature and even her own state Republican party had become seriously strained.

She didn't quit her job because she was a success, she quit because she was a failure. I do agree with you that quitting is not always a bad thing. I may not see it in the glowing light that you do, but I can say that if Sarah Palin was my governor, I would support her resignation wholeheartedly.

There would probably be nothing of any help to anyone on the Self Help shelf written by any liberals I know. They don't want to help. They want everyone to help them. I'm not sure I want Sarah Palin for president but who she stands for to me (and I may be wrong here) are the people that want a chance to help themselves instead of lining up at the government handout trough. If she can make money selling a book that every liberal wants to slam, good for her. If YOU bought the book and then want to critisize her for writing it why would she care? She got your $. As for toonfan's remark about Palin being not threat to the Left, the left is it's own threat.

jhenry wrote; "alprova, Where did you cut and paste that from?"

I didn't. Knock yourself out trying to prove that I did.

Boo hoo. The mainstream media is being mean to me. Wait, how many interviews do I have with them this week to promote my book? Hmmm. LMAO!

Hey, as long as I am here anyway, let me add; most celebrities who write(?) a book use "ghost writers. I have a feeling Ms. Palin had to settle for "Not a Ghost of a Chance" writer.

Oh well, it was funny when I first thought of it. And an aside to Alprova, We're still 'buds'. I hope.

Thank you for your time and attention, Woody

OllieH wrote, "First, President Obama actually WROTE the books himself, and secondly, they were books of substance."

Wrong on the first, he MAY have written one of them, but he did NOT write them both. As for being of substance, please tell us some more funnies cause that one was great.

There is a large chunk of the U.S. population who very much enjoy the directness of Palin. The fact that she doesn't engage in prevarication, double speak, and the old standby of telling one audience one thing and turning around and telling others the direct opposite is very appealing.

There is no doubt that she elicits strong reactions from the left and the right. Slaying sacred cows(moose?) tends to do that.

The hypocrisy in the media about Palin striking back at those who so viciously attacked her, and then diverting their attention when BO uses the power of the White House to lash out at those who criticize him, is delicious.

Any one with their eyes open and their belly emptied of Kool-aide can see that Palin has been the object of a massive effort to de-legitimize her on the national stage. Clay is just playing along, as usual, with the leftist tactics.

As for me, I love the woman. But then I have a special place in my heart for strong conservative ladies who are not afraid to speak their mind.

No matter how hard the far left, and the squishy right tries to run her off, she isn't going away.

AndrewLohr wrote: "If the Alaskan Independence party had it way, the subsidies from us taxpayers would stop, so two of alprova's complaints cancel each other out."

Considering that the maximum percentage of the Alaskan voters who have EVER joined the Independence Party has never exceeded 5% of the population of the state, I don't think that these people speak for ALL Alaskans -- a point that I somehow feel that Sarah Palin is now keenly aware of, and why she has other aspirations at the moment.

"My boss, a sharp guy, remarked last fall: I don't know if Sarah Palin would do any better than the other guys, but I do know she'd look better doing it."

Ann Coulter wrote that women in this country should have their right to vote taken away, because they tend to vote for Democrats.

I have a solution for this problem, which is less drastic than Ann Coulter's unrealistic idea. I would be willing to purchase a lifetime subscription to Playboy for any man who thinks Sarah Palin is qualified to be President, if they are willing to give up voting for our leaders. They could then cast votes every month to select the playmate of the month, giving them an electoral thrill twelve times a year, befitting their current mindset.

If that's what some men are seeking when they cast their votes, why not give them what they want?

"I recall she had higher in-state approval ratings than any other governor, so I guess the people who knew thought she was doing something right."

For awhile, that may well have been true. She nosedived from 89% to just around 50% by the time she resigned. She BOUGHT those earlier poll numbers by passing a windfall profits tax on oil companies operating in Alaska and passing out $1,200 checks to all residents of Alaska on top of the $2,000 checks that all residents receive in oil profits each year.

"And rather than drift along in a job she was succeeding in, she tackled a big new job at short notice."

Well now, there's a twist. I guess it is okay with some people if you run for an elected position that comes with at least a four year commitment, but if something "bigger and newer" comes along, "hey...no problem...go for it."

If you truly dig into the woman's past, her history is not filled with stunning successes. She has abandoned three positions of commitment to grab another rung on a ladder. She has endured charges of corruption in each of all her elected positions, and the woman has been proven to be a pathological liar numerous times. She takes no prisoners either.

If she enters the race this next go-round, she will fail miserably. Poll numbers taken in the past month can only drum up around a 40% at best chance of her being elected President.

By the time people become completely nauseous of seeing her and hearing that shrilly voice of hers over the next six months, I'll bet she will not be able to drum up half that amount of interest.

Woody wrote: "And an aside to Alprova, We're still 'buds'. I hope."

We most certainly are. I take very little that is exchanged personal. I never expect anyone to always agree with me, or to always like what I write. We all have our opinions and they are going to clash from time to time.

I thank you very much for sticking up for me up yonder.

LOL, I'm sorry, but Alaska's proximity to Russia does not give Ms. Palin diplomatic credentials or expertise.

I wonder if it is a pop-up book.

Scotty wrote: "There is a large chunk of the U.S. population who very much enjoy the directness of Palin. The fact that she doesn't engage in prevarication, double speak, and the old standby of telling one audience one thing and turning around and telling others the direct opposite is very appealing."

Oh...so THAT'S what this is all about. As long as you stick to the lie you tell the first time, it's an admirable quality.

And the woman has never been guilty of double-speak?

When Sarah Palin kicked off her sidekick campaign, she was quoted several times attempting to connect with voters by calling Barack Obama’s tax policy "an encroaching, nightmarish, communist government."

"See, under a big government, more tax agenda, what you thought was yours would really start belonging to somebody else, to everybody else. If you thought your income, your property, your inventory, your investments were, were yours, they would really collectively belong to everybody. Obama, Barack Obama has an ideological commitment to higher taxes, and I say this based on his record… Higher taxes, more government, misusing the power to tax leads to government moving into the role of some believing that government then has to take care of us."

In an interview with the New Yorker in September of last year, she dropped this little bomb;

"In Alaska — we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans that own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans."

Every Alaskan receives a $3,200 check from the state each year, $1,200 of which comes from a tax imposed on oil companies while she was Governor of Alaska.

I don't have any problem with Alaskans sharing in the wealth, because it costs a small fortune to live up there, but Sarah Palin seems to be incapable of recognizing her laughable hypocrisy, given that it as transparent as glass.

She might have fooled the voters of Alaska, once...but she's not fooling enough down here, where we are not suffering from semi-permanent brain freeze syndrome six months out of the year.

jackattack wrote: "I wonder if it is a pop-up book."

I think that is the funniest line I have read in quite awhile.

It also deserves a serious reply.

I'm not sure if it has pop-ups in it, but rumor has it that there is a centerfold section in it, that will result in more than a few pop-ups.

I don't know of any book that's not self serving.

Still a funny cartoon.

LOL, what a great cartoon Clay. It never ceases to amaze me that a sizable portion of the population would support this lady. She has shown herself to be generally ignorant of the world outside of Alaska, thin-skinned, and unable to commit herself to even completing her obligations of office.

Of course these same people supported GB who was a "C" student at college, involved in the failure of two "bidnesses", neglected to complete his military service, and was basically unable to string together a coherent sentence. His policies have ruined the country and these people want more of this?

Mrs. Palin's antics are great for the National Inquirer crowd but does anyone seriously think she is competent to run this country? Jeez, wake up people.

For all of the above reasons, the Dems are scared spitless of Gov. Palin. Keep 'em comin', guys. LOL

My favorites:

"...Alaska's proximity to Russia does not give Ms. Palin diplomatic credentials or expertise."

-- As if Community Organizers DO gain "credentials or expertise".

"...there is a centerfold section..." and "...a pop-up book..."

-- We have a Tiny Fay wannabe in our midst. As to the pop-up, Slick Willie used that one.

And the best of the best, "Sarah Palin poses no threat to us on the left."

-- If she was no threat, there would not be anywhere near the snide attack remarks and outright ridicule by the media made about her. Proof? McShame and Huckleberry were promoted and treated as a joke [which they were]. Thompson and whats-his-face -- the Mormon -- as well as Rudy were treated with contempt, barely covered, or basically ignored. All but Gov Palin...she actually scares the bejesus out of you and still does. She is indeed a real threat...and you know it.

Orlando wrote:

"...And the best of the best, "Sarah Palin poses no threat to us on the left."

-- If she was no threat, there would not be anywhere near the snide attack remarks and outright ridicule by the media made about her. Proof? McShame and Huckleberry were promoted and treated as a joke [which they were]. Thompson and whats-his-face -- the Mormon -- as well as Rudy were treated with contempt, barely covered, or basically ignored. All but Gov Palin...she actually scares the bejesus out of you and still does. She is indeed a real threat...and you know it."

And what does the ridiculous criticism of Obama say about the fear on the right? No, I welcome her as the best candidate that the right can come up with in 2012. That will make the re-election of Obama a breeze.

In all honesty, can you really claim (with a straight face) that she is QUALIFIED to be POTUS? If you can, I seriously question your standards.

ricardo - same applies to the Bamster. In fact, he is less qualified than Palin to be President, and this truth is bearing itself out every day.

Ricardo wrote: "And what does the ridiculous criticism of Obama say about the fear on the right?"

Touché!

If "we" are scared "spitless"...however that may be defined, then the Obama bashers are scared six feet under.

alprova - if BHO gets his way on health care, a lot of people are heading six feet under.

jackattack wrote: "I wonder if it is a pop-up book."

In a way, I guess it will be. Her hardcore male supporters will actually have the pop-ups.

Li'lRicky wrote: "And what does the ridiculous criticism of Obama say about the fear on the right?"

In Dear Leader's case -- and that of the Pelosi/Reid Politburo -- the threat is real; there is no shame in fearing a real threat and countering it. It is not paranoia when they are really attacking.

The above holds except for liberals who shamefully fear shadows in the night and see danger everywhere.

Walden wrote: "ricardo - same applies to the Bamster. In fact, he is less qualified than Palin to be President, and this truth is bearing itself out every day."

If that were remotely true, then Sarah Palin would not be where she is at the moment, and Mr. Obama would be residing in Chicago at the moment.

A large majority of this nation not only considered him to be more than qualified to be President, they also voted for him.

The man has been in office for just shy of eleven months. All you people expecting miracles to be performed in this short amount of time are living in Fantasyland. Had the most conservative of President been elected, we would be exactly where we are today. Reagan was no miracle worker and not since before he was elected, has this country been as prosperous or as stable as it once was.

All we have had are a series of roller-coaster rides, up and down. The Democrats are well aware that they have lots to do to convince the people of this nation that they are worthy of the votes that were cast to return this nation back into their hands.

Left, Right, Liberal, or Conservative, we all have a stake in seeing SOMETHING being done by one, the other, or all of them, to stabilize this nation, rather than to argue like kids on a playground over every single issue that comes up.

Most all of us in here are fairly intelligent. We all have our opinions. Pitting one person against another is no way to make a point.

Sarah Palin is a flash in the pan. She's intriguing. She's an enigma. And as soon as something or someone more newsworthy comes along, her fifteen weeks of fame will slip into the sunset like all the other trailblazers who have also ridden down that path so many times.

She is no more comparable to President Obama, than a Nun is to the Pope.

LilRicky spouted: "I seriously question your standards."

Yet you fall over yourself [with leg all a-tingle, no doubt] in praise of a community organizer's so-called "qualifications".

And you would speak of "standards". Sarah has him in pointed shovels.

Walden wrote: "alprova - if BHO gets his way on health care, a lot of people are heading six feet under."

Look around you. Read a little. People are dying every doggone day of the week. Many of them die due to a lack of quality healthcare that they put off or fail to seek because they cannot afford it.

No one, and I mean NO ONE can make the statement you just made with a straight face, because not one person on this planet knows what will be kicked out, passed, and signed by the President.

All that is on the table are a plethora of ideas, concepts, and proposals...some good, some bad.

Until the Senate plays with all of this for many weeks to come and passes their version, you nor I know enough to substantiate any claim, one way or the other.

Until then, why don't we try to set aside our imaginary powers of ESP? We will all have plenty to discuss on the topic soon enough.

Roland wrote: "And you would speak of "standards". Sarah has him in pointed shovels."

It's true...hypocrites DO travel in herds...I always knew they traveled in herds...

Alprova, after reading your last post, I have made up my mind. I want to be just like you when I grow up.

I thought your "pop-up" analogy was great, and then you come with "nun to the Pope" line.

I love it!!!

Woody

Look at all the dirt the AP can dish,

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BUU1580&show_article=1

The entire article is drivel. If BO were held to the same standard he would never have made it through the primaries.

Of course it took eleven writers to come up with this lame article. I wonder how many writers were assigned to "fact check" BO's books? Or, Al Bore's for that matter. Oh, I know the answer already, it is zero.

Anyone here believe that Palin would bow before kings and emperors? (Yes, he did it again.)

alprova - your historical acumen leaves much to be desired. If you think Reagan's presidency marked the beginning of some sort of downturn in American prosperity you are truly crazy. Reagan pulled us away from the brink (to use your buddy Obama's phrase) created by that neutered joke of a President, James Earl Carter. Reagan is the finest thing to happen to this country in many decades. What this country now needs is a new Reagan, a new liberator to put us back on the right track to prosperity. We can do so much better than the low standards set by the left. 2010 will mark the beginning of a new dawn in America.

scooter wrote: "Anyone here believe that Palin would bow before kings and emperors?"

She may not be bowing, but they would definitely see the top of her head.

Scotty, I understand your pain, but the woman is completely responsible for the criticism that she is currently receiving and will certainly receive over the coming weeks. No one forced her to run for political office and no one forced her to write a book.

And I am sorry to contradict you, but President Obama took his share of lumps from the moment he made his announcement to run for office. You cannot blame or the media or the press for not airing or printing theories with no basis. There were plenty of people out there who tried mightily to derail Obama's campaign and reasonable people were simply not impressed with those efforts.

Al Gore has not been spared either. Every last hypocritical statement he has made has been exposed time and again, and rightfully so. I think that you would find that my opinion of Al Gore coincides with yours. His credibility, in my opinion, was shot the minute I learned what his electric bill was on his Heritage, Tennessee home, averaged each month.

I hope we're not going to have a revival of the baseless complaints regarding the President choosing to bow to foreign leaders. I again repeat, and would dearly love for someone to contradict me, but there is not one word of written protocol anywhere that prohibits the President and others who represent this nation, from doing as they doggone please when greeting dignitaries on their soil.

Clearly, our current President is cut from a different cut of cloth and I find the respect he shows towards others on their soil to be quite refreshing. It's very much why the man is in office at the moment.

I'm sick of arrogant people, who think that Americans are totally superior to all others who inhabit this planet.

That last sentence was not directed at anyone in particular. I should have disclaimed that up front.

Walden wrote: "alprova - your historical acumen leaves much to be desired. If you think Reagan's presidency marked the beginning of some sort of downturn in American prosperity you are truly crazy. Reagan pulled us away from the brink (to use your buddy Obama's phrase) created by that neutered joke of a President, James Earl Carter."

This is too far off-topic to debate in this thread. I'd love nothing more than to cite the evidence, but I'm not going to go that far out of bounds.

Later...I promise.

"Reagan is the finest thing to happen to this country in many decades. What this country now needs is a new Reagan, a new liberator to put us back on the right track to prosperity. We can do so much better than the low standards set by the left. 2010 will mark the beginning of a new dawn in America."

I doubt it, and a fantastic reason why I do doubt it, is because the middle and lower income classes have had quite enough of the "trickle down economics" that has come to define the Republican strategy and their design in limiting the vast majority of the wealth of this nation to 1% of those who reside with in it.

ricardo wrote,

"She may not be bowing, but they would definitely see the top of her head."

Was that some lame attempt at a crude, sophomoric sex joke? I'm not exactly sure, but then I don't have any trouble discussing a physically attractive(meh) woman without dropping into a sex centered caveman subroutine.

Alprova,

"the woman is completely responsible for the criticism that she is currently receiving and will certainly receive over the coming weeks."

How ya figure? Because she dares to write and speak her side of the narrative? Heaven forbid a conservative woman do such a thing!

"Clearly, our current President is cut from a different cut of cloth and I find the respect he shows towards others on their soil to be quite refreshing."

Too bad he shows no respect for a very large chunk of people right here in this nation, and holds a certain contempt for the very ideals upon which this country was founded. But then that seems to be the "in" thing on the left.

"I'm sick of arrogant people, who think that Americans are totally superior to all others who inhabit this planet."

I'm looking for leaders who do not believe they should show subservience to foreign monarchs. If I were to think we are superior to others, I'd be rattling on about those monarchs having NOT bowed to BO. I'm sick of arrogant people who know nothing other than what the leftist media deigns to inform them of, and yet they still believe they know what is what.

Palin gives voice to the worldview of a very large portion of U.S. citizens. The media and those on the left(But then I repeat myself) can nit-pick and sling mud all they like, and all they will accomplish is to further discredit themselves in the eyes of much of the populace.

Sarah Palin seams to be a good and fair reflection of the breadth and depth of thought on the far right. At least the far right has taken her into their firm embrace. At this point Ms Palin has too little time on the national stage to tell us whether she has the strength of character and intellect to move beyond her initial serendipitous fifteen minutes of fame.

"Going Rogue" by it's very name,would not seem to be a strong step forward if she truly wants to be a national figure. We shall see.

nucanuck,

I think the "Going Rogue" name is meant to convey the idea that she is not toeing the RNC line and is instead ignoring those voices which have made such a mess of the party and is going her own way.

I saw a recent picture of her at some function or another with a copy of Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" stuck under her arm. That's a dang good path to follow, as far as I'm concerned.

Scotty wrote: "How ya figure? Because she dares to write and speak her side of the narrative? Heaven forbid a conservative woman do such a thing!"

It's not the conservative part of the woman that bothers me. It's the rampant hypocrisy and the pathological lying that turns me completely off to the woman.

"Too bad he shows no respect for a very large chunk of people right here in this nation, and holds a certain contempt for the very ideals upon which this country was founded. But then that seems to be the "in" thing on the left."

You have no basis whatsoever for making that charge. It can't be backed up any better than all the other baseless charges that people lodge against the man.

I suggest that anyone who has all this proof that the man is in violation of the oath of his office, have the courage of their convictions and to file a lawsuit in Federal Court.

Do you know why you or anyone else has not or will not make that charge official? Because you know that it would be laughed out of court.

You're not being intellectually honest as to why you dislike President Obama.

"I'm looking for leaders who do not believe they should show subservience to foreign monarchs. If I were to think we are superior to others, I'd be rattling on about those monarchs having NOT bowed to BO."

You read WAY too much into a bow. What more can I say? Are the commies invading California as we speak, energized and authorized by these Monarchs as a result of the "subservience" allegedly shown to them by the POTUS?

You guys that eat this stuff up are becoming a little more than pathetic.

"I'm sick of arrogant people who know nothing other than what the leftist media deigns to inform them of, and yet they still believe they know what is what."

Oh...I see. Because I don't spend my time scouring sources of information that have all the credibility of Art Bell, I am uninformed?

You know, not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes things are just exactly as they appear to be. But that will never stop those who have far too much time on their hands from either manufacturing evidence and disseminating it for all to see, or believing it.

"Palin gives voice to the worldview of a very large portion of U.S. citizens. The media and those on the left(But then I repeat myself) can nit-pick and sling mud all they like, and all they will accomplish is to further discredit themselves in the eyes of much of the populace."

Okay. I buy that completely. You think we have our Messiah, and now you have declared publicly that Sarah Palin is your Messiah.

I hope your Messiah goes up against our Messiah in 2012.

nucanuk stated: "...Ms Palin has too little time on the national stage to tell us whether she has the strength of character and intellect..."

Yet he would worship a Community Organizer as the epitome of both character and intellect...a man who bows and scrapes before foreign heads of state.

Yours won't make it that far, alprova -- impeachment is the key word.

Ours hasn't Returned yet.

alprova, being untruthful right from the start of his diatribe, wrote: "Riding high on the somewhat successful attempt to derail health care reform by popularizing the phrase "death panels," used to describe medical care professionals who would individually guide people in how to create a living will....."

Absolutely untrue. Her reference to "death panels" had absolutely nothing to do with professionals guiding people in how to create a living will and you know it. It's been discussed here before.

Palin's accurate use of the term "death panel" refers to the setting up of government-controlled "commissions" who will be the arbiters of what medical procedures can and cannot be performed, based on the procedure's cost relative to the age and projected quality of life for the patient. Thus, a death panel - for those who are too old or too infirm for the government to okay a life-saving procedure.

Then alprova spun this yarn: "Earlier this month, she had a hand in derailing the candidacy of a moderate Republican running in the NY 23 Congressional race, by endorsing the more conservative candidate -- a move that appears to have backfired. A Democrat was elected for that particular seat for the first time in more than 120 years."

First off, Scozzafavva is anything but a moderate Republican. She is a Pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-card check liberal who was supported by the far-left Working Families Party (started by an ACORN bigshot) and who endorsed the Democrat candidate when she realized there was no way she herself could win. Calling her a moderate Republican is like calling alprova someone who gets his facts straight. Both are incorrect statements.

Second, the conservative candidate conceded as a result of misleading vote counts. Turns out there is a re-canvassing going on this week and there is the possibliity that the Democrat may not, in fact, be entitled to the seat and could be removed from it. The election has not yet been certified by the state. Of course, the current status may not be reversed either, but blaming Palin for the initial result is ridiculous. If Scozzofavva had actually been a moderate Republican, there would not have been a need for NY's conservative party to run their own candidate. http://aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10054&posts=1

SCOTTYM

Are you suggesting that Sarah Palin's political future might lie outside the Republican Party?

alprova says he didn't cut and paste his information, even though the EXACT SAME verbiage was used in an AP news story today:

alprova wrote: "Alaska is one of the states most dependent on federal subsidies, receiving $1.84 for each dollar it pays Washington."

Which just happens to be the EXACT SAME verbiage used here: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20091115sarah_palin_goes_rogue_with_the_facts/

alprova wrote: "In 2005, the state received $1.84 for every dollar it sent to Washington."

Which just happens to be the EXACT SAME verbiage used here: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/14/us/politics/AP-US-Palin-Book-Fact-Check.html?pagewanted=2

Nothing wrong with cutting and pasting (although posting the link from which the info was cut would be nice), but why lie about it?

Yes Rolando,we have a POTUS with strong character and intellect who handles himself well on the world stage.

That is not to say I endorse all,or even most of his positions,just that I respect his efforts in a most difficult time.

For you to be critical is one thing,but you are often mean spirited and disingenuous. What possible good can come from that?

SCOTTYM wrote: "Of course it took eleven writers to come up with this lame article. I wonder how many writers were assigned to "fact check" BO's books? Or, Al Bore's for that matter. Oh, I know the answer already, it is zero."

Instead, CNN fact-checks a Saturday Night Live skit because it has an anti-Obama flavor to it. Give me a break.

alprova wrote: "It's not the conservative part of the woman that bothers me. It's the rampant hypocrisy and the pathological lying that turns me completely off to the woman."

Yet you enthusiastically support the current occupant of the White House, who exhibits those traits on a daily basis. Go figure.

SWCOTTYM wrote: "Too bad he shows no respect for a very large chunk of people right here in this nation, and holds a certain contempt for the very ideals upon which this country was founded. But then that seems to be the "in" thing on the left."

To which alprova replied: "You have no basis whatsoever for making that charge.

Well, Here's a start: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/11/the-man-who-despises-america

Speaking of hypocrites, this one bears re-posting:

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/11/flashback-hypocrisy-candidate-obama-rips-hillary-clinton-for-wanting-to-force-people-to-buy-health-i.html

Lightnup wrote: "Absolutely untrue. Her reference to "death panels" had absolutely nothing to do with professionals guiding people in how to create a living will and you know it. It's been discussed here before."

Yes it has, and it's a shame that you are attempting to call me a liar. Remember, I am ALWAYS ready to back up my words. Let's see what you are made of now.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434

"Calling her a moderate Republican is like calling alprova someone who gets his facts straight. Both are incorrect statements."

You've been caught with your pants down too many times to begin to attack my credibility.

"Turns out there is a re-canvassing going on this week and there is the possibliity that the Democrat may not, in fact, be entitled to the seat and could be removed from it."

It will not happen. Hoffman conceded.

On another subject: "Nothing wrong with cutting and pasting (although posting the link from which the info was cut would be nice), but why lie about it?"

Look you jerk, I was accused of cutting and pasting the entire post, not facts presented within two sentences.

Is this the really the BEST you can come up with?

"Speaking of hypocrites, this one bears re-posting:"

Before you people get all indignant, let's wait to see just how badly the wool was pulled over your eyes. The House bill is not the end of the story on health care.

Patience...patience....

SCOTTYM writes, "Wrong on the first, he MAY have written one of them, but he did NOT write them both. "

You're not actually going to trot out the theory that Bill Ayers was the ghostwriter of 'Dream from My Father', are you?

I've heard it all before. The Ayers ghostwriting claim (that was initiated by conspiracy enthusiast and hack right-wing writer, Jack Cashill) is speculation at best, and has gained little momentum over time. If you'd like to read a review of the evidence from an Oxford Scholar who the GOP tried to enlist in this smear job just weeks before last fall's election, you should go to:

http://tinyurl.com/64nzzo

Or, here's the article about the GOP contacting the Oxford professor:

http://tinyurl.com/5trzug

Believe what you want to, SCOTTYM. Obamaphobes are going to believe what they believe, regardless of reality. But don't try to pass off speculation as fact.

As for the 'Dreams From My Father' conspiracy, I think your time would be better spent trying to prove that the president was actually born in Kenya. At least that conspiracy doesn't involve diagraming sentences and comparing word-length frequencies.

Man, there's been some midnight oil burned on this thread!!

Alprova, two words: lighten up.

Re the latest (un)Presidential bow:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/on-president-obamas-bow-to-the-japanese-emperor-an-academic-friend-writes-that-both-the-left-and-the-right-are-wrong.html

Fairly even handed take, but I still say it was weak-kneed, and he really ought to quit that stuff. He's like the beta dog that comes across a pack of other dogs and immediately gets on his back to signify he's not trying to take over the alpha's position. Go ahead Alprova, quote me and give your analysis on that one. Can't wait.

To the right of Palin's books, you can also find works such as Obama's "The Audacity of Hope", Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", any book by Jimmy Carter, and "Political Lobbyists for Dummies".

Almost any book written by a politician is self-serving. Many politicians today are, unfortunately, self-serving. How else would they get re-elected?

Yes, I am being facetious.

I give credit for Palin speaking her mind, but in no way do I see her being a good choice for a Presidential nominee in 2012. If a conservative was elected into office in 2012, she may possibly find herself in a position within the Presidential staff.

alprove wrote: "...it's a shame that you are attempting to call me a liar. Remember, I am ALWAYS ready to back up my words. Let's see what you are made of now."

alprova, you make is too easy. Here is Palin's ORIGINAL Facebook entry - written 5 days before the one you linked to - which proves you dead wrong. No reference to end-of-life counseling or living wills, only to judgements about being worthy of health care,i.e., the cost/benefit objective of death panels.

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434

That's what I'm made of now....facts, not spin.

"You've been caught with your pants down too many times to begin to attack my credibility."

Oh please.

alprova wrote about [If Obama was less qualified to be President than Palin]: "If that were remotely true, then Sarah Palin would not be where she is at the moment, and Mr. Obama would be residing in Chicago at the moment."

1. Palin was not running against Obama. We can only speculate on the effect it would have had on the election if Palin headed the ticket, but I suspect it would have energized the Republicans far more than having McCain at the top. McCain is yet another failed example of what happens when moderates are chosen to represent the conservative view.

"A large majority of this nation not only considered him [Obama] to be more than qualified to be President, they also voted for him."

Yeah, and a majority of this nation can't find Poland on a map.

If you take away all the dummies who voted for Obama based purely on his skin color (reverse racism) and a belief that their rent would now be paid by the President, we'd have a different person in the White House today. (Don't make me drag up all the videos of knuckleheads who voted for Obama but didn't know who the VP choice was or where Obama stood on a single issue. I love the videos of people being given McCain/Palin's stand on issues but being told that those were Obama's stands and all of them going, "yeah, that's why I voted for him 'cuz I agree with him on those things." Sheesh.)

And remind me, what city Obama was Mayor of, and what state it was that Obama was Governor of. It slips my mind when trying to come up with reasons why Obama was more qualified to be President. All that comes to mind is good teleprompter use...and an uninformed liberal electorate kept in the dark by a liberal media.

Now liberals are calling for a separate conservative bestseller list because conservative authors CONSISTENTLY dominate the NY Times and other book lists. (Morris, O'Reilly, Coulter, Levin, Beck, etc., etc.)

Other than to family, staffers and company employees, how many copies of her last book did Nancy Pelois sell?

Conservatives apparently like to read and be informed rather than allow the likes of Katie Couric and the girls of "The View" to shape their opinions.

O'Reilly's books are quite good, in this liberal's opinion. He has lots of really interesting things to say, and although I don't agree with everything, he supports his ideas well. Coulter's books are not worth the toilet paper they are printed on-full of misinformation that she herself probably doesn't believe but will say to sell books (she doesn't strike me as stupid-she is laughing all the way to the bank) I will read Palin's book because I wonder what makes her tick. She was the reason McCain lost my vote, which would have been my first republican vote ever. I felt that he was no longer in control of his campaign-the neocons had hijacked it. I will read Obama's book too, because I am amazed at his success and his obvious intelligence and steady nature.

I am not sure Beck is someone I want to read. He seems a bit unstable, but perhaps that's just an act for the camera.

A work of Art Lightnup, work of art. Copy that for posterity. When I was reading alprova's rebuttals and replies, ending in total disintegration and culminating in hurling an insult or two, I kept thinking, wow, a Therapist or Shrink would be labelling this one as a true Projectionist. Psychology 101 :)

Sad thing is it doesn't matter how much one explains, elucidates, provides evidence of fact, true experience, etc; those blinded by their own arrogance (which are many here and out there), will continue to evade, side-swipe, spin, manipulate and outright just lie. They will continue to call us fearful although we certainly fear no man or woman. Call us names-who cares?

The real, sincere people they will never get, the ones lying to them and misleading them will be their heroes. What's the name of Glen Beck's new book"? Arguing with Idiots? Apt. Onward with La Guerra y La Paz.

It sure is hot in here, maybe it's time to look into one of them there fancy digital thermosatas. Anyway, we can only thank John McCain for bringing us Sarah Palin. Like her or not, she will be with us for a while. I cannot blame her for being hostile toward certain people or groups. The media had a field day at her and her families expense. Remember when Sen. McCain thought he pulled off such a big coup with the Democratic Hillary supporters after Mrs. Clinton did not receive the democratic nomination??? He was so BRILLIANT that he brought along a beautiful woman as his VP choice. He was certain this alone would propell him into the WHITE HOUSE!! I guess he forgot that you need more than a dumb look and DUH" %$@. Well, life brings us things in diffrent ways and there my fellow Americans is how you all were introduced to Mrs. Sarah Palin!!! Is she prepared to lead our nation, I don't have a clue. Was George Bush, H or W, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, still clueless. Are we enjoying our "NEW WORLD ORDER"???? Now there I do have an opinion. We are certain of one thing, whoever decides to take a swing at this hostile battleground we refer to as "AN ELECTION" will bring with them the K street crowd and all the money that follows it around. Until this is forced to the curb, I don't see much hope for anything resembling "CHANGE" If there seems to be one major flaw we as humans suffer from, I believe GREED is on the top of the list!!! I'm just sayin

has anyone considered that whether or not Palin has a "snowball's chance" of gaining popularity, the Republican Party is already distancing itself from her more every day? The Reps are very bright - they will not invest their future on someone who prides themself on 'going rogue'. The party itself will suffer significantly if she splits its' voters on any election day - that's already been shown in NY and VA. Although I am not a Rep, I have respect for many of their intelligent and thoughtful members. They will not waste their energy or money supporting her - in fact, I expect they are already discussing how to take down her 'shooting star' popularity. It's a loooooong time until the next campaign starts for real - plenty of time for her to self-destruct,and she will - even without an organized effort to shut her down. By campaign time, I predict that no party or group of significant clout will allow her to associate herself with them. This person wants to be the President of the United States but she can't even endure a full term as Governor. What would she do under REAL Whitehouse pressure? She would collapse within the first 100 days and her 'handlers' would be running the country.... This is NOT what I want to happen to my country.

Add "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore to the Self Serving rack.

Alprova wrote,

"You think we have our Messiah, and now you have declared publicly that Sarah Palin is your Messiah."

I've never said, nor even alluded to anything of the sort. It says alot about you that you'd think that. From what I've seen it is the BO supporters who do indeed believe him to be some kind of new age messiah. The "faith without works" thing comes to mind. The peace prize for doing nothing. The ethereal backlit photos in the popular media. Disgusting.

But Palin now, with apologies to Adam Sandler,

"My media says girls is the debil!"

I see Clay hasn't changed. Who doesn't write a "for profit book" (or draw "for profit cartoons" for that matter) that isn't self-serving? Really guys, disagree with her politics all you want, but quit being hypocrites.

Alprova, VERY WELL STATED! THANK YOU. SAVES ME TIME TYPING.

thoughtfulcitizen wrote: "....They will not waste their energy or money supporting her....plenty of time for her to self-destruct,and she will - even without an organized effort to shut her down. By campaign time, I predict that no party or group of significant clout will allow her to associate herself with them...."

Well, if what you say turns out to be correct, why do liberals get "all wee-wee" about Palin every time she sticks her head outside? Why does the elite media focus more attention on tearing Palin down than they do finding out what's actually in the House or Senate health care bills, or connecting the dots between the White House and the thugs at SEIU?

As SCOTTYM pointed out, the AP went so far as to assign eleven crack "fact-checkers" to dissect her book and expose all the blatant falsehoods. And what did those 11 super-sleuths find in the 400-page book? Not much. 6 items, not even 1 per sleuth. And even those are iffy. Here's the story: http://constitutionclub.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/ap-assigns-11-fact-checkers-to-palins-book-finds-six-errors/

Lightnup wrote: "alprova, you make is too easy. Here is Palin's ORIGINAL Facebook entry - written 5 days before the one you linked to - which proves you dead wrong. No reference to end-of-life counseling or living wills, only to judgements about being worthy of health care,i.e., the cost/benefit objective of death panels."

I see. You're one of those kind of weasels. You took it upon yourself to challenge me, and when you had the evidence shoved in your face that substantiated my words, you do what? You link to a post she wrote five days prior to the one that I referred to. Why not link to something she wrote while Mayor of Wasilla? It would be just as relevant, as far as you are concerned.

"That's what I'm made of now....facts, not spin."

No Sir. You are a twirling ballerina, adorned in a pink tu-tu and pointy pink slippers.

"Palin was not running against Obama."

The heck she wasn't. Every speech she fumbled through was directed at him. It was tough at times to figure out who was running for President on the Republican ticket. I even remember people on the right suggesting that McCain step aside.

"Yeah, and a majority of this nation can't find Poland on a map."

I'm quite sure that the people who are interested enough to want to know where it is on a map, will find it. The thing is, you picked a laughable analogy. Who cares where Poland is. Half of the Poles that used to live there are in Chicago.

I'd love to surprise Mrs. Palin with a globe and ask HER to find Poland. I'm not sure she has a clue what Continent it is located in. But that would be okay I suppose with you, as you consider most people in this country too stupid to locate it on a map.

vtg1955 wrote: "Alprova, VERY WELL STATED! THANK YOU. SAVES ME TIME TYPING."

Thank goodness. Reading all that unfounded crap in CAPS would be worse than a waterboarding.

Scotty wrote: "I've never said, nor even alluded to anything of the sort."

Yes...and very loudly too.

Lightnup seems somewhat touchy about this SUBJECT Alprova!

alprova wrote: "when you had the evidence shoved in your face that substantiated my words, you do what? You link to a post she wrote five days prior to the one that I referred to. Why not link to something she wrote while Mayor of Wasilla? It would be just as relevant, as far as you are concerned."

Are you kidding? Try to comprehend this alprova. I will type it very slowly so that you can keep up.

I linked to the post from five days earlier because THAT was when she first used the term "death panels," THAT was the post that got the Dems in such a tizzy about the phrase and in THAT post, she was clearly not talking about living wills, she was talking about people being deemed unworthy of receiving medical treatment. Clear so far, or do I need to start over and use pictures?

You stated, falsely, that Palin had been, and I quote, "popularizing the phrase "death panels," used to describe medical care professionals who would individually guide people in how to create a living will." That is not what she was describing in her initial use of the term "death panels."

AFTER Obama and the White House crowd realized they were exposed, they changed the discussion to end-of-life counseling and living wills, crying, "She's calling end-of-life counseling "death panels. That's not fair. Whaaa Whaaa." (I only included the Whaaa Whaaa because you seem so fond of using it in your attempts at a witty retort.) Still with me here?

Now, to respond to Obama, she does address living wills and end-of-life counseling, in the post that you linked to, but she does not even use the term "Death Panels" (except in the subject line to address Obama's derision of her original post).

Palin writes: "Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS [lightnup's caps for alprova's benefit] concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”

Period. End of story. Palin DID NOT use "Death Panels" to describe living wills, as you claim.

I called you on it and all you can do is pretend you don't understand why I linked to her original use of the term? How lame.

Jeez, was all this really necessary just because you can't say, "Oh sorry, I guess I used a little too much spin on that one."

alprova wrote: "No Sir. You are a twirling ballerina, adorned in a pink tu-tu and pointy pink slippers."

No comment necessary, the author's mental state speaks for itself.

Lightnup, since you're taking Palin's side on this, and since you are defending her comments, could you please show me where in the original bill that these death panels are mentioned (with a full reference so that it may be viewed in full context)?

Perhaps you are right that Palin did not mean death panels as health care teams and lawyers and family members who meet to discuss end of life issues.

But conservatives who touted this have a big problem with perception. Here's why.

Palin said that there were death panels. When the president and others said in no uncertain terms that the so-called death panels were end of life discussions, then Palin and other conservatives had a choice: drop the death panel claim or continue it by proving it.

She didn't drop it. And she didn't prove it. She continued to charge that there were death panels, without proof. So when Democrats said "end of life discussion," Palin responded "death panel".

This dichotomy tells the public that she thinks they are the same.

Clinging to a non-verified claim makes her sound more like a UFO enthusiast. She sees a light in the sky and can't think of one other logical conclusion than it's a UFO. Maybe she's right.

Some people will believe her because you can't prove her wrong.

The death panel case is a little different. Language in the bill is not a flash of light. It's there in the old drafts which many people have.

Perhaps all of this could be cleared up if she stayed on message and showed the text of the document which clearly said that a government panel would decide who would get to live and who would denied treatment because their lives weren't "worth" saving.

But where is the evidence?

If it's so obvious why haven't you quoted it yourself?

Why hasn't she?

I'm not saying this language was not in the bill. I'm saying I haven't seen it. I'm saying that Sarah Palin says it's there, but doesn't show me the language.

To win the credibility battle, you have to support your accusations. They can't just be theory.

I'm not taking a side against Palin on this issue, or you, Lightnup. For all I know, this language really may be there. If it is, kudos to those for getting it out of the current bill.

Still, I'm truly asking you to show the where in the bill it said that.

If you can do that, perhaps your support of Palin on this would have some teeth.

Convince me with the bill. Prove Palin right.

It should be so easy, I'm shocked that it's not been done. I've searched conservative websites for references haven't haven't found them.

If you can't prove her right, tell me why. If you need a copy of the bill, I think Clara has it.

Lightnup wrote: "You stated, falsely, that Palin had been, and I quote, 'popularizing the phrase "death panels,' used to describe medical care professionals who would individually guide people in how to create a living will." That is not what she was describing in her initial use of the term "death panels."

It was not a false statement. Sarah Palin removed the page that the link was supposed to take you to. Fortunately, the entire posting that I was attempting to link to, and that can no longer be found on HER Facebook pages, was preserved intact on the "Women For Sarah Palin" webpage, second story;

http://womenforsarahpalin.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/08/13/index.html

"Straight Talk: Sarah Palin on the Death Panels"

"...Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care. ..."

"...The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients..."

"...Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign..."

Read the entire post. Then come back and call me a liar.

"Period. End of story. Palin DID NOT use "Death Panels" to describe living wills, as you claim."

You have such a selective memory.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090813/pl_politico/26078

"I called you on it and all you can do is pretend you don't understand why I linked to her original use of the term? How lame.

Jeez, was all this really necessary just because you can't say, 'Oh sorry, I guess I used a little too much spin on that one.'..."

Go pounce salt weasel. The woman has been credited across the media with taking the phrase and running it into the ground, and no amount of denial on your part with change the fact that for weeks, that's all she wrote and spoke.

I know it. The White House knows it. Most of America knows it. You're the only one who doesn't remember it.

Here Lightnup....refresh your feeble memory;

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BKUE5O0&show_article=1

Pay close attention to the LAST sentence that Senator John McCain offered;

http://www.videosift.com/video/McCain-Agrees-With-Sarah-Palin-On-Death-Panel-Myth

And here's a little story that the American press missed;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6846041.ece

If you need further reminding, please do not hesitate to request it. I'll be happy to post as many references as may be necessary to refresh your memory.

moonpie wrote: "Convince me with the bill. Prove Palin right."

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. You have totally missed the point of the discussion here. Nowhere in this thread have I or alprova discussed whether there is or is not language in any of the proposals regarding death panels. Nor have we discussed whether she was or was not correct about death panels. Frankly, it isn't even germain to the discussion at hand.

alprova claimed Palin popularized the use of "death panels" to describe professionals giving guidance about living wills. That is blatantly untrue. She used the term only to refer to the prospect of people being deemed unworthy to receive medical treatment, a la (in her words) "death panels" for those who are denied. Liberals attempted to reframe the discussion (much as you are trying to reframe this discussion) to say she was referring to living will guidance and end-of-life counseling, which was never the case.

"To win the credibility battle, you have to support your accusations."

That ship has sailed. I've already won the credibility battle and supported my accusations just fine. Whether Palin was justified or not in using the "death panel" term is an entirely different topic.

You know, Moonpie is a fine soul. He or she, (sorry, I've never been able to determine Moonpie's gender) does a fantastic job of staying neutral most of the time, and was extremely kind to you in asking for a little clarity.

Your decision is to attack Moonpie. Classic.

"alprova claimed Palin popularized the use of "death panels" to describe professionals giving guidance about living wills. That is blatantly untrue."

Incredible. No really... You're going to sit there, in light of all that proves the woman specifically referenced Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, diabolically twisting every tenet contained in that section to have connotations that were never implied, and are continuing to call me a liar?

Sarah Palin has more credibility at this point than you do, and trust me, that's no compliment being handed to either one of you.

"She used the term only to refer to the prospect of people being deemed unworthy to receive medical treatment, a la (in her words) "death panels" for those who are denied."

Cite the source of your information. Make sure it was written by HER and posted during the month of August, when the controversy was ongoing.

"Liberals attempted to reframe the discussion (much as you are trying to reframe this discussion) to say she was referring to living will guidance and end-of-life counseling, which was never the case."

Lightnup, I am categorically and without any reservation whatsoever now calling YOU an intentional liar on this issue.

You're apparently one of those people who refuses to back down, regardless of ANY evidence that clearly puts you in complete contradiction with the facts.

Your credibility just hit zero.

Moonpie eloquently stated: "To win the credibility battle, you have to support your accusations."

You retorted with: "That ship has sailed. I've already won the credibility battle and supported my accusations just fine. Whether Palin was justified or not in using the "death panel" term is an entirely different topic."

No offense, but you haven't offered enough "support" to provide enough thread to repair a quarter-inch hole in your jockey strap.

Lightnup, I understood the argument you and alprova were having.

I think when Obama says living will and she says death panel this dichotomy makes it seem like they are talking about the same thing.

That's a significant point.

Since she hasn't offered proof of death panels (to my knowledge), I have to assume that she doesn't know the difference, or she doesn't want to acknowledge the difference.

I thought perhaps since you supported her so strongly on this issue that you knew something I did not. I asked you for information regarding this.

Show me the UFO, that's all I'm asking.

We can then look to see if it's alien space ship or a weather balloon.

I vote we put alprova and Lightnup in one of those mixed martial arts fight octagons in some skimpy shorts and see who wins!!

To move away from the issue whether Sarah said death panels or not; I remember one of the bills put forward this summer/fall definitely had language requesting a "Monitoring Board" be set up to examine necessary patient treatments and whether to approve the TX's or not. I'm searching for a link but I know it was read by some pols and brought up at the time (by some press outlets).

Technically, Sarah was correct because the evidence supports just what these 'monitoring boards do' and that they are solely run by Gov't Bureaucrats. Those, like myself and millions of others in Europe, Canada, UK, former Soviet countries, etc., know what this means. We've heard the clever words and how they hide the true meanings of what they intend to do.

There's no way under a completely gov't supported health plan or even a partial gov't/private program that 1) the Gov't won't interfere with every aspect of your life/health-and your doctors business with you. It does and it will. 2) the demand will not become so great that all types of rationing will happen out of necessity-either money runs out and/or there are never enough medical personnel-especially good ones. It will be reality.

Guess who falls by the wayside first? It is the elderly and the disabled. Under all marxist/socialist/communist/dictatorships, the 'weak' are throw-aways. Atheists/secularists/darwinists (like Hitler) call this "survival of the fittest". This is the endgame.

I've stated this before many times. What needs to happen here in the US, is we need to continue doing our own research and speaking out against haste and spending on something too big too ignore, yet it has become the sole distraction in our nation at a time when we need more jobs to keep the people working and moving forward.

Dr. Lantie Jordanby-Quinones who practices in three venues in Florida, wrote an article that states her positions and dilemmas on health care. She is in the trenches and gives of her time to a Free Clinic as well. "To approach medicine in the way Pres. Obama and Congress suggest is simplistic and naive..ultimately lives are at stake...It is imperative that we take the time to study and evaluate many ideas in order to make the right choices, not the easy ones."

The bottom line for all Americans is they need to inquire and realize that whatever bill is the final one, there have been too many additions hidden in 'clever' language and too many people surrounding Obama and in Congress who have a definite (listen and watch them on video if you don't believe) insidious agenda to push forward that echoes those who have said in their own words they want to "create a new archiecture", beginning with HealthCare. This is the exact premise of countries who eventually oppressed their own people and impoverished them. People here need to check out the backgrounds and listen to the words of those who surround our President. If you listen to Obama solely, you'll believe anything because he changes his mind every 20-30 days.

A woman named Sarah Palin is not this country's problem unless you fear her. The real problem(s) is much, much bigger than Clay's cartoon.

The skimpy shorts might be interesting...depending on gender.

I think the crux of the "death panel" thing has been mislaid. Think of it this way, moonpie; when money runs short to fund the new PelosiCare [as it will], something must happen. Either fewer follow-up appointments will be allowed or certain expensive procedures -- such as CATScans, MRIs, colonoscopies, most all surgical procedures, and/or anything involving specialists -- will be curtailed or "rationed". No doubt about it; without money, nothing will happen.

The rich and famous will go overseas or have their own private doctors on call; Congress has its own, separate system.

So who does that leave to suffer the cuts? The young, the workers, the parasites, and the seniors who have paid their dues. Of those, the seniors use the huge majority of the expensive services and procedures. [I know, this is pedantic and you know where it is going, but bear with me.]

It is poor economics to cut or reduce parasites/workers' $100 office visits and keep the seniors' $5-10,000 procedures; so the seniors' benefits are cut or reduced.

Someone must and will determine which benefits are cut; that's what government does. So who has what is essentially the power of life and death? "Death panels". Probably made up of beancounter bureaucrats [government has lots of those]. Same thing with oncology and the rest of the expensive life-extending procedures...but only for "non-productive", over-the-hill seniors.

And people wonder why seniors are concerned...

canary,

I appreciate your response about the death panels.

I realize I asked Lightnup for a big assignment.

I do think it is legitimate to be concerned with issues of to whom medical care is given and when it is to be withheld. This is why its important to discuss these issues.

I think you rightly point out that there are committees within European systems which have to make these decisions. But these kinds of committees certainly are not unique to government health care delivery systems.

Even now teams at BCBS, UHC, and Cigna have to make decisions about what kind of care they will pay for. Why are we not calling these groups "Death Panels"?

At some point, there does come a time when we have to decide certain therapies for certain people are futile.

rolando's post illustrates that there is a fear that it will be accountants and bureaucrats in Washington who will be making these decisions. I don't think Americans want that.

I understand the fear of government making decisions over your life and medical care. It is not something I go into lightly. Any government programs need to be carefully evaluated. (I think we agree on that.) I also have serious doubts that for profit insurance companies death panels doing better. These companies have already helped our medical care to become the most expensive in the world, without delivering the highest level of care.

In summary: someone decides which services aren't treated. If this is the way we define "death panels," then we've already got them.

I would still love to see the actual reference in the bill that got everyone so scared.

On a personal note, I appreciate the subtle change in tone you have exhibited over the past few weeks. I do enjoy reading the perspective of people who think so differently than I do on these issues.

wow, you liberals sure do get worked up easily. How come you haven't gotten as worked up about Alan Nutball Grayson saying Republicans want sick people to die and die quickly. I guess cause conservatives aren't quite as prone to emotional hysterics as liberals.

Okay, one last time in an attempt to clarify:

1. Palin originally wrote: "..."not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care."

2. alprova says Palin used the term "to describe medical care professionals who would individually guide people in how to create a living will..."

Concept A. Guiding people about living wills,or, Concept B. Determining who is worthy of receiving health care.

Those are two totally different concepts. It is clear (and this has been my ONLY point all along) that when she first used the term "death panels," she was referring to something more insidious than just helping people with their living wills. Whether it was in the bill or not, whether that was the bill writer's intentions or not, that's what she was referring to.

Is that not a fair assessment? Am I wrong in that? I don't think so.

I am NOT saying and have NOT said that her interpretation was correct. I have not, contrary to moonpie's assertion, made any attempt to defend what she said.

Again, my ONLY point all along has been that in her original posting, rightly or wrongly, she used the term "death panels" to describe subjective determinations of who was worthy of receiving health care. It's what she wrote. She didn't write anything about living wills in her original posting where she used the term "death panel." That's all, nothing more, nothing less. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Unless there is proof to the contrary, she used the term once in that original posting and once (as a subject line only) in responding to Obama's concerns about her having used the term. It is not even in the text of her second Facebook posting and she never pounded the term into the ground, as alleged, or tried to make it into a battle cry.

It is curious though, that there are hundreds and hundreds of google entries regarding the "death panel" provision being removed from the bill following the uproar. Gee, how could that be if there wasn't at least something in there that could have been interpreted in the way Palin had interpreted it?

Oh well, subject for a different day.

Lighnup wrote: "It is curious though, that there are hundreds and hundreds of google entries regarding the "death panel" provision being removed from the bill following the uproar. Gee, how could that be if there wasn't at least something in there that could have been interpreted in the way Palin had interpreted it?"

Good point Lightnup. Arguably, Sarah won that debate.

Lightnup, I see your point. I acknowledged in my first post that I not only saw that point and even acknowledged that your assertions may be true. She may know the difference.

She still says there are death panels. When Obama says things like "end of life" she says "death panel." It sure sounds like she doesn't know the difference.

Just yesterday on the news I saw her promoting the idea that there are death panels in the President's Health Care reform.

I say, show me the UFO.

If denial of futile care is the same as used at Blue Cross, Cigna, etc., then she needs to start attacking these companies and not just the proposed plan.

The government plan is already trying to do away with exclusions for preexisting conditions. Talk about a Death Panel. Some people can't get insurance at all. Who decides that? Private insurance death panels?

It's interesting what we consider a goverment death panel is defended as a reality of business when it comes to the private sector.

Lightnup, how can you defend this kind of double standard?

moonpie - I know you didn't ask me, but here are some thoughts. I think we all agree some reforms are necessary. Insurance companies are guilty of denying claims, there is not getting around that fact. Insurance companies do not offer insurance (generally) to those with pre-existing conditions. These are two areas of insurance reform that are necessary. These, along with changes in medical malpractice law, would represent true reforms, and not an avenue towards a complete government takeover of healthcare. This latter scenario is what Palin and the conservatives are afraid of -- and it is under this scenario that "death panels" become possible. Why? Because of the necessary rationing that will arise from government providing healthcare to all Americans, funded by taxes (and supposedly by cutting waste out of the existing system, but this is dubious at best). The better way to cut down on denials of claims, and refusal to provide coverage against pre-existing conditions, is to allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines. Why is this not being proposed by the Dems? Well, I guess because if we did that, then they couldn't grab 1/6th of the economy and use it to ensure electoral victories for decades to come.

walden, I think you're right that there is a lot that we can agree on.

I can understand the hesitency of giving the federal government control over that big of a slice of the American economy. Having grown up in a medical household and having spent virtually my entire life in the healthcare field, I was for years against government healthcare.

I've also watched the insurance companies play a very active role in driving up costs. They are not entirely to blame, for sure.

I will acknowledge that having one entitity decides who lives and dies IS scary. Having that one entity be the government IS scary. However, if denial of coverage is broadly applied to people just because they are elderly, I think a lot of voters will work very hard to change that.

I would like to think competition would allow people on the fence to try to get insurance with another company which is more sympathetic. However, we just don't see that in the current profit-driven system.

Private insurance typically operates at a 20% overhead.

I believe Medicare operates at 5%, but with fewer benefits. Other governments programs are frequently under 5% and have more benefits than Medicaid etc.

Even if we nationalized health care completely, which won't happen for a while. Assuming we could get to a 5% rate and Assuming the worst case scenario of 46 million uninsured (15% of the 304,000,000 Americans) then, this savings allows us to insure the nationa at the same cost. (Ok, the math is probably not that simple, and there would be some trade offs in terms of waiting periods etc.)

If everyone were covered, you would have more people who could get treatment and be more productive. There are many people who get sick and can't afford their medical care. They get worse, too sick to work.

With the new system, it is possible that there will be some people who pull out of the work force because they were only working for health care. I imagine these numbers will be relatively small, since most people work for $$ too.

As far as allowing purchase of insurance across state lines. I think this would be better than what we have now. As a matter of fact, that is something that SHOULD be put in the bill. I think responsible tort reform should be looked at too.

Obviously, it's debatable how much of any of the proposals I or you have mentioned would work. But I don't think we, as Americans, can afford to turn our backs on any reasonable options to decrease costs.

(On a personal note, thanks for jumping in with me on this. When I write to Lightnup, it's mainly as a reference to you and others to what I am talking about. Also, I was pleased to finally figure out what Walden's Ridge is. For the longest time I thought it was just Signal Mountain. I did not know that it was Elder, Racoon and Sand among others, also.)

Really amazing how Sarah Palin can stir up this much controversy after watching another interview yesterday with Oprah. Ms. Winfrey was able to show, as Katie Couric did, why John McCain made such a "political bluder" for his choice for VP.

moonpie - I don't know what Walden's Ridge is either. I'm just a poor guy living on a pretty little pond up in Massachusetts.

BYW Lightnup, my last sentence in my post to you implied that you do defend this double standard. I did not mean it that way. Sorry for the imprecision.

I was thinking that you, as a conservative, could enlighten me as to how people do defend this double standard.

Or have they not even considered it?

I'll tell you moonpie. A "conservative" is like a lot of other humans that you can't pin down and neatly categorize as cells are under a microscope. We come in all shapes and sizes and agree or disagree with all types of humans too. On all kinds of issues. When Liberal folks say, 'conservatives/repubs are thus and thus...", I feel they need to be corrected. If Liberals are as open as they purport to be, why do they (at least on this site) refuse to consider anything a conservative has to say-if it's reasonable? Why does Bennett feel it necessary to show only one viewpoint? Because he's afraid the "other side" might be funny too? Because he has a narrow mind? We wonder.

Yes, moonpie, there is a vicious double standard and we don't like abusers of any shape, color or size either. The thing is...Blue Cross doesn't run the whole country and the economic systems. Big Government does and will.