By Christine

December 2, 2009 3:09 PM | Link to this [an error occurred while processing this directive]

[Just saw the following web item that refers to Palin etc. Reactions? Rapturously, Christine] PRETRIB RAPTURE RUSTLERS To see the long hidden side of the 179-year-old, British-invented-and-American-merchandised, apocalyptic "rapture" mania, Google "Pretrib Rapture Diehards," "Thomas Ice (Bloopers)" (the sloppy copyist "genius" that Lindsey, LaHaye and other "rapture" tycoons lean on!), "LaHaye's Temperament," "America's Pretrib Rapture Traffickers," "Edward Irving is Unnerving," "Thieves' Marketing," "Appendix F: Thou Shalt Not Steal," "The Newest Pretrib Calendar," "The Rapture Index (Mad Theology)," "Roots of (Warlike) Christian Zionism" and "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty," for starters. The author of these items plus the bestselling nonfiction book "The Rapture Plot" (available online) is journalist/historian Dave MacPherson who has uniquely focused for 40 years on the bizarre history of this endtime craze which is anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic and anti- just about everyone else! MacPherson is the "Pretrib Rapture Answerman" who has researched throughout Britain and aired so much rapturesque "dirty linen" that he's found behind the scenes (clever revisionism of early 19th century documents, rampant plagiarism, phony doctorates, Swaggart-type scandals etc.) that he is now No. 1 on the hate lists of the leading "rapture" money-changers! As everyone's black, dust-covered book says, "There is nothing hidden that won't be revealed...." (PS: Google "Pretrib Hypocrisy" for stun gun shocks about the Assemblies of God with whom there's a Sarah Palin connection!)

By Raoul

November 20, 2009 7:02 PM | Link to this

I’m confused. I thought we were living in the ‘end time’. Global warming and all that. Is there some reason why atheists that tell us that we are destroying the world (while the evidence has always been in question and is now looking to be incorrect)should be in political power, but the believers who believe God is calling us all home should not? If this is the end, I would rather meet my maker than fight some disillusioned Progressives over the last remaining vestiges of food and shelter. But hey, that’s how I roll…..!

By joel hanes

November 20, 2009 4:14 PM | Link to this

I have read Mr. Reagan’s letters. Whatever his other virtues, he was neither smart nor well-read.

By vick

November 20, 2009 11:06 AM | Link to this

OK, if anybody goes to see her today I want to hear your report. OK? Thanks.

By TRS

November 20, 2009 12:17 AM | Link to this

Vick - per wiki, Beck was raised Roman Catholic and went to a private Catholic school. He became a Mormon in ‘99 after he remarried. As to Mark’s question, I have no real problem with either a Mormon or anyone who holds end times views. Most all Christians have some sort of end times perspectives, be it pre, post or amillennial. Personally I’m a pan millennialist - trust God and it will all pan out. At the end of the day, those that don’t like Palin will continue to dislike her, those who like her already will like her even more so; but, there is a great segment (approx 37%) that have no opinion. She seems to be doing quite well on her tour, very likeable and down to earth. We’ll see where that all goes

By irishguy

November 20, 2009 12:03 AM | Link to this

Alice, I’m no birther, I’m certain Mr Obama was born in Hawaii. I’m curious as to why (to my knowledge) they’ve not released the long form, since it would put the whole matter to rest. I did enjoy the sarcasm of your last post, much less hateful than your other one that called Palin supporters dumb. Mark, I worked with some Mormons a few years back and did quite a bit of research about the LDS Church. I must admit, there are a lot of things about that Church that I’m not comfortable with.

By vick

November 19, 2009 9:34 PM | Link to this

That is correct, Mark- Glenn Beck did convert to the Mormon faith. I’m trying to recall how he started out though? Was he originally a Catholic? Does anybody know?

By Mark from St Paul

November 19, 2009 9:23 PM | Link to this

I get the feeling that the only sources acceptable to you fellows would be Fox News, and I don’t expect them to do an expose on Dominionist churches any time soon. I have seen videos of Palin witnessing at her old AOG church and she was definitely very enthusiastic about their “Masters” program. I read what they had online about it and pretty much it was all “we’ll tell you about it after we accept you.” My exposure to churches is that they are usually abundantly transparent but that’s not true of these churches. The Wasilla Bible Church doesn’t use its website to promote its theology. I spent some time there a while back and while some of the sermons are pretty interesting, the site doesn’t really explain their faith. I’ve heard an audio tape of the AOG minister asking his parish not to speak to any outsiders about any of their beliefs. Palin’s churches are clearly on the fringe of American Christian faith. I don’t care about Palin’s faith as I reject her politics straight up, but if I were leaning towards voting for her, I’d sure want to know more about her religious beliefs, more than I currently do. I live right next door to Michele Bachmann’s district and while I don’t like the mega-church she goes to, I’ve never criticized or questioned her faith. She’s Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran but attends a mega-church that’s heavyily into prosperity gospel. Clearly right of center but that’s her choice. Palin’s church, however, is considerably to the right of Bachmann’s. So much so that I’m really surprised at how little you guys know about it. What do you know about Mormonism? Did you know that Glenn Beck is a convert to Mormonism? Do you think America is ready for a Mormon president? How about a president who thinks God will bring the Judgment Day in her lifetime?

By Alice

November 19, 2009 8:32 PM | Link to this

Irish, she might not be a Muslim, but how do we know she’s not a half-breed muslin? Has anyone even looked at her birth certificate? …and not just a copy either because we all know who issues THOSE -agencies run by the dreaded GOVERNMENT. Need I say more? The govt agencies, in cooperation with the MSM, have probably doctored any copies of her birth certificate to be labeled “Christian White Hunter” but I have evidence that the ORIGINAL, LONG FORM birth certificate actually identifies her to be a half-breed muslin.

By irishguy

November 19, 2009 6:40 PM | Link to this

Mark, I compared the website for the Wasilla Bible Church to mine, pretty similar. I called and spoke to a couple of people there, including a pastor, didn’t find out anything scary. I think they’re a little more reliable than anything I read at Salon.com or the HuffPo. Don’t think I’ll worry to much about her religion, not like she’s a muslim or anything…

By Alice

November 19, 2009 6:22 PM | Link to this

It’s Palinmania right here on your blog Vick! With all this traffic, I’ll bet you’d like to tag all your posts ‘Palin’… Raoul is finally right about one thing - Palin is a feminist nightmare (but for all the right reasons) - but he forgot to mention that her mythical presidential run is a conservative’s wet dream that will never be a reality. I am really taking enjoyment in watching them pin so many hopes on someone whose main goal is cashing in on her fame and inflating her bank account. The biggest myth: she’s definitely not as dumb as her biggest supporters.

By Raoul

November 19, 2009 6:10 PM | Link to this

Mark, here in America, we are free to believe in God however we choose to. We are free to attend whatever church we feel most comfortable attending. I don’t care if Palin’s church engages in snake handling, as long as the lines are not crossed. The lines do get crossed when fundamentalist Jihadist terrorists take their holy war to the streets, or when fundamentalist Christian KKK members lynch Black Americans. If you are suggesting we should be concerned about Palin because of the church she attends, then give us examples of how her beliefs have harmed anyone or threatened our world. If you cannot produce such evidence,quit wasting our time. If you disagree with her politics, well OK, let’s engage in the debate. Otherwise, the fact that you are obsessed with the church she attends suggests that you are trying to divert attention from her conservative politics, which embody the real essence of a modern day, liberated, successful, good looking mother of five who has strong views on how America should be.

By TRS

November 19, 2009 5:43 PM | Link to this

OK, your right - let me revise my statement in that there are a few Christians who advocate what wikipedia calls a hard dominionist. I also agree with your last statement that we need to know what she believes; but, that we do not. There is much written about the churches Palin attends but little from her as to her specific beliefs. The same can be said about President Obama. Both openly advocate Christ, both openly admit to praying - beyond that they have spoken little to their individual theologies. Based on the President’s statements, he had a close relationship with Rev Wright - a bit more than just a place to attend; yet, taking the President at his word he wasn’t in lockstep with Rev Wright’s well known views and I haven’t seen anything that reflects Gov Palin is in lockstep with some of the controverisal dominionist views. I would be interested in hearing her responses to your questions; but, I reserve judgment until I do so. I have not heard her say anything that reflects hard dominion views. I also look at her actions. For instance, President Obama’s views in the public arena reflect his dedication to social justice issues, apparently a vital aspect of his faith. Conversely, I see no history of a litnus test for city or state employees she presided over that they had to be Christians? Such seems to be a vital aspect of the the view of a hard dominionist. In sum, Gen 1:28 gives humans dominion over the earth so it is a valid Christian perspective; but there is certainly a great disagreement as to the nature and extent of this dominion. Any one of any religion whose beliefs wanted to make this country a theocracy I would oppose as did the founding fathers; however, anyone who agrees with them on the principle of submitting ourselves to a higher authority, nature and Nature’s God if you will, I would listen to.

By Mark from St Paul

November 19, 2009 4:40 PM | Link to this

IG, since you obviously haven’t done any research into Wasilla Bible Church or the Assembly of God church Palin previously belonged to, how do you know she doesn’t belong to a “white liberation church”? Not the language I’d use, but I don’t think you’re that far off the mark. Seriously, google up her churches and do some digging for yourself. She’s not a Christian in the sense you’re using the word, and she has repeatedly affirmed her belief that we are living in the last times. Do you think the belief that the world is about to end would influence her decisions as President? Give that some thought, please.

By Raoul

November 19, 2009 3:27 PM | Link to this

Better no religion than anything Sarah Palin might believe in, eh Mark?

By Mark from St Paul

November 19, 2009 3:26 PM | Link to this

IG, I can tell you haven’t done your homework on Palin’s church(es) either. I wouldn’t call AOG or the Wasilla Bible Church “white liberation churches” per se, nor do I think their approach to their beliefs are quite as academic as that of most black liberation theologists (I know of no surviving black liberation churches that do not cater to an upscale, college-educated congregation). These people believe what they believe, and I am becoming more than a bit dismayed at your reluctance to take a hard look at exactly what these people mean when they say they’re Christians. Christians who believe the Last Days are upon us (how does that impact your views on national policy when you believe the world is about to end?). These are Christians who aggressively seek to convert people from other faiths (especially Jews), and they are Christians who isolate themselves from those who do not believe as they do, only interacting with others in the hope of converting them. I do a lot of writing online but you won’t find me slagging Methodists or even Baptists. I have no problems with most fundamentalists and evangelicals. Sarah Palin belongs to a very extreme church and if you have not studied their teachings, you don’t know as much about Palin as you think you do.

By irishguy

November 19, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this

Hey Mark, would you have an issue if Mrs Palin joined a White Liberation Church?

By Mark from St Paul

November 19, 2009 1:23 PM | Link to this

TRS, you won’t get a fight out of me, and I doubt I would have gotten a reply out of you had you done any reading about Sarah Palin’s actual church. Google “sarah palin church” (no quotes) and you’ll have no trouble finding out more about Wasilla Assembly of God, third wave Christianity or the “serpent seed.” Sarah Palin is a Dominionist, and that’s not just another word for evangelical. As for my objectivity, other than my belief that Jesus Christ was not the son of God, I am by all rights a mainstream Christian. I was raised a Lutheran and virtually all of my values and personal beliefs are rooted in ’50s era mainstream Lutheranism. You are wrong to say that no Christians want a theocracy, and by so saying you reveal that you really don’t pay attention to what the evangelical fringe is truly about. Bishop Muthee brags about driving witches from his African city (not true according to all press accounts), and he “anointed” Palin’s various candidacies. I have no problems with your Christian beliefs, and I doubt you’d have any problems with my Christian lifestyle. I do, however, strongly believe that if you did some direct research into Palin’s religious beliefs, your comfort level with her would be significantly impacted. Again, this is all pretty easy to Google up, and the facts about the Assembly of God church and the Third Wave movement are easily ascertained. At some point between the early ’70s and now, the Assembly of God church moved radically to the right and are now on the same page as the militias and Army of God folks (not all online resources seem to understand this and some still think the AOG is an anti-war Pentecostal church). To embrace Sarah Palin’s faith without knowing precisely what she believes in is a huge leap, and one you would do well to reconsider.

By TRS

November 19, 2009 12:24 PM | Link to this

Mark - again, I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I feel a need to respond to your most recent comments. 1st, you have posted before you are an avowed athiest. Regardless of your previous understandings of Christianity, I would hope you don’t claim to be an objective observer. I believe it is a red herring to say that Christians want to merge faith and government. Some Muslim countries desire a theocracy, ie believe as they do or they will cut your head off; but, the whole reason for free will was so humankind could choose God or reject Him. No Christian faith advocates theocracy. At the same time, Christians do want to influence the culture just as you and others do. The Chrisitan view is that nature and nature’s God created a natural and moral order which is the way life is best lived; whereas, the fallen human nature rebels against that and prefers to do what is right in his/her own eyes. The founding fathers believed that humankind needed to be responsible to nature and Nature’s God because history showed that humankind, left to its own devices, led to chaos and tyranny. I don’t know how Gov Palin would answer your questions, but I would guess the following - she would be humbled to be compared to Queen Ester but I doubt if she would see herself as her; witchcraft is evil, has led to human sacrifices and evil is the opposite of a good God; You could add divorce rate and other cultural issues to losing virginity - in many ways, the culture is influencing the church. There are many theories with one being that the church has spent to much time saying don’t and no as opposed to teaching the good reasons. For instance, purity balls are meant as a covenant between father and daughter to accentuate the concept that the greatest thing a couple can do is to save themselves for each other. God doesn’t make rules just for the sake of doing so - he does it because the order He created is best. The culture prefers that we be viewed as quivering masses of testosterine and hormones that can’t help ourselves and therefore we must satisfy our desires to be happy. A good question is which is most satisfying - a good marriage or a one night stand? Which would you prefer for your son or daughter? At the end of the day, no Christians should profess perfection - we are all a work in progress. As for any party or anyone who expresses their worldview based on their Christian beliefs, I am not to concerned about theri demise. This discussion has been going on a long time. At the end of the French enlightenment, Voltaire stated Christianity would be dead in 100 years. Hasn’t happened. As an aside, ironically the French Bible Society purchased Voltaire’s home after his death.

By Mark from St Paul

November 19, 2009 12:04 PM | Link to this

IG, my college minor was in African-American World Studies, and I am familiar with black liberation theology. I don’t see any connection between the Rev. Wright et al, and Assembly of God and other radical right churches. But if Obama’s ties to Rev. Wright disturb you, you should know that Obama and Wright aren’t half as tight as Palin and her pastors. I’ve watched several videos and have read a number of accounts of the brand of Christianity they practice up there, and I truly doubt you’d be as supportive of Palin as you are if you understood her agenda a little better. Bishop Muthee is an African Sun Myung Moon, and Palin enthusiastically received his blessing. I’ve never seen anything about Obama and Wright that would suggest that Obama and Michele were anything other than a couple who wanted to raise their kids in a church, and they picked Wright’s for a variety of reasons, black liberation theology not being on the list.

By Mike

November 19, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this

I agree wholeheartedly with you, Mark, on the Quinn column. All things like this do is feed the “I’m a victim of the liberal media” meme. And Palin needs things like that to keep the momentum behind her efforts to position herself in the spotlight and hang onto that Mavericky, Real American image she so wants to cultivate. Give it a rest, Sally. This kind of stuff is the last thing we need out there.

By irishguy

November 19, 2009 11:47 AM | Link to this

Mark, are/were you as concerned (obsessed)about “black liberation theology” as you are about the teachings of Mrs Palin’s church? I don’t recall you asking any questions about Mr O’s church or Reverend. I must admit I haven’t looked in the her religious background in any detail. I just recall some distress over a blessing she once rec’d and a prayer she said for our troops in harm’s way. I know she’s a Christian.

By Mark from St Paul

November 19, 2009 10:18 AM | Link to this

I will break from the liberal “herd” today to say that I found Sally Quinn’s anti-Palin column in today’s Washington Post to be quite objectionable. But I have some other questions I’d like to ask Gov. Palin. Do you agree with Bishop Thomas Muthee that you are like Queen Esther? Do you believe that witchcraft presents a danger to modern Christians, especially in Africa? Why do you think white evangelical women in the U.S. lose their virginity earlier than any other group? What is your opinion about Purity Balls? I do not think Gov. Palin’s non-Alaskan fans really know as much about her as they think they do. If you are a Christian, chances are excellent your pastor would find Sarah Palin’s pastors to be heretics. Because they are, by almost any standard of Christianity. She belongs to a radical church that believes in merging faith and government. In other words, Palin’s pastor would like to make all of his church’s beliefs U.S. law. A President Palin would work hard to make this a Christianist (not Christian) nation. If you do not understand Sarah Palin’s church, you do not understand where this woman is coming from. Make an effort to learn the truth about her before it’s too late and the Republican party brand ends up in the dustbin alongside the Whigs.

By vick

November 19, 2009 9:55 AM | Link to this

Just saw this on the book blog Shelf Awareness: at Bookshop Santa Cruz (in California), “several copies of Palin’s book … are stacked … next to a bowl filled with small bags of walnuts … Customer’s who buy Palin’s book also get a free bag of ‘Just Plain Nutz.’”

By irishguy

November 19, 2009 8:18 AM | Link to this

Well DS, one possible definition of a smarmy or snooty person could be one who refers to those who disagree with them as backassward..

By Slightly Right

November 19, 2009 6:37 AM | Link to this

DS, I wasn’t aware that Sarah Palin used the word “Backassward”. It seems to work though since that is where unemployment has gone since Jan when Obama promised to lower it. It has risen from 8% to 10% since. So much for the “Bailouts”. Yes Sarah Palin brought up the fact that more troops are needed for a surge to gain progress. I have every intension of buying her book,just as I do books about Obama. That way I can make rational comments from knowledge instead of pure hate like the touchy/feely liberals do when someone dares to disagree. What does “Basketball Hoop” have to do with race? Can you expound on that? Where were the Womens Organizations when Letterman made the filthy joke about Palin’s underage daughter. Enjoy your party, history always tends to repeat itself just like it did in 1994. We will be back!

By Slightly Right

November 19, 2009 1:27 AM | Link to this

To DS, You Libs never quit throwing stones at anyone with a conservative view. As for one of our most effective presidents (RR), check your history and tell me the date that the hostages were released in Iran. It wouldn’t have been just as Reagan was taking office would it? If you are looking for “womenizers”,you are really living in a glass house. I think the Clintons and Kennedys hold the record on that one. If you are so senitive about the word “Hoop”, what is your take on Reverend Wright’s hateful racist sermons that Obama failed to hear or understand for nearly twenty years.By the way DS,do you suppose we could figure out a way to blame Bush for the Civil War?

By zen

November 19, 2009 1:11 AM | Link to this

Look for Sarah Palin in the future on Fox News. That is what she really wants. She couldn`nt handle the strees of governing a state, why do people think she would qualify as president or even have respect for someone like that?

By HLee

November 18, 2009 11:23 PM | Link to this

DS asks, “HLee: which mistakes are you talking about?” The mistake liberals made about Reagan and about Bush Jr. was to underestimate their appeal to people like Raoul and SR. Neither of these presidents were brainy — poor Mr. Reagan actually finished his second term in the grip of Alzheimer’s, and as for the younger Mr. Bush, he seemed more of a puppet of Cheney and the oilmen than an actual president. Their policies harmed America: Mr. Reagan’s deregulation of everything led directly to today’s economic collapse, and Mr. Bush’s Iraq “policy” was opposed even by his own father, who knew something about war. Yet both these men won second terms, because they had an appeal, a kind of folksiness, that makes people of a certain conservative mindset feel comfortable. Ms. Palin has the same type of appeal, as comments here have clearly demonstrated.

By Raoul

November 18, 2009 9:33 PM | Link to this

DS, you never disappoint. “Smarmy”and “Snooty” do not fall under the ‘name calling’ category. “Snootist”or “Smarmist” would. “Elitist” does, and for that I apologize, as I have given you a hard time for name-calling in the past (deservedly so). I did not say that Sarah Palin is any smarter than those that have graduated from Ivy League schools, or that Ivy League graduates are not smart. I do, however, believe that “elitism” is the cardinal sin of most liberals and progressives, and that it was Ronald Reagan who stood them all on their heads and towered above their world view by going straight to ‘The People’. They responded with the biggest landslide in history, and left folks (presumably) like you wondering what the heck was going on. Sarah Palin has the potential for the same type of response. After all, it is ‘We The People’ who decide things in America, not “We the smart ones who can’t understand why the Proletariat won’t listen to us”. To paraphrase RR, in America, We The People tell the government what it can or can’t do, not the opposite. You strike me as being on the side of government trying to tell We The People what we should or should not do. True equality means that truck drivers, ditch diggers, small businessmen and women, and conservative family members have the same rights as the super-smart East Coast progressive liberals and college professors who have all the connections to the media outlets. That is why our Founders created the Electoral College. DS, I think they might have been concerned about folks like you!

By downsized

November 18, 2009 7:37 PM | Link to this

Oh gee, where to begin? Trish, says Palin is not a politician. Read a dictionary: “a person holding or seeking political office”. Shame on your teachers “girl”. IG: Reagan was a lousy sportswriter, lousy actor and drunken womenizer who thought George W. Jr. was a dummy. I give him credit. But, if you think the ability to get elected makes you smart you must love Congress. I live under a Democratic governor who makes Bonzo look brilliant. HLee: which mistakes are you talking about? Felonies, wars of choice, arms and drugs for hostages, CIA drug running, what/which? And, Raoul: what bothers you most? Ivy League schools? What makes a person snooty or smarmy to you? That they disagree with your vision of the world. Come on, Raoul, please tell us your definition of elitist. You seem pretty cocksure of yourself about calling others names. Define what makes everyone who graduates from an institution of acclaimed higher learning, located in the Northeast less ‘smart’, or an elitist. As for Slightly Right: I’m unaware of Palin’s inclination to send more troops overseas. And, please articulate for me what Palin did for our society? Basketball hoops (maybe a touch of race there)? Sounds like you’re a mind reader too. The knee jerk reactions of you Palin apologists are just so funny. I wonder, will you all be purchasing her book? I seriously doubt it. It’s like I tried to say in my earlier post. You just seem to NEED her to justify your insecurities. She said the President’s economic policies were “backassword”. That’s what you really like in a world leader right? You love her because she is you. Backassward.

By Jim

November 18, 2009 7:05 PM | Link to this

Sarah Palin is so self righteous and so self absorbed, that she doesn’t know that she doesn’t know. What’s more concerning her followers who are unable to logically and objectively discern that she doesn’t know. This ghostwritten book is full of lies, (surprise) and even John McCain pushed back against her today. Her educational background is pathetic for someone seeking national office. She should try reading a book before writing one.

By Slightly Right

November 18, 2009 5:21 PM | Link to this

It is so entertaining to watch the Libs sweat & vent their vile&venom over this intellignt,down to earth,popular voice of normal american citizens. As far as the war goes,she would send the resorces to get it done,not promise all through a campaign to send several “Brigades” and leave our troops understrength. Remember,she ran a State and did more for society than decide the best place to build the next park or basketball hoop. It seems that gender makes no difference to the Women’s Organizations as long their bashing a Republican,especially if she happens to be attractive.

By it's Obama's fault

November 18, 2009 4:42 PM | Link to this

Obama and his Liberal cronies will probly try to sabotage the signing. Democrats don’t want anyone to read.

By Raoul

November 18, 2009 3:45 PM | Link to this

Sarah Palin is a poke in the eye of all the liberals, who cannot accept that all their feminist dreams turned to a nightmare with her popularity. She is not from some snooty, elitist, Ivy League school, has 5 children and a husband, she is pro-life, and believes in the right to bear arms. She is plenty smart, just not in the same smarmy, snooty, elitist way that the liberals think ‘smart’ is. DS is right, the world is a scary place, filled with terrorists, communists, dictators, and liberals who think they are smarter than everyone else. It’s not the insecure who gravitate to Palin. Her fans are the ones out making an honest living, raising families, and trying to teach their children right from wrong, and to work hard for what you want to achieve in life. They are secure in their beliefs and in their achievements. And there are lots of them.

By edo

November 18, 2009 3:13 PM | Link to this

I understand her concession speech started out “Popcorn is fifty cents. Hot dogs and soda are a dollar.”…

By HLee

November 18, 2009 2:50 PM | Link to this

Anyone so disliked by the mainstream media can’t be all bad. More seriously, I think liberals like me would be mistaken to sneer at her. She has an engaging manner and, on the surface at least, an attractive story: hardworking mom fights the big boys and wins. When you look more carefully at her story, you start to see major holes in it — but the same could be said of many politicians’ stories. Liberals who smirk at her and her followers, instead of dealing straightforwardly with the arguments, will be making a big mistake, the same one they made about Reagan and about Bush Jr.

By Insider

November 18, 2009 2:30 PM | Link to this

Yeah, well people formed lines to see the bullet-riddled car of Bonnie & Clyde, too. I wouldn’t read too much into the public’s novelty obsession.

By irishguy

November 18, 2009 1:38 PM | Link to this

DS, are you really saying Mr Reagan and Mrs Palin aren’t/weren’t smart and well read? And those of us who like them resent those who are? Despite the opinion of so many on the left, being conservative doesn’t mean one is of lesser intelligence. Did you ever read the book of Mr Reagan’s letters? They show a smart, well read man with a firm grasp of many issues. I don’t how Mrs Palin was able to be elected as mayor and Governor if she is as dense as you and most of the media seem to believe.

By Trish

November 18, 2009 1:34 PM | Link to this

What makes her a maverick is that she is NOT a politician. And I think that is the reason people respond to her. There are those who resent her because she represents what all of us girls were told we could have - looks, brains, popularity, family, career. Where have all the women’s organizations been while the media is trying to tear her to bits? Not one has come to her defense. Shame on those Femi-Nazis!

By downsized

November 18, 2009 12:32 PM | Link to this

What a maverick she is. Not. I believe her popularity is very real and comes from the fact she represents a large group of citizens. A lot of Americans resent smart, well read, engaged people. They want an attractive, everyday gal type, who plays a gushing, “you betcha!” enthusiastic mommy. Much like Reagan, who played an everyday guy’s guy type, gushing, “heck, gee whiz!” enthusiastic daddy. The world is a very scary place now and the insecure gravitate to what once was, and what they wish was again. Escapist bs. Just look at the movies. All the teens want to be vampires. Reality is found on page twelve where they put the casualty lists from our two wars. Nobody wants to read about that. Just too damn real. Palin will make a fortune. Trust me.

By waterboard madoff

November 18, 2009 12:16 PM | Link to this

Another example of the Oprah effect. Is “get a life” appropriate here?