Wikipedia quotes her thus from the past weekends festivities:

"This is about the people, and it's bigger than any one king or queen of a tea party, and it's a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter.[230] "

Teleprompters for speeches=bad, writing your most cherished values on your hand so you don't forget them=good. Just like it's indefensible for Rahm Emanuel (easily the most misnamed individual since Attila the Maternity Nurse) to call a group "retards" but perfectly fine for Limbaugh to call them that. Just like it's OK for gubernatorial candidate Palin to say she'd "not allow the spinmeisters to turn [the Bridge to Nowhere] into something that's so negative" AND for VP candidate Palin to claim she said, "thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere. " Like Romney, the same valid criticism Bush leveled at John Kerry applies: If you don't like their position on an issue, wait five minutes and it'll change.

If you were a specialist in planetary orbits speaking to the Kepler Appreciation Society and needed help to remember to mention Keplers Laws I think we'd both be a little worried about you. That is THE difference between needing a teleprompter because you can't memorize every word of an entire speech and having to write three words on your hand so you talk about what you're there to talk about in the first place.

No, raising the taxpayer funded daughters holiday issue. Calling that "the daughter issue" is like calling what happened with Abramoff and DeLay "the gambling issue. " The issue isn't what was done but the legality of how it was done, and it's hardly the only time Palin was accused of misappropriating public funds OR abusing the powers of her office for personal motives. Really, if you actually LOOK at her career as Governor and Mayor it seems obvious that the ONLY reason she's survived in politics so long is because Alaska is too far out of the public eye for most people to know what's going on up there.

If you were speaking to the NRA and forgot to say you support the 2nd Amendment, maybe politics isn't your best career choice.

Fair enough. I mainly mentioned it because Palin was stumping for Perry this weekend in between tea parties and because however I feel about their positions on the issues Perry is such a facade conservative it's disgusting.

Realistically, I'd expect the US Army to be waved through, but my point is the interstates were created to encourage and enable interstate travel (with specific emphasis on the military during emergencies) and slapping tolls on them inhibits that. To say nothing of the fact that the lions share of I-35 and the rest comes from that evil federal government, but Perry wasn't planning on providing them any toll revenue (in fact it pretty much all goes to Cintra, which is why they bought the bonds Perry induced people to vote for. ) Seriously, read a little about the Trans-Texas Corridor and you'll probably understand why it's another area where Perrys base thinks he sold them out--he basically did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor

Note in particular the line at the end:

"With usual bond financing there is a 3:1 ratio between total fees collected and value of capital infrastructure built. With TTC-35 the ratio is in the order of magnitude of 13:1. So while TTC-35 commits to construct $8 billion in infrastructure Cintra-Zachry expects to collect $114 billion in toll revenues as shown in the preliminary plan. A report by the Texas State Auditor estimated the toll to be collected for TTC-35 to be $104 Billion or more, confirming the order of magnitude of tolls collected.[30]"

Who's it sound like the Governor's working for there? The "cut taxes, get government off my back" conservatives he claims, or someone else...?

It's actually unusual in a lot of ways though; I bet when you drop your change in the tub on I-90 it's not $1.85 to go 11 miles (the set fee and maximum length you can go on the tolled stretch of US-183 that basically goes past a mall; we needed that. ) You won't be speeding along at high speed on it either; there are on/off ramps about every half mile. In addition to the lights. Yes, stoplights for cross streets on a toll road. I'm not a big fan of toll roads generally, and one of the things I USED to like about living in the South is they were very rare, but I HAVE lived places where they're common, and this isn't how they work. Texas roads in particular used to be the envy of the nation because we use them, we NEED them, and until recently TXDoT kept them in good shape for that very reason. Now I have to through a 3-S curve in a half mile to reach the 10mph 90° turn where old 183 crosses (tolled)183A just to get to my house. And they want more. Not only have they done a sorry job designing the toll roads, not only are the private foreign firms who own them making orders of magnitude more than they invested off of TX taxpayers, but they've incidentally made the FREE roads hazardous to drive (which makes what the logical alternative?)

Why is someone so committed to less taxes and government she has to write it down or she won't mention it supporting this kind of stuff?


I'm inclined to agree with you about trusting the parents on medical treatment (which is what we do with just about every other form) but see sex ed as larger educational and public health issue; a lot of parents AREN'T qualified to teach their kids about it, and in many cases those very kids are proof.

But I stated my objections because you asked what they were; that's a separate and much larger debate (poisoned Chinese toothpaste and human food grade grain has eroded my faith in the FDA. ) It may surprise you, but, yes, the bulk of the protests, or so it seemed from me (and I was among the group that opposed it for completely different reasons) came from people who insisted it would lead to promiscuity. It's the same logic that leads them to oppose teaching contraception: If you teach kids there's a safer way to have sex, they'll have sex, and the less they know about sex the less likely they are to engage in it. They regarded it as a betrayal, and the standard objections to compulsory vaccination, even the fact one of Perrys senior staffers had just become a Merck lobbyist, were almost an afterthought; the story had been going on for at least two or three days before I heard anyone mention it once (and that one I followed closely enough that I've actually downloaded copies of Perrys executive order. ) Conservatives, especially the religious right, got sold out by their own candidate. Literally. So again I ask: Why is their new national candidate supporting him over a legitimate conservative? I like virtually none of Kay positions, but I believe her sincerity. Perry, well, if I could make the highest bid I'm sure he'd be happy to work for me. Of course, since I'm paying is salary now he's supposed to do that already.

A lot of Texas Republicans, most, I think (but we'll know soon) don't like Perry any better than I do. As another Texan once said, an honest politician is one who, when you buy him, he STAYS bought.

Had McCain won he'd have been a year older than Reagan on their respective Inauguration Days; it worried the hell out of me and a lot of people. It reminds me of what they used to say about how Quayle fulfilled the goal of making America more religious, because the whole country prayed for Bushs health every night. And Palin is very obviously maneuvering for the Republican nomination; she just won't come out and say it because it's too soon and she hasn't locked up all of the base. Which I doubt she ever will because most savvy Republicans see her the same way a lot of savvy Dems saw Hillary: The one way to guarantee defeat.

Even so. Again I say, look to Kay, who has all of Palins fiscally and socially conservative credentials, a LOT more national and international experience and reflects those things in actually knowing her stuff and sounding like it. From a purely cosmetic standpoint she's always struck me as looking a little severe (she might be more comparable to Hillary than Palin) but no one will ever accuse of her being either a "feminazi" or a "soccer mom" (it's just happy coincidence Palin EMBRACED the latter term; I have nothing against stay at home moms, but even if Palin was one that's not the credential I look for in a President. ) I personally thought from the start the only reason Palin was catapulted onto the national stage was as a trial balloon to see if people who joke about Hillary wearing the pants because she's got the biggest penis would accept a genuine conservative who also happened to be a woman. It seems they will.

The main problem with running Governors is that they frequently don't know how to work with Congress, particularly with Senators who had more power than them for the past 20 years. THAT'S where Obama got in trouble; normally that's the kind of thing electing a US Senator avoids, but not when he's only been there for four years. He hasn't had enough time to get dirt on people. None of that prevents their election though, so you may be right; on the other hand, Kay wouldn't be too threatening either (she's not nearly as in your face as Palin) and allows the GOP to play the gender card: "You just hate her because she's a successful female politician but not a card carrying NOW member!"

Again, I don't see how anyone can say they like Romney on the issues, because his stance on them varies by audience. We've had plenty of that and to spare already; one of the few good things about Bush was that when he really believed in something he stuck by it rather than running to wherever the last opinion poll said he should be (not that I know of any party whose leaders do that.... )

The difference is that people who self identify with the religious right share the same blind spot with the LDS, despite the fact the LDS has explicitly rejected the Nicene and Apostles Creed and its leadership is on record saying things like "As man is, God was; as God is, man may become. " I'm not going to delve into doctrinal validity for various reasons, but I will say that if you look at what Joseph Smith taught and the LDS leadership still affirms, it directly contradicts FUNDAMENTAL (if you'll pardon the term) Christian doctrines. Put more simply, while there are many good Christians in the Mormon church, some of whom I'm honored to count as good friends and privileged to call brother and sister, what Joseph Smith and the LDS LEADERSHIP teach is not Christianity. Teaching that Jesus was once a sinner is not Christianity; teaching that the Father had a father (who also had a father) is not Christianity, to name just two examples. And no one who's a congregation president and traces his pedigree to the Mormon Patriarchs can plead ignorance there.

You did say, "direct" but I missed it, very sorry. Just so I don't look like a TOTAL idiot though:

Victorious generals following major wars are something of a special case; it's hard to find a successful overall commander from a major US war who DIDN'T get elected President (Eisenhower toyed with the DEM nomination in '48, but changed his mind when Truman ran again, which tells you what that was about. ) Washington and Adams never had the chance to be Senators before reaching higher office.

True, but his administration is hardly a good argument Senate experience isn't helpful

Virtually everyone else was either VP, Governor or had just single handedly won a war. If we want to get really technical VP is as much a Senate as an executive office (and a lot of them are selected for just that reason) so VPs should count as direct moves (I was really thinking more about elections than order of succession though. ) I admit I thought Lincoln was a Senator when he one the White House, but if you're going to say Clintons election was an anomaly because he only got 43% Lincolns 39.8% is at least as much so. Taft, Arthur and Fillmore each came from the Vice Presidency, and only one of them by election; waiting for your boss to die is an effective path to power, but not reliable. Polk got in as a Governor, of course. Garfield, I learned thanks to you, is the only President elected while serving in the House.

The Senate may not be a good DIRECT route if we ignore the role the VP plays in the Senate, but unless you're Ike, Grant or Taylor nearly all of our Presidents got there based on either experience in the national legislature or as chief executive. Those are probably the two most important things a President can have. As a direct route, no, the Senate may not be a good choice, but the lessons learned there don't just vanish when you get a different job. Again, if Obama had spent more time making deals on legislation in the Senate perhaps he'd have a better idea how to do it as President.

Gravel ran as a Libertarian because the Dems wouldn't nominate him (just the opposite of what perennial Lib candidate Ron Paul did) and since we're comparing the potential nominees of the two major parties, yes, he counts. Even if we ignore the role Hillary played in Bills Presidency and Governorship (does that mean I can stop listening to people whine about Hillarycare? ) I think eight years in the Senate is more experience than four years as Governor of Massachusetts, and twenty years of sitting in on policy meetings in either Little Rock or DC seems like it's equal to the four more years Huckabee had as Governor. Did Thompson actually RUN? He dropped out so fast I'm not sure if he made any of the primaries, but telling me that he and Guiliani, whose never even held a STATE office, have "executive experience meet[ing] or exceed[ing] any single one of the Dem nominees" seems a stretch. Gilmore and Romneys four years as Governor give them more experience than Hillary got in twenty years of writing state and federal policy and, oh, yeah, a Senate career as long as their gubernatorial ones COMBINED. They might have more executive experience than Biden, Dodd and Gravel, but those three have FAR more legislative experience and, though it may be hard to remember in the Obama era, that's just as important in a President. And while I may have missed your qualifier in an earlier statement, if you meant to put one on experience in this comparison, you didn't: You just said, "experience. " Legislative experience counts just as much in that context, and few of the Republican candidates had as much executive (or any other) experience as most of the Democrats had legislative. McCain was the pick of the litter, and Huckabee next. After that I believe it's three four year Governors and a city mayor. I'll stack Biden and Dodds three decades in the Senate up against that any time, as well as Hillary eight years there and time spent drafting legislation introduced by either the President or a Governor earlier.