After the huge self deception and leap of faith of justifying the inexperience/inexpertise hurdle that BHO brings to the table, a scarier thought after watching the past two weeks of total ineptness,is that Nancy Pelosi is a mere 2 heartbeats away from the Presidency!! And then we have in her corner of cronies Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid - all of whom gave assurances two years ago that Fannie Mae and Freddie were "fine" - don't insult America's collective intelligence... though I have to admit the mainstream media doesn't think that exists either and we, like idiots, may prove them right!

nominated a person devoid of qualifications for the presidency (again).

"One of the heads of state" was, as a matter of fact, President Zardari, Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It would have been so much better if Sarah Palin had spat in his eye, as is necessary when a man pays a woman a compliment, which President Zardari did. Helmut Kohl, former Chancellor of Germany, found Margaret Thatcher very attractive (there's no accounting for taste) and was reported as having said that she had the mouth of a Marilyn Monroe. Fortunately, the British did not go to war about that and the Thatcherite press was delighted that Britain's pre-eminent female politician was viewed as more than just "The Iron Lady". The British miners and many others wouldn't have shared Kohl's lasciviousness in regard to Margaret Thatcher but nobody would be so idiotic as to blame Thatcher for Kohl's openly expressed admiration.

"Make love, not war" was John and Yoko's message but Sarah Palin might be taken more seriously if she had superfluous facial hair, a wobbly backside and a touch of alopecia. Cleopatra mightn't have understood all this grisly grimness about another woman's appearance, unless the vituperation was directed at "the sober eyes of dull Octavia", the wife of Cleopatra's lover.

So now that her approval rating is down to 68% we don't have to listen to her? Or does she make 12% less sense today than yesterday?

re: -- Teleologicus

"Is it truly the case that no possible basis for voting Republican exists or could exist besides stupidity, ignorance, greed, gullibility &etc.?

"-- Teleologicus

"There is much to admire in the traditional axioms of the conservative creed. Fiscal responsibility and leaner more efficient government are indeed wonderful notions. But it takes more than simply parroting slogans about reform and accountability to exact real change and unfortunately Ms Palin has proven herself to be not much more than an attractive cheerleader without much real understanding about nor appreciation for not only history but the realities of globalization amidst a crumbling economy that we are facing (amongst many problems)..."

----

The answer, then, seems to be no. There is nothing whatever to justify my choice of the McCain-Palin ticket. Nothing of course except my stupidity, ignorance, gullibility, callousness, greed &etc. &etc. &etc. No valid rational ethical or logical reason of any kind exists or could possibly exist for me to vote McCain-Palin. The only right, rational, responsible, intelligent and educated way to vote is Obama-Biden.

Virtually all of the posters here write with such assurance and confidence in their opinions as to give the impression that they do not regard it as possible that they, rather than those they are against, might sometimes be mistaken. Without the slightest hesitation or semblance of self-doubt our mighty peanut-gallery passes judgments of doom and excommunication upon public figures and public policies about which, if one were to be the least bit particular, it is very likely they know very little, No matter! These armchair generals and generalesses know better than anybody, elected or unelected, President or non-President, how matters of war and peace, international relations, geopolitics, economics, social conflicts, you name it and everything else to boot, ought to be arranged. And they don't mind saying so.

How is this possible? On a purely technical level it is difficult to account for the superior knowledge and other distinguished and distinguishing qualities of these self-proclaimed superior people. Where does their superiority come from?

They keep repeating how superior they are to people who for some incredible and highly offensive reason do not happen to share their political convictions but they neglect to establish for the rest of us the actual ground of their superiority. Are they superior just because they say they are? There is a certain rationale for such a claim, since a superior person would certainly recognize their own superiority to others. But if those others should desire some proof of the claim to superiority, what then? Does it really suffice merely to keep announcing how superior one is to eveybody who doesn't think the way one does?

Now I should never desire to diminish the glory and the honor Mr. Conason et al. have garnered to themselves by their profession of indisputable superiority to the likes of Sarah Palin and people like me who will vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. I am not as much offended as puzzled by their continued insistence upon their superior intelligence, knowledge, values, etc. I don't understand the basis for their claim that because they favor one political choice and I another, this necessarily means that I am stupid, dumb, unethical, uninformed, etc. and they are the reverse, i.e. superior to people like me.

Now it is possible, to be sure, that inferior people by very virtue of their inferiority can neither comprehend the essential fact of their inferiority nor recognize the manifest superiority of others.

It it perhaps to presume too much but I need to add that such clarification and explanation to be helpful has to consist of more than reiteration of undocumented, unargued, unproved assertions of personal belief and taste, e.g. so-and-so is obviously stupid, such-and-such is obviously wrong, and other such staples of puerile polemics.

See, the pronlem is that people like me, inferior though we may be, simply do not agree that Palin is all those bad things people like the superior people keep saying she is. We don't believe it. Nor do we agree that GWB is all those bad things the superior people have long been saying he is. Far from it. We, some of us at least, regard him as a fine man and likely to be viewed in hindsight as one of America's finest Presidents. Yes we do! We really, really believe that. We have never, ever, not for one instant thought GWB was dumb - but what we admire above all else is his character and public persona. He has behaved with consistent grace under fire, not from foreign so much as domestic enemies. Slandered, hated, reviled, scorned, maligned, insulted in every possible way by those who without clear cause consider themselves his superiors, his composure and demeanor has never failed to be gracious, gentlemanly and mature. He is a fine role model.

Am I wrong to think this way? Of course I am - according to the superior people. They are scandalized beyond belief at such claims and start to cluck and hiss and tsk tsk almost before my words conclude. But all I see them do is repeat their beliefs that I am wrong and that I am really dumb for thinking the way I do. Is this supposed to persuade? It does not persuade. I do not see how it could possibly persuade. What is needed to persuade is not insult but argument, demonstration, proof. Saying it don't make it so. Wishing it don't make it so.

I confess I do not see the basis for the superiority of the superior people. It may well be present. I do not observe it. What I can observe in fact points decidedly the other way. The fulminations of the superior people look a lot less superior than they seem to think to people like me. I hesitate to call them inferior . . . but I am afraid available data does not suffice to refute this possibility altogether.