Sarah Palin's New Book Proves She Has No Understanding of U.S. History

Look I love her! She's got more spunk than 99% of the people we've elected.Is she presidential?In my opinion no.Can she help the conservative uprising?Absolutely.She chose to become a celebrity,so be it.The left FEARS her! Now, they may say no but why all the concern?I think that's great!

LOL, I don't fear Palin. I think she's a joke.

Palin is something that should be feared if you ever want to see the GOP ever become a great and useful part of American politics rather than the far right, extremist and obstructionist movement that people like Palin are making it.

I fear any polarizing celebrity in the pockets of FOX. I fear her ignorance and lack of leadership skill and humility would contribute to the decline of the country. There is nothing unique in this women. We have seen these ignorant rants before. People intolerant of everything they don't agree with. People quick to demonize or question the patriotism of others. People acting as the mouthpiece for others.

to bad she won't go on any of the regular "political elite media" shows meaning the regular networks.

You are referring to the socilaist-minded, left-leaning heavily biased Media Sources. She can't possible get an even break there, and only a flaming IDIOT thinks that they are some kind of "political elite media".

Yea, they might ask her what she reads again and the answer will probably not be any better now than it was in 08.

Jeff,these guys on the left are such wussies.Sarah scares the hell out of them.Unlike most liberal women she looks good she acts like a women but she has stones.Speaks her mind ,not presidential but I like her.

I don't think anybody is against her as a woman, just not as President......... or Governor........... or................ dog catcher.

DEVIL1, Palin is the Hannah Montana of the conservative world. If that is who they want for their "guiding light", let them have her. I'm amazed that if they want beauty so badly, that the conservatives haven't come up with someone more ideologically qualified. Aren't there any gals out there more qualified than Palin? What about Meghan McCain?

Allen

That is my biggest fear for the actual Republican Party. That they be completely taken over by the Tea Party and lose all touch with reality.......... I mean moderates............ Oh wait............ that is the same isn't it.

David, although I am a Democrat, I could support a moderate like Meghan McCain, but she get hammered by the Far Right, which is most of the Republican Tea Party.

Meghan McCain is young and tough. She can handle herself a lot better than Palin against opposition. She'll face her critics like Olbermann and Maddow and tell you exactly why she likes or dislikes something. Especially without attacking someone. She is not a puppet and she should be the new face of young Republicans.

Well, I say Olbermann and Maddow are her critics, but they actually like her!

Give Palin a break. She has mastered the use of the bumpit.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_A1zhjdbC3aI/TBgx-XG61kI/AAAAAAAAAVA/rNa8k2lEUbg/s1600/bumpits.jpg

What more can you expect from her?

My hair naturally does that "bumpit" thing if I sleep on it. You mean I have been washing and blow drying each morning for nothing?

TJG--I'm sure Palin would give you all her beauty secrets is you ask her nice. LOL

LOL. I am having a very amusing mental image of me and Palin talking beauty. LOL!

trm2008

Give Palin a break. She has mastered the use of the bumpit.

I had to ask myself, what the heck is the bumpit? Is it like the armpit?

Obviously I didn't pay a lot of attention to that commercial!

Give Palin a break. She has mastered the use of the bumpit.

GAH!!! Cephalopod hair!!!

I know Max, I wonder how many zingy one liner talking points it took to make her the 1/2 term Governor of Alaska.

Apparently, you only need 154 days, in the US Senate, to qualify you for the Office of President.

Jeff, 154 days > 0 days.

Apparently, you only need 154 days, in the US Senate, to qualify you for the Office of President.

Sorry Jeffy, but you need to win a national election to BE the President.

Thank you, come again.

She is the most feared woman in politics by the left.........and yet, she is no brighter than a birthday candle. I do not understand the logic.

She is feared by the left, because the American People know that absolutely ANYBODY would be better than the piece-of-crap that occupies the White House right now. Their only possible remedy will be personal attacks and character assassinations (they can not possibly hope to get him re-elected on his RECORD), so they are taking the most likely opponents and starting the attacks early.

I think the fear factor has to do with the fear that we could actually get another idiot in office. We have proof that it can happen since we spent eight years from 2001 through 2008 and are still having to clean up the mess. I don't know that the country could weather that sort of "leadership" again.

Same question for you Dave: how can someone so stupid manage to control the entire world and screw it up so? How can one man, who you just told us, is an idiot, aspire to the highest office in the land and then be responsible for every major F.U. in the known universe? Which is it is he some kind of god or a moron?

And if he is a moron what does that make the new guy?

The "Decider" had neither the smarts nor the ethics necessary for the job of running the most powerful country in the world and the job suffered from that shortfall for eight years.

It is hard to gauge Obama's abilities when you consider the mess he had to deal with coming into office. The only thing Obama had going for him was the fact that he didn't have a tough act to follow.

Dave:If he lacked the smarts and ethics how did he get the job? Keeping in mind that voters cannot be alternately dumb and then somehow get smart and then get dumb again.

Was it Abraham Lincoln that said you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time?

George is an example of how you can fool some of the people all of the time, and when that doesn't work anymore you can scare a lot of the people until they vote for the fool even if they should have known the idiot was screwing up by the numbers.

I hope you are not implying that the dems would never stoop to scare tactics to sway opinion toward their objective. I have seen 3 stories on the Vine this month accusing republicans and Liptons of literally attempting to kill folks in thier surge to to take control of the world.

Actually Allen I find it a rather accurate guide to the pulse of some people. And I sometimes even find "real" news here. I have never seen the "Hollywood media" quote a source of information. But I stopped watching the news years ago. I was interested to see if Dave was willing to say that dems never resort to scare tactics. IMSHO Palin seems to be the only news worthy item opined on by the left recently. I find that rather disturbing. I am aware that the Vine is not a news orginazation.

Actually tesla, I find it equally repulsive for any group or individual to use the scare tactics like the ones used by the GOP in the Bush administration that cost us so many lives and untold fortune for no reason. What are your feelings about that sort of action?

Always Bush.. Well if I remember right he had the full support of congress if you are refering to that which I think you are. And since no one, even at levels of power knew at that moment what the truth really was, how could one make a decision? I don't believe we should have done anything more than kill Saddam and come home. We helped cause an over throw of power in Afghanistan once before by staying out it I think we could have done so again. But I also believe that BOTH political parties are useless liars and thieves so I am probably not a good barometer. But you prompt another question: What will democrats do when BUsh is no longer a viable scapegoat?

And since no one, even at levels of power knew at that moment what the truth really was, how could one make a decision?

But the "Decider" did make the decision didn't he. In addition to that, it has now come out that the decision was made long before 9/11 so he wasn't bothered by any of that cherry picked intelligence was he.

I don't believe we should have done anything more than kill Saddam and come home.

It is apparent that Bush thought the same thing, but couldn't sell that notion without the fearmongering that accompanied his campaign to make the American public believe that there were still WMD in Iraq and that Saddam had connection with 9/11.

We helped cause an over throw of power in Afghanistan once before by staying out it I think we could have done so again

And our "staying out of it" in Afghanistan worked out really well didn't it. That was when we saw the Taliban come to power in Afghanistan and their support of al Qaeda who did, in FACT, attack us.

Now, I too am of the opinion that we messed up in Afghanistan by not doing what we should have done, which was go into Afghanistan, capture or kill Osama and company, and leave with the full understanding that we don't really give a rat's a** who runs their worthless country, but if this sort of thing happens again, we will be back and they will think the last time was a party compared to what happens if we have to come back.

We do military conquest really well. We don't do very well with our dealing with the "victory" afterwards. We lost more people and money in the "post victory" operation than we did in the war. We could go back several times for the cost of our post victory failure in Afghanistan and especially Iraq where we should never have gone in the first place.

Back on topic, fear mongering is wrong no matter who does it.

We failed to follow up in Afghanistan after the Russians left. No surprise there. As for wmd as far as I could tell we sold the damn things to him back during the I&I war. So we made our own case for him having them. And wrong or right he at least made a decision which at least is an ingredient of leadership. Leadership that would have gotten Bin Laden during Clintons reign had that man had just an inkling of that ingredient. We have never done well with conquest unless you count the Native American. We do kick ass and go home real good as long as the politicians keep their nose out of it.

And wrong or right he at least made a decision which at least is an ingredient of leadership.

You are kidding with this one aren't you? So did Custer, and his wasn't acceptable either.

We have never done well with conquest unless you count the Native American.

No since limiting it. What we did with the Native Americans after the end of the Indian Wars, wasn't really anything to brag about either or have you never seen an Indian Reservation?

I'm part Cherokee. I may have seen one or two. So far Bush's decision hasn't gotten us all massacred. Probably not the best analogy.

There are over 4,000 U.S. service men and women who died in Iraq that might argue that point.

Yea I would have been one of them but I was out by the first one. Just missed it. I also signed on the dotted line my voluntary service to my country. I sort of knew the risks when I got to the page that says please list your next of kin.

That is a big part of why the "Right or wrong, at least he made a decision" thing sort of rubs me the wrong way. The last thing you want to do is make a wrong decision when you are going to war. The cost is too great.

My gut says we will never know the truth. And history seldom gets much right except the names. I wish we had never gone to Iraq.Afghanistan we probably had little choice but to go however we should already have left. They have a different way of doing things there, and I fear our commanders in suits will never understand it.

You may be right Allen. It won't bring back the dead though. I, for one, do not trust the wikileaks all that much I really lack trust for any information coming from an agenda driven source. I'm not from the generation that trusts the internet as the final confirmation of facts. Like the global warming debate 400 one side got a ton of data to support their view. 400 on the other side same thing. And your only choice is to choose sides without ever truly knowing whose "facts" are correct.

I, for one, do not trust the wikileaks all that much I really lack trust for any information coming from an agenda driven source.

The thing about wikileaks is that the information that they have been putting out hasn't gotten ANY objection from the government about the truth of what they have been publishing. In fact, it has served as the basis for the arrest and prosecution of the alleged leaker.

Why would you object to it when the objection would be seen as confirmation of the truth of the documents?

And failure to object to it would be seen as even a greater confirmation of the truth of the documents so where is that? Then we have the problem mentioned above about using the Wikileaks as the basis to prosecute the leaker. That one does sort of serve as a confirmation that is hard to get around.

Then there is the history of Wikileaks. Did you see the video of the helicopter shooting up the news crew in Iraq? That one would be hard to fake.

You see? It is a lose, lose situation. No matter what you do, say, or produce you are already guilty. That, to me, is not a reliable source of information. The same tactic is used when a persons character is crucified for public amusement. Simply making the accusation is enough. Any attempt to defend yourself is seen as confirmation that the charge is accurate. And the accusee never faces any scrutiny. That, of course, is very convenient.

You still didn't address the issue of the prosecution of the leaker did you?

Allen that is my root point of every debate of this nature. No one truly knows the facts, except of course, those that were there. But it leads me to believe that these tid bits are put out there for the sole purpose of creating "sides" believers/non, left/right, and so on. And I have pointed out many times that it seems to be the purpose of these "leakers" to keep us debating, arguing,ranting, and generally insulting and degrading one another. To keep us at odds with each other so we do not have the time/patience/presence of mind to see what is really going on, the real agendas. Allow those in power to go forward with their plans without undue interference from us. They will get blind support from their"side" and the other will to busy attacking the supporters to see clearly. The global warming, climate shift, climate change, what ever they are calling it now is a prime example.

I agree whole heartedly right up to policies. I will agree with any side's, Solutions......... I just do not see many. It seems to me that if a candidate loved his country and his people, if good policies were in place they would either attempt to improve on those policies, or leave them alone to continue to prosper and grow. Instead I see the opposite. I see men who believe "they" are the only ones with the "real" answers to our problems and try to change everything. Destroying what ever progress we had made up to that point.