"..and yet she slandered O'Reilly anyway."

No. O'Reilly accused Ms. Walsh of having "blood on (her) hands". First.

And, as the last thirty seconds of their nationally televised encounter revealed, Ms. Walsh metaphorically dipped an apoplectic and blindsided O'Reilly into a fetid cesspool of humiliation that she facilitated on the spot, flailing away as he marinated in the rhetorical stench helplessly, words failing the notoriously locquacious windbag by reminding him of the previously horrific blood-stained incident of carnage that tangentially soiled him by reports that that particular killer was inspired by the writings of a particular bold fresh piece of humanity.

Slander? As you said previously, Virtue..."laughed right out of court". Kind of like the 2003 O'Reilly/Fox News suit against Al Franken for copyright infringement.

--I remember when Todd Palin’s AIP story broke, my first reaction was: So, what? Is Mary Matalin less of a Republican because she is married to the Ragin’ Cajun?

This is a good point, the more so because who needs to go after Palin's mysterious "ties" to anyone, when the person herself has such alarming traits? Is so incurious that not only does she never read a newspaper, she can't even -- name one? I mean, she's asked, "what newspapers do you read?", and she answers, "oh--all of them, all of them." "Yes, but which newspaper specifically?" "Oh, all of them. All of them."

I mean, people--she couldn't even fake reading a newspaper? "Uh--The Wall Street Journal! The Seattle Post-Intelligencer!" She couldn't even think of the name of one newspaper, to pretend that she reads it? You Republicans out there have got to be embarrassed to brush that little exchange away, right?

I'm equally alarmed 1) by the fact that such a person could pretend to be qualified to run for ANY office, as that 2) the entire GOP party machine would allow it, and that 3) rank-and-file GOP voters don't ever admit that, "yes, that is pretty embarrassing."

Perhaps GOP voters, those who aren't as stupid themselves, are in denial about it because it's so frightening to admit the implications of a system so out-of-control that it would vomit up an individual like this, and that she could be the runner-up to one of the most powerful offices in the land. If we admit how wilfully ignorant she is, then that means that our whole political system, GOP and Democrat, has got serious problems.

"obama is president now"

How can you tell the difference?

Fair questions. For some reason, the state has always attracted its share of religious zealots. In the 80's, as Jerry Falwell created his "Moral Majority", many of these consolidated into Anchorage and its environs. While they don't constitute anything near a majority, they vote as a bloc. This gives them the ability to swing a close vote.

As for Anchorage and tolerance, I think you'd be surprised. For the most part, nobody cares what anybody else does; the entire state has a "live and let live" attitude; provided that what you do doesn't interfere with anybody else, you're pretty much left alone. The people also have a wariness about government, however, and that makes it easier to block any legislation that will restrict people than to get it passed. Click the link in my sig for an example of how issues like this are framed by the religious right, and keep in mind that they are far more politically active than most Alaskans. In other words, you have an active group of people who oppose any sort of recognition of gay rights, and on the other side a majority who just don't care either way. It isn't that they are opposed, it's that it doesn't affect them; it isn't a state with a lot of activism.

As for the AIP, that's another complicated story. The man who founded it, Joe Vogler, was an outspoken critic of the United States who moved to Alaska to get away from it, and who was vociferously opposed to statehood. As I explained in another thread, the organization isn't monolithic; it consists of people who wish to secede at all costs, people who simply want the matter put to a referendum, and people who wish to split from the union to form a Christian theocracy. I suspect Palin is a member of this last group, to answer why they would join such a group.

I think, living among you down here, I understand how hard it is to wrap your minds around an actively secessionist political party, but it's really not all that strange to Alaskans; it's just another part of the landscape. Perhaps it is the harsh environment and the fact that you never know when you're going to need help or from whom you will need it, but it gets back to "live and let live". So you want to secede from the union. Interesting. Could you pass the salt? It really doesn't matter. Be a goth. Be a punk. Be a religious fundamentalist, or a lawyer, or a stoner, or whatever: nobody cares as long as you stay off their lawn, so to speak. It's really not easy to explain to someone who's never lived there, but Alaska is as state of mind as a state of the Union--maybe more so.

I left the state in 1993. I still think of myself as an Alaskan, much to the surprise of friends and coworkers. To borrow the cliche, you can take the boy out of Alaska. . . you know the rest.

Hope that answers some of your questions. Cheers.

I do respect your freedom to choose whoever you like to read.

If I may suggest-however- reading: Bill Kristol, Tom Friedman, Max Boot, David Brooks, Robert Kagan, Michelle Malkin, Noah Goldberg, et el…. and watching the brain power of FIX news: Hannity, Beck, Billo, and the assorted lineup of blonde bimbos << the new holy worriers>> on FIX network they “ surely” will enrich your mind with high dose of intellect and knowledge.

Imagine that the Republicans actually believed that the media was as biased against them as they're always whining. Wouldn't McCain have anticipated this kind of trouble? Wouldn't he have had a staffer look into the Palins' background and found such "skeletons in the closet" (as Lawrence O'Brien asked Tom Eagleton) as the AIP membership? Wouldn't they have also found Sarah Palin's Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire where she seemed to promote President Dwight Eisenhower to the ranks of Founding Father? What she said was that the phrase "Under God" had been put in the Pledge of Allegience by the Founding Fathers--the piece wasn't written until the 1890s--a century after Washington's reelection. Surely a Liberally biased media would have exploited those two stories to the hilt and Obama would have won a record landslide.