Subscribe via RSS Feed

Just to Clairify

[ 85 ] March 17, 2011 |

Liberals sometimes criticize Sarah Palin because we’re absolutely terrified that she will make a formidable candidate.    After all, in the wake of her historic performance as VP candidate, who could doubt it?    And if she makes Haley Barbour her veep choice, whew, that would be unbeatable.   I’m very, very scared.

Comments (85)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Antonio Conselheiro says:

    Yeah, Obama would be safe then. Joy.

  2. jeer9 says:

    When you vote for the Dems regardless of how repugnant their behavior is, comparisons to greater, stupider evil are all you’ve got left. Please don’t diminish the small consolation this brings to some.

  3. DrDick says:

    Please, Brer Fox, don’t throw me in the Palin patch! Don’t do that, whatever you do.

  4. Malaclypse says:

    Yes, she would lose, probably. Hard to be sure, if the Democrats actually decide to “compromise” on Social Security. And just think of the ideas that will Need To Be Taken Seriously, once she gets them out there. We need to be Bipartisan, after all.

  5. blogenfreude says:

    In 1999 I assured myself that an unaccomplished Red State governor who had no accomplishments (and a less than stellar track record as a human being) could never be elected president. We all know how that turned out. Same with Reagan back in 1979.

  6. Mark Centz says:

    Seconding blogenfruede, although after 1980 I learned my lesson. Suckers are born two a minute in this country.

    • LosGatosCA says:

      Most suckers are made, not born. It takes years of willful ignorance and careful manipulation by the non-suckers.

      And then they are ready to vote for someone they want to have a beer with. Or someone the Villagers want to have a beer with. Or someone the Villagers have already had a beer with. Anyway it involves beer and voting and it all makes sense to the manipulators and the suckers but it’s impossible to penetrate if you are a decent human being with a normal IQ or higher.

  7. The Pale Scot says:

    I been rooting for a Palin/Barbour ticket for months already, get on the bandwagon!

    And really, if they get elected it proves the american people aren’t worthy of survival, and the policies enacted will ensure that. It’s Evolution in action.

    I’m already a member of VHEM.
    May we live long and die out

  8. joel hanes says:

    My hopes are pinned on some pretty dark horses.

    If Michele Bachmann were the nominee, and she chose Republican NY gov. candidate James M. Turner as her running mate, I could put a

    Bachmann / Turner

    bumpersticker on my car.
    A little magic marker and scissor work would soon add the missing “Overkill” to the end.

    The Republicans never seem to do it right.

    Last time they had the never-to-come-again chance to nominate Duncan Hunter for Pres, and Thompson for VP, which would have been

    Hunter / Thompson

    and it would have been child’s play to alter the slash to an S in honor of Duke.

  9. ajay says:

    I’m hoping for an all-female, all-foreign-policy-expert ticket next time.

    Power/Slaughter 2012!

  10. Brad P. says:

    If Palin gets the nomination, the presidential choices I have been presented with since I reached the voting age amounts to this stellar list:

    Al Gore
    George W. Bush
    John Kerry
    John McCain
    Barack Obama
    Sarah Palin

    How old do you have to be to think that giving the US Government alot of power isn’t an investment in evil?

      • Brad P. says:

        I often wonder what those Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter glory years were like.

        • DrDick says:

          Much better than those that followed. Pre-Reagan, people (including Republicans) actually believed that government existed to solve problems. Government initiatives are never perfect (no collective effort ever can be), but they actually did effect dramatic improvements in peoples lives. This was particularly true in the Roosevelt-Johnson era (though there were also problems during that period).

    • Malaclypse says:

      How old do you have to be to think that giving the US Government alot of power isn’t an investment in evil?

      Depends on whether you are talking foreign or domestic policy. We’ve been an empire since at least the Spanish-American War, and I think it is fair to argue that all or at best most foreign policy since then has been evil.

      But there have been non-evil domestic policies during that period.

    • timb says:

      Al Gore would have made a decent US President and Obama is a decent US President. If one does not “give the power” to the US government, then even more undemocratic (some of them anti-democratic) institutions will wield that power. The power exists; one cannot just wish it away, so granting the power to a government run by republican majorities would seem to be the better way of handling it (unless one believes the re-emergence of the Church and continuing empowerment of the corporation is more democratic way of handling power).

      The main problem with current American politics is, Brad, and it’s one you choose not to notice is money and campaign contributions. Conservatives, despite the village CW and the blather from the Republicans, are not a majority in this country. They are able to BUY majorities and keep voting down and make politics as ugly as possible so people pay little attention to it.

      My belief is if we gave the US government the right to finance publicly financed campaigns, the governmental system would stop being as warped by money as it is and might more reflect the will of the people.

      Not exactly libertarian thinking, I’ll admit.

      • Brad P. says:

        Al Gore would have made a decent US President and Obama is a decent US President. If one does not “give the power” to the US government, then even more undemocratic (some of them anti-democratic) institutions will wield that power.

        If you consider Obama to be a decent US president, we have standards that will never allow us to agree. I literally cannot discuss what I think the proper response the citizenry should take in response to Bradley Manning’s treatment. Obama is a villain.

        The main problem with current American politics is, Brad, and it’s one you choose not to notice is money and campaign contributions. Conservatives, despite the village CW and the blather from the Republicans, are not a majority in this country. They are able to BUY majorities and keep voting down and make politics as ugly as possible so people pay little attention to it.

        The democrats do the same thing with a different set of lies.

        And I really don’t get this line of critique:

        1. The government is more responsive to money than it is to votes.

        2. Therefore the government consistently counteracts the will of the public in favor of a privileged few.

        3. Therefore libertarians are wrong for generally opposing extensions of government power and discretion.

        Seriously, how do you get from your starting point, “Our government consistently screws over the public in favor of wealthy, established elites” to “the government should have the discretion to publicly finance campaigns”?

        Do you think any candidate marginally left of center would ever get the opportunity to run a national campaign if that policy got pushed through?

        Do you think it unreasonable for me to believe that such a policy would immediately ensure that no anti-war president could ever run?

        • Malaclypse says:

          1. The government is more responsive to money than it is to votes.

          2. Therefore the government consistently counteracts the will of the public in favor of a privileged few.

          3. Therefore libertarians are wrong for generally opposing extensions of government power and discretion.

          Because in both points 1 and 2, one needs to substitute “government, wealthy individuals, and large corporations” for “government.”

          • Brad P. says:

            Fair enough, but how do you manage to separate “government” from “wealthy individuals and corporations” in the conclusion?

            The overarching point is the cognitive dissonance required to make these two points:

            1. Our government is failing to be democratic, in favor of oligarchism.

            2. We need to give the government the power to protect us from oligarchs.

            The critique of libertarians that usually revolves around the first point, completely undermines the second point which is largely the basis of the progressive movement.

            How can you say that democracy is failing in this country, and then propose programs that require constant democratic oversight to be successful?

            • DrDick says:

              The critique is fundamentally that government offers an opportunity (though not a guarantee) for the people to act collectively to counter the oligarchs. The reality of the libertarian dream world is unchecked rule by the oligarchs.

              • Brad P. says:

                The critique is fundamentally that government offers an opportunity (though not a guarantee) for the people to act collectively to counter the oligarchs. The reality of the libertarian dream world is unchecked rule by the oligarchs.

                This kinda makes me laugh because I think a libertarian would say this with complete honesty:

                The critique is fundamentally that the market offers an opportunity (though not a guarantee) for the people to act collectively to counter the oligarchs. The reality of the progressive dream world is unchecked rule by the oligarchs.

              • mark f says:

                The critique is fundamentally that the market offers an opportunity (though not a guarantee) for the people to act collectively to counter the oligarchs. The reality of the progressive dream world is unchecked rule by the oligarchs.

                Yes, well, when your worldview rests on the idea that goodthink assertions trump empirical evidence, that’s really convincing. In the real world the unregulated market has produced injustice and inequality at a vastly greater rate than well-run (And some not particularly well-run) modern governments have.

              • timb says:

                Citizens can’t beat entrenched wealth. See human history from Dawn of Time through 20th century Europe, specifically “Nobility/Feudalism” and “Robber barons, US”

                The history of the US is replete about how the government was purchased by monied interests and how for a brief time, 1935-1975, citizens came close to running their country and empiricism, meritocracy, and living standards for almost all dominated.

                For God’s sake, I’m not a communist, but money corrupts power and the only thing that will stop it is the Law. If you know another institution which makes law, besides government, then let me know.

                My Senator was Evan Bayh. Now, it’s Dan Coats. Tell me, brad, how the Senator’s son and the lobbyist represent me? Despite being in different parties, they represent millionaires and corporations and spend the majority of their time out of the Senate selling themselves to the highest bidder.

                That’s not Democracy. What we need is the Grachii brothers to come in and shake things up.

              • Brad Potts says:

                Yes, well, when your worldview rests on the idea that goodthink assertions trump empirical evidence, that’s really convincing.[/quote]

                No, my “goodthink assertions” are reasonably indisputable assertions, and what you call “empirical evidence” is actually your value-laden interpretations of incomplete statistics.

                For example, general regressive trends in local taxes can be attributable to any number of factors, while the fact that I can access and pressure my mayor far easier than I can access and pressure the president.

                In the real world the unregulated market has produced injustice and inequality at a vastly greater rate than well-run (And some not particularly well-run) modern governments have.

                Because you can run a controlled comparison showing the results of an unfettered modern economy with the results of a modern state managed economy?

                Do you have an alternate universe where the government hasn’t spent the last century doing everything it could do to stimulate economic activity and keep customers paying money to rich people so that you can see the results of an economy with minimal government intrusion?

              • Brad Potts says:

                For God’s sake, I’m not a communist, but money corrupts power and the only thing that will stop it is the Law. If you know another institution which makes law, besides government, then let me know.

                Money doesn’t corrupt power, power corrupts money. Power corrupts religions. Power corrupts everything, and power corrupts the law. This idea that you can focus on money, and not the other tools of the powerful strikes me as pointless.

                Do you seriously think that we can keep those that wish us harm in check by taking away their money and giving them laws to exploit?

                Tell me, brad, how the Senator’s son and the lobbyist represent me?

                They don’t, but aren’t they in charge of making the laws that are supposed to protect you from the power of money?

                I honestly would hate to see what people would start competing over if they couldn’t compete over money.

                That’s not Democracy. What we need is the Grachii brothers to come in and shake things up.

                Or Urukagina

              • mark f says:

                Do you have an alternate universe where the government hasn’t spent the last century doing everything it could do to stimulate economic activity

                Why do we have to restrict our inquiry to the last hundred years?

              • Brad P. says:

                Why do we have to restrict our inquiry to the last hundred years?

                It would be rather hard to use 200 year old data as a an accurate control for measuring the effects of modern government.

                Are you going to say that feudal serfs were just a train system and a health insurance mandate away from freedom?

              • Malaclypse says:

                Are you going to say that feudal serfs were just a train system and a health insurance mandate away from freedom?

                I suspect his point is that rule by the wealthy did not work out then, and won’t now. I suspect we all agree on this point, we merely differ (completely) on how to mitigate this problem.

              • Brad P. says:

                I suspect his point is that rule by the wealthy did not work out then, and won’t now. I suspect we all agree on this point, we merely differ (completely) on how to mitigate this problem.

                Yeah, hence my response to DrDick that the libertarian would consider the market to be liberating and the government to be rule by oligarchs.

                Your side sees the state as a fundamental check against economic power, my side sees the state as a fundamental source of economic power.

                And this goes for libertarians of the right and left side.

              • mark f says:

                I suspect his point is that rule by the wealthy did not work out then, and won’t now.

                With the corollary that rule by someone (with visible hands) is inevitable.

                It’s weird that Brad initially limited this debate to what happened within the last century, and when I objected he jumped to 200 years. I wonder if anything happened between 100-200 years ago that might help us out.

              • Brad P. says:

                It’s weird that Brad initially limited this debate to what happened within the last century, and when I objected he jumped to 200 years. I wonder if anything happened between 100-200 years ago that might help us out.

                I’m guessing you want to use a massive technological revolution that completely reworked entire economies in a generation as an example of why the free market doesn’t work, all the while ignoring how government worked tirelessly to subsidize the industrialists investments, crush labor’s dissent, and cartelize away competition.

                If I pointed you to The Triumph of Conservatism which was written by a leftist historian that shows how the financial and industrial monopolies and oligopolies around the turn of the century were breaking down until they latched onto progressive rhetoric that eliminated competition, would you read it?

              • Brad P. says:

                With the corollary that rule by someone (with visible hands) is inevitable.

                As a libertarian that comes from Hayekian roots, I believe strongly that society and economies spontaneously order in the absence of rulers.

              • mark f says:

                Sure, I’d read it. I don’t know which part of what you typed you think I’d disagree with, though, nor do I get why you think that contradicts the idea that the relatively lasseiz-faire markets of the time produced vast inequalities and injustice.

                I’d be very surprised if the book’s socialist author really says a market solution was superduper awesome for everyone.

              • Brad P. says:

                Sure, I’d read it. I don’t know which part of what you typed you think I’d disagree with, though, nor do I get why you think that contradicts the idea that the relatively lasseiz-faire markets of the time produced vast inequalities and injustice.

                Because his central argument in the book is that the market shares of industrial magnates were slipping, and that the progressive movement was spearheaded by them to stifle their competition.

                He points to data that the cartels, when left to their own, would engage in price wars that would only serve to cripple them, and that it was through the grand national projects of US progressivism that they managed to entrench their position of power.

              • mark f says:

                I understand all that. That’s an argument for why market capitalism was working pretty much as it was supposed to among competing capitalists and some segment of consumers.

                I’m talking about the other people, the kids in the coal mines and the girls at the shirtwaist factories and the people Upton Sinclair wrote about. Pre-progessive era capitalism wasn’t working so hot for them.

              • DrDick says:

                Brad, we have been over this before, but reality is not kind to libertarians. What markets (of the capitalist sort) are most efficient at is transferring value from labor to capital (from the workers to the rentiers). You need to understand the effects of wealth concentration, inevitable in market systems, on distorting markets in the favor of the wealthy. This is what happens. Every. Single. Time. No exceptions.

              • Brad P. says:

                You need to understand the effects of wealth concentration, inevitable in market systems, on distorting markets in the favor of the wealthy. This is what happens. Every. Single. Time. No exceptions.

                The state and its project centralize wealth. Do you think we would have Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan, or Bank of America in their current state if not for government support and privileged use of money?

                The modern state can only deal with a complex economy by dealing with particular individuals and interest groups. Wealth pools with those groups.

              • DrDick says:

                We have been over this before, as well. The market cannot exist in the absence of the state (nor the state in the absence of markets). They exist in a symbiotic relationship. The difference is that in democracies, the people have a chance to seize control of the state. Markets are not subject to control by labor, other than through political means.

              • Malaclypse says:

                As a libertarian that comes from Hayekian roots, I believe strongly that society and economies spontaneously order in the absence of rulers.

                But you need a state to enforce contracts. You need an accounting system. You need a medium of exchange. You need property rights. You need all kinds of things.

                If markets happened spontaneously, they would have happened relatively early in history, rather than relatively recently.

            • Malaclypse says:

              Fair enough, but how do you manage to separate “government” from “wealthy individuals and corporations” in the conclusion?

              This conclusion?

              3. Therefore libertarians are wrong for generally opposing extensions of government power and discretion.

              Because I don’t see libertarians clamoring for restrictions on wealthy individuals or large corporations. When they start, consistently, please let me know.

              The reality of the libertarian dream world is unchecked rule by the oligarchs.

              What DrDick said.

              • Brad P. says:

                Because I don’t see libertarians clamoring for restrictions on wealthy individuals or large corporations. When they start, consistently, please let me know.

                That’s what I’m talking about.

                Once you can show libertarians that the government can effectively restrict and regulate wealthy individuals, they will agree with you.

                Constantly agreeing with the libertarian complaint that our government is a shill for corporations, rather than a equal defender of rights, does not help your cause.

              • Brad P. says:

                SOME will agree with you, that “they” was not the right choice of words.

              • timb says:

                But, they were controlled effectively in the Post-War period through the 1980′s. American history has two periods of time where an essential neo-feudalist power was controlled: right after the Civil War and right after the Depression. in both occasions the oligarchs fought back and accumulated unsustainable wealth and impoverished the nation.

              • Brad Potts says:

                But, they were controlled effectively in the Post-War period through the 1980’s. American history has two periods of time where an essential neo-feudalist power was controlled: right after the Civil War and right after the Depression. in both occasions the oligarchs fought back and accumulated unsustainable wealth and impoverished the nation.

                Even if this is accurate, you have absolutely no idea how much of that is due to free market policies and how much was due to pro-business policies.

              • Holden Pattern says:

                Even if this is accurate, you have absolutely no idea how much of that is due to free market policies and how much was due to pro-business policies.

                Libertarianism can never fail, it can only be failed.

        • mark f says:

          I literally cannot discuss what I think the proper response the citizenry should take in response to Bradley Manning’s treatment.

          And the number of revolts in which traitors or suspected traitors* to the cause were treated better than Manning and/or not simply killed on the spot is what?

          *Not that I think Manning is a traitor, but exposing official secrets has certainly been construed that way throughout history.

          • Brad P. says:

            And the number of revolts in which traitors or suspected traitors* to the cause were treated better than Manning and/or not simply killed on the spot is what?

            We have a president who has definitively shown his intent and ability to deceive, humiliate, and torture the general American public in order to defend a distant privileged elite.

            I don’t exactly know when the threat of a government that is actively hostile to its own people actually outweighs the social unrest caused by revolt (or even what revolt in the US would look like, we could probably just stop buying so much shit), but I know what I think Obama deserves.

            • mark f says:

              I don’t see a number in that response.

              • Brad Potts says:

                Alright, I concede. Obama needs to kill or imprison more innocent people than would be harmed in a revolution before any sort of revolutionary discussion should occur.

              • mark f says:

                Did I ask you about when we should start the Bradley Manning revolution, or about how many revolutions have refrained from torturing or killing their own versions of Bradley Manning?

              • Brad P. says:

                Did I ask you about when we should start the Bradley Manning revolution, or about how many revolutions have refrained from torturing or killing their own versions of Bradley Manning?

                In Egypt, the revolutionaries responded to violence by self-organizing watch groups.

                So I imagine it depends more on the society than revolution itself.

              • mark f says:

                It seems to me to be altogether too early to predict how Egypt’s new government deals with those it deems traitors. It also seems too early to know whether what Egypt was actually a revolution and not just an extremely dramatic recall election.

    • John Protevi says:

      You have to be old enough to know that “a lot of power” is not a good analytical frame. IOW, there’s a difference between a well-funded professionally run, and properly over-sighted OSHA, EPA, NLRB, FDA, FEMA and the Wars on Drugs, Terror, and Poor People. In fact, although I agree with DrDick that Reagan is a convenient dividing line, a comparison of the Clinton G W Bush FEMA would be a good exercise.

      But the really obnoxious thing about your performance today, Brad, is the strawman you construct who thinks pre-Reagan domestic policies made that time a “Golden Age.” You whine and sulk repeatedly about the alleged mis-representation of your views and then you pull a stunt like that. No wonder it’s a mostly exasperating experience dealing with you.

      • Brad P. says:

        But the really obnoxious thing about your performance today, Brad, is the strawman you construct who thinks pre-Reagan domestic policies made that time a “Golden Age.” You whine and sulk repeatedly about the alleged mis-representation of your views and then you pull a stunt like that. No wonder it’s a mostly exasperating experience dealing with you.

        Are you really chastising me for snark?!

        On this blog?!

        • John Protevi says:

          Snark? That word does not mean what you think it means. It’s nor snark when it fits perfectly the line you usually run. Unless this is some 11th dimensional meta-self-reflexive performance art and your real target is your tendency to say “gummit bad, freedomosity good”.

        • timb says:

          To defend him, I thought he was kidding about a pre-Reagan Golden Age of presidential contenders. There’s no way a libertarian can make peace with Republicans OR Democrats from that time period. I mean, if Manning pisses him off (and, I’m shocked to say, it seems to have made him more angry than it makes me), then there’s no way he supports the tactics of Vietnamization or the abuses the Church Committee found. Further, there’s no way he can champion price controls and the creation of the Department of Education, etc. Pre-Reagan was a nightmare for libertarians, because the consensus was that Government could help and the argument was over ‘how much should it or could it” not on whether we should cut funding to NOAA or the NIH

          • Brad P. says:

            Pre-Reagan was a nightmare for libertarians

            As has post-Reagan, even if libertarians have received more lip service.

            • John Protevi says:

              Jiminy Christmas, Brad, wasn’t it just two or three days ago that you linked approvingly to JT Levy denouncing the refuge in the No True Scotsman move, and here you go again taking refuge in it. You don’t get to divorce the real world anti-worker effects of anti gummit pro freedomosity talk by whining about how the impure have corrupted the noble message of St Hayek.

              • Brad P. says:

                I really do think you should reread that, as he says ” It’s important, but wildly insufficient, to insist over and over again on the No True Scotsman defense: when a problem arises in the world, we say “ah, but that’s not a real market, and the businesses using our ideas as cover can’t be held against us.”

                I don’t know how you can say he is denouncing the No True Scotsman, when he literally says “Its important…to insist over and over again on the No True Scotsman” defense.

                He only says that it is insufficient, and that it must also be proposed in terms as a portion of liberalism.

                Since my presence here has been one big project to portray the modern progressive movement as counterproductive to liberal goals and libertarianism as the proper solution, I have to say I agree with Levy completely, and that you don’t quite understand what he is saying.

                So here it is: The No True Scotsman defense is valid, but will never be taken seriously until libertarians quit making it so easy to lump them all into the conservative camp.

              • John Protevi says:

                One reason, as far as I’m concerned, to make a big deal out of being a liberaltarian is provided by the well-known fact that incumbent businesses and the incumbent wealthy use market-friendly rhetoric to disguise rent-seeking, power-entrenching, state-dependent behavior.  It’s important, but wildly insufficient, to insist over and over again on the No True Scotsman defense: when a problem arises in the world, we say “ah, but that’s not a real market, and the businesses using our ideas as cover can’t be held against us.”  The longstanding libertarian alliance with the right has made it far too easy to conflate market freedom with the interests of incumbent firms, far too easy to fail to notice state action when it aids established business (until it goes wrong somehow, at which point the No True Scotsman defense comes out). /Levy

                The above is Levy’s full quote. If you don’t think this is a denunciation of the No True Scotsman, then I really don’t know what to say. Calling something “wildly insufficient” and then noting it only comes out when things go wrong, is not an endorsement.

              • Brad P. says:

                One reason, as far as I’m concerned, to make a big deal out of being a liberaltarian is provided by the well-known fact that incumbent businesses and the incumbent wealthy use market-friendly rhetoric to disguise rent-seeking, power-entrenching, state-dependent behavior.

                Right, because the incumbent wealthy don’t use statist and progressive rhetoric to disguise rent-seeking, power-entrenching, state-dependent behavior?

              • Brad P. says:

                The above is Levy’s full quote. If you don’t think this is a denunciation of the No True Scotsman, then I really don’t know what to say. Calling something “wildly insufficient” and then noting it only comes out when things go wrong, is not an endorsement.

                Then why does he say it is important to insist on it over and over again?

            • timb says:

              Hey, just an idea, but go read about Carnegie, Mellon, Vanderbilts, etc. These were men, who by hook and crook, created industries they dominated out of determination and graft. There was no market for oil in 1880. Standard Oil created that market out of nothing and the first thing Rockerfeller did was buy politicians right and left. Much like the railroad barons, he needed government’s power to take land and enforce contracts.

              There is no oligarchy without government, but the key to stopping it isn’t to eliminate government (Somalia doesn’t seem like a libertarian paradise to me); it’s to restrict money’s access to the people in government. A 90% tax rate, high union membership (impossible until GOVERNMENT intervened on the side of the labor in the ’30′s), and an increasing regulatory state is what kept America humming along in the 50′s and 60′s and 70′s.

              Markets are short-sighted. unfettered capitalism gave us robber barons and the Depression and the Great Recession. The administrative state gave us FFLEP loans, so libertarians could go to college, the EPA, and Medicaid. I know which ones I prefer

  11. Glenn says:

    Here’s the problem I have with all the “oh please let Sarah Palin run” snark: As I think we just saw in 2010, elections turn on economic fundamentals as much or more than the actual merits of the positions of the parties or the candidates. Right now, I don’t have any good feeling that the economy will have made any great strides by November 2012. Certainly, Obama shows little sign of being willing or able to put through any program that will assist things in getting better, and whatever little turnaround seems to be going on is slim pickings. So the fundamentals to me suggest that the Republican is quite likely to win in 2012, regardless of how inept or unpopular he or she is.

  12. virag says:

    palin has exhausted even her core audience’s tolerance for nonsense. those folks may be simple people of the land, the common clay of the new west, you know, morons, but they like a good show, and palin’s act is just gettin’ stale. maybe the fact that she’s bleeding them to build her fortune is getting annoying as well.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site