(Although Schmidt comes off as the stand-up guy here, it's nice to see that the GOP default, even when accused of supporting occasionally violent secessionist whack jobs

can you provide more specific examples of these "violent seccessionists"...

"Thin Skinned"

Yes, I know that's two words. I'm a heavy tipper.

LMoE

If Alaska is so much more tolerant of gay rights than the rest of the US, then why was there just such a big problem with the recent proposal to add sexual orientation to Anchorage's anti-discrimination ordinance? I realize this sounds snarky, but I don't mean it to. I'm really asking you. I think the proposal failed, but I'm not sure the of the status. I know there were a lot of legal maneuverings, and it got complicated, and became very political. I do know there were a number of supporters, and that opponents brought in outsiders to waste time to kill the proposal.

How long ago did you leave Alaska? Is Anchorage less tolerant than the rest of Alaska for some reason?

Also, what is the deal with the AIP? Why do they want to secede? And why in heaven's name would the Palins have anything to do with them? To me, advocating secession just seems crazy, so I would appreciate any explanation you could give me.

Thanks, if you've got the time and the inclination to address this.

I was born to and raised by Republicans -- conservative Republicans -- who also happen to be conservative, "evangelical Christians." My extended family generally fits the same profile, and they're a large group (fairly fertile new immigrants from the Netherlands in the 1930s and 1940s, just making it out before the Nazis marched in). They should be a shoe-in for the Palin vote.

WRONG. My parents have voted straight-ticket Republican since they were eligible to vote, and last October, with election day closing in, they told me in no uncertain terms that they were DISGUSTED by BOTH names on the Republican ticket and had decided to vote for BARACK OBAMA. They further reported that this was true of nearly their ENTIRE circle of family and friends. Let's just say that my parents are and always have been very social (2 country club memberships, church, Chamber of Commerce, etc.), and we are talking DOZENS of people here, definitely in the low hundreds.

But that doesn't mean that we can stop our efforts to expose this FRAUD and her shenanigans to the light of day. And I, for one, certainly do not intend to do so.

P.S. Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish blog is a tremendous resource for All Things Palin. Check it out at www.andrewsullivan.com

P.P.S. My parents, while not in the Bible Belt, do live in a fairly conservative region (West Michigan) which consistently votes Republican but not in the last election.

I think McCain's decision to choose Palin was horribly misguided and influenced by several things that he did not foresee: Hillary's loss to Obama in the primaries, the Neocon's pressure to put a "fresh face" on the ticket who was more conservative (read: wingnuttier) than McCain that would bring back the base (that was anemic, at best, about McCain's candidacy), and his nose dive with the press.

The lack of vetting was really Kristol & Co.'s fault.

For all intents and purposes, the Republicans never expected to win the 2008 election and threw McCain a bone for going along with Dubya for the previous few years. It was merely an arrangment of convenience. The lineup of Republican candidates was a motely crew of psychos and losers that could have come straight from the pages of a Steven King novel.

As far as Palin lying about the AIP, it would be easier to list what she hasn't lied about. She's a pathological liar, a malignant narcissist, and a low-rent phoney. Anyone with sense (that excludes the 27% who still approved of Bush) saw through her instantly.

You are not covering what people are interested in, and I know your traffic is dwindling. You need to focus on Helen Thomas's disgust with Obama's fake news conferences. You should mention Rolling Stone's article asserting that Obama is owned by Goldman Sachs, and that the government is now, essentially, being run by a bunch of racketeers at Goldman Sachs. You should wonder what is really wrong with Hillary. You are going way off the beaten path.

Sober Jones

I'd be lying if I said this column didn't disappoint me, but I will respond anyway.

1. Joan, I thought you deplored incendiary rhetoric, per your O'Reilly exchange on Dr. Tiller. Yet here, you compare Sarah Palin to Adolf Hitler ("Big Lies"), then say she is "deadly" and needs to be "stopped."

I think you called this sort of thing "vile." I would agree.

2. Maybe she did try to whitewash a politically embarrassing episode from her husband's past. If so, I would call that a ten yard penalty and loss of down. But not quite on par with the Holocaust, world war, and totalitarian oppression -- as you would have it. What Sarah did is a Big Lie, right?

3. The secession thing is harder to untangle. According to CBS, Palin complained that Todd was linked to "anti-American" politics; McCain's aide responds that "that" is in the platform; Palin responds that "that" (anti-Americanism) is not in the platform; and finally, in the fourth exchange, the aide starts with a single clarifying word: Secession. Secession is in the platform. They can't go there. Palin accepts the verdict.

But Joan knows better, because Palin is Goebbels. She "essentially" wanted him to lie. How so? By denying the undeniable, that AIP promotes secession?

Oh well. You get the idea. I've never been so sorry I spent any time on this web site.

When the South seceded I think it was generally considered a fairly Anti-American thing to do, at least by the remaining states. Connotes rather than denotes, that sort of thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l8ts15kIrA

Way to go, but realize that the "big" AIP story was only important in the partisan minds of a few dozen media liberals and perhaps of a few loyal readers who actually believed that any of the Palins were secessionists, Ant-American, or whatever.

I don't know about discussions within the McCain camp, but no one of any credibility has suggested that the issue had any impact on the presidential election. Few believed the Palins were secessionists or anti-American just as few believed Obama had much common ground with Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers. Having relationships or making deals with individuals does not somehow mean you wholly adopt their beliefs or political goals.

And of course most of the allegations were aimed at Todd Palin and not Sarah. Let's not get into what Michelle Obama believes but I think it's fair to say her political convictions substantially differ from her husband's. But of course she is not president and has never run for the office so what she believes is her own business.