How old is the earth?

I thank you for your elaboration of why you like Palin in the other thread, although I can't agree with you. Perhaps you like her because she seems unusual to you??? In presidential politics she is more unusual than common, but I can assure you that in daily life here in the old U.S. I have met many of her type. You betcha. Rope that steer, drive that ole truck, and keep them roots retouched while running the city government.

Even if I agreed with her politics, the Killah from Wasilla ain't ready for prime time. In fact, she is now contributing to not only McCain's loss of prestige but his loss of votes.

I feel much about Maureen Dowd as you do, but she does sometimes make a remark so pithy as to evoke my admiration. Today's should actually be an Obama motto for the rest of the election: "True mavericks don't brand themselves."

Enjoy your witch hazel. I wish they would grow well in Texas.

I find it amusing that you and I wear the same fragrance. I also like Oscar de la Renta.

Also, I read that Palin's shoes at a recent interview were estimated to cost about $400. That's not Choos, but it's not chicken feed either.

people who are upset with sarah palin are simply avoiding the fact they chose a bozo for vice president. you know the one who thinks FDR was president in 1929 and used the TV to respond to the crisis. oh yes, that BOZO, biden. clearly sarah palin is more qualified to be president than barak obama and certainly more so than biden.

The corporate media shot down the notion that Palin was affiliated and supportive of the Alaskan Independence (Secessionist) Party by accepting the McCain campaign excuse that she has always been a registered Republican. But then explain this video from this year – 2008 – in which Governor Palin welcomes and praises the secessionist party during their convention in Fairbanks. Watch it. You can’t wish reality away, although Palin is superb at trying to blink it away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI&eurl=http://vodpod.com/organize/index/345024

I see you have the knives out early today. There is something weird with the 'We think sex is sinful, but we respect people that show proof of having a lot of it' crowd.

One GOP pitch for this election seems to be us versus them class warfare, where ordinary folks are pitted against the elites, whoever they are. But it turns out that McCain doesn't even know how many houses he has. That reminds me of old oil billionaire J.P. Getty's famous line: "If you know how much money you have, you aren't rich". And now, tax returns shows that the Palins have around a million or so in assets.

That's a number that your (not) humble Fester aspires to every once and awhile while he's not out busy enjoying life. I will leave off the discussion of whether or not love of money is the root of all evil to J.P. Morgan and others, but it makes it clear to me that these people are not ordinary Americans from a financial standpoint. They are in the top %5 or sub 1%.

So I have to wonder. If it's not about the money, maybe it really is about one set of beliefs against another. It very well could be about the unification of church and state.

All the more reason to ignore history. Those types of governments have a historically poor track record.

Ah, Telly...

Such carefully-crafted arguments.

Such a filigreed profusion of moving parts.

Such a veritable Maginot Line of wordiness.

A little story for ya:

Back when I was in ROTC (true!) our CSM told us that in order to win a battle (or to win a war for that matter), it isn't necessary to destroy or even disable one's opponent; committing the bulk of one's resources (and curve of this action often goes asymptotic pretty damned fast) to the total destruction of the enemy is every bit as risky as it is costly.

He continued that it is much more cost-effictive and risk-minimizing to destroy your opponent's will to fight.

I raised my hand and asked, "How do you do that, Sarge?"

He regarded me with flinty eyes. "Son, you do it any way you can."

Ok. I told you that in order to tell you this:

The GOP and its various tickets have understood this principle from day one. The Democrats haven't. The left, in general, haven't. Progressives, in general, haven't. As a matter of principle, we've always been a little too concerned about what people think of us. But we're learning. From you. And it's actually rather entertaining that none of you -not one- recognizes the sharpened end of your own methodology.

You attempt to equate the fury and outrage of the citizenry with the petulant whining of spoiled adolescents who are "are simply in no position to form and deliver reasonable and prudent judgments about such things as politics, which require experience and moderation of passions to comprehend." And that's ok. We get it: you're frightened, and you sense that a reckoning of some sort is close at hand.

You dismiss the necessity of intellectual acuity as one of the necessary criteria for the selection of our public servants and governmental leaders, but you do so in the assumed voice of some finger-wagging, admonishing schoolmaster: "You're not as smart as you all think you are." I wish this wasn't smack in the center of your own inherent blind spot; if only you could perceive the uproarious spectacle of your own jowl-waggling and harrumphing... even you would have to stop and laugh.

I, for one, am perfectly glad to accept your mistaken assignation of a teenager's traits, because I would give my left pinkie to recapture the defiant energy of my youth.

Your sneering disdain will not shift us from our purpose. If we win this election we'll start the long process of un-fucking this great nation. If we lose the election, we'll apply the lesson and mobilize in ways you can't begin to imagine.

Yes, we on the left actually do lament the decline and debasement of a once vigorous, vital -and yes, at times necessary- Grand Old Party to a traveling NASCAR sideshow of religious freaks. I say 'necessary' because in order to make informed judgement, and to transform that judgement into sound action, the government functions best in the mode of the bicameral mind. We still believe -even now- that a full spectrum of ideas and viewpoints is crucial to the healthy function of a democracy... even if we haven't witnessed it in our lifetime. Were it not for the efforts of you and your ilk to choke it to the point of lifelessness, we'd believe that you too support such a fine and good thing.

But to the point.

To you, those of us who are working to clean up your mess are:

• "typically naive"
• "idealistic"
• "brash"
• "critical of authority and tradition"
• ""confident in novel and untested approaches"

Hmm. 'Idealistic' and 'critical of authority'. It's quite telling that you itemize these as flaws. These are in fact the traits by which we happily distinguish ourselves from you lot.

Then your list continues:

• "confused about his own motives"
• "impulsive"
• "prone to make sweeping judgments about matters he knows little or nothing about"
• "easily misled by the mere strength of his convictions into supposing them established beyond doubt"
• "He does not tolerate contradiction nor even a counsel of prudence and delay"
• "he is certain of his beliefs and demands they be applied instantly"
• "He has little use for history and the lessons of the past"
• "regards himself as superior in all respects to those who have gone before"
• "rebellious"
• "defiant"
• "angry"
• "finger-pointing"
• "sanctimonious"
• "almost wholly lacking in self-knowledge and realistic appraisal of others and the circumstances he confronts."

This describes -perfectly- our appraisal, from 2000 to the present, of the idiot boy-king you lionized yesterday. By extension, it also describes the ruinously unsuited candidates with which you would saddle us.

You conclude: "This is not a person one would wish to be in a position to influence, much less to direct important affairs."

Couldn't. Agree. More.

You mischaracterise us as "people who have... never heard of the cautionary advice of the Delphic Oracle".

Oh Telly... really! In matters of state, one should never seek counsel from a movable piece of statuary, situated over a volcanic vent.