published Sunday, January 16th, 2011


Follow Clay Bennett on Facebook

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
steve_smith_tn said...

I wouldn't vote for Sarah Palin. I have never shot a deer. I think she would be a terrible leader. With that said, I don't hate her. I wonder why so many people do.

Maybe those who cry out against Ms. Palin the loudest secretly harbor some kind of closet confusion. Psychologists no longer consider wanting to shoot a gun, wear a dress (or ask your wife to wear one), or raise more than two children a disorder. This is 2011. Folks no longer have to live a lie. Embrace your inner rural orientation. Be proud.

January 16, 2011 at 12:32 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

We can only hope that she fades off into relative obscurity but I am afraid that reruns of that reality show of hers will have us laughing far into the future. I did love the episode where her father says that she stands on her own "four" feet.

January 16, 2011 at 12:45 a.m.
codymaxwell said...

Steve, my theory for the furor that Sarah Palin causes has nothing to do with wearing dresses or shooting guns. I don't think too many people really care about that. The furor comes from the fact that she is so obviously unfit for the positions of leadership to which aspires, and rational people find her claims of competency insulting--insulting to them and insulting to our government.But I don't think she will last much longer. Clay hit it right on--I believe she's beyond absurdity now and her political career is most likely over.

January 16, 2011 at 1:09 a.m.
alprova said...

Some men are so love starved, that Sarah Palin represents to them, a modicum of perfection when it comes to being a woman. After all, she exudes femininity from every pore of her being.

I hear that the new and improved 2011 Sarah Palin model comes with a squared-off head, where your beer can can be placed while you engage her in a conversation about world affairs.

Seriously though, the reason people, such as myself for instance, do not care for the woman is because she is attempting to be something she is not and never could be. The woman is not a leader of people. She is a pretty face with aspirations to be constantly admired and the center of attention always and forever.

There's nothing at all wrong in her desiring to be that focus of attention, but the woman has proven time and again that she is clearly not qualified and completely lacks in the fortitude needed, to be President of the United States of America.

Quitters do not lead a nation. Those with thin skin cannot handle the job as President. Whiners need not apply.

Being confident is one thing. Being unrealistically arrogant when making self-comparisons to the leader of the free world is another. No one can accuse Sarah Palin of being humble.

Sarah Palin's sole accomplishment over the past two years has been to find unique and consistent ways to bash the man who is President of the United States.

As predicted, her popularity is ebbing. She's running out of ways to keep herself in the news. Her show has been canceled. Her public appearances, where people throw her cash, are no more.

This past week, rather than to have been smart and to have completely ignored the unfair and stupendous criticism offered because Sarah Palin likes to use gun metaphors, she bit the bait tossed at her and was reeled in like a tuna.

Rather than to have successfully deflected the criticism, she now appears to be putting herself right in the middle of what happened and opening herself to even more criticism.

To wrap it all up into one simple package, Sarah Palin has become her own worst enemy. As we have heard so many times over the years, "it is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

January 16, 2011 at 1:31 a.m.
EaTn said...

There will always be sheeple in this country that are eager to read, watch and follow the big three (Sarah, Glen and Rush), but there is still hope for this country as they are being exposed as comic political pundits as more folks are starting to learn the truth by reading independently and watching other channels.

January 16, 2011 at 6:52 a.m.
jimbob said...

Very good post Alprova. I couldn't of said it better my self.

January 16, 2011 at 7:29 a.m.
woody said...

The truth of the matter has been and will continue to be the fact Ms. Palin actually believes she has something to offer this country.

That said, and I am not sure if I have mentioned this here, but now is as good a time as any, I voted for McCain and Palin. Of course, that was because I had no faith in the Democratic choice and knew little more about Palin than she was a sitting governor and looked real good standing next to McCain.

I have discovered much more since the election. I still have little faith in Obama, but he is our president so I continue to hope for the best. Also, I have learned Ms. Palin cannot seem to finish many jobs she takes on and is her own worst enemy.

In the long-run I made a mistake in the last presidential election which will not be repeated again, God willing. That doesn't mean I will vote for Obama in 2012, what it does mean is I will have to delve a bit more into those who will be pitted against him.

And in no way will Palin or anyone like her even be considered.

Looks aren't everything, Woody

January 16, 2011 at 7:41 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Gov. Palin is no worse an ink blot now for us to project our dreams on than Sen. Obama was in '08, but she's a conservative ink blot, so she MIGHT do better than our liberal one has done so far, since liberalism is nonsense, however intelligent and charming some liberals may be. (She might make a better set of mistakes: in details more than in principles.)

Hating and despising her and other conservatives (or liberals) pours gasoline on the fires of hate. Try some respect. Or as Jesus Christ might say, try some love; she and President Obama SHOULD agree on that with most Chattanoogans.

In their Wednesday speeches, our President took on larger responsibilities than she. She handled hers well enough: she and other conservatives had been accused of encouraging murder--a charge our President acknowledged to be false ("it did not")--and she defended herself. He served as mourner-in-chief, or eulogist-in-chief, doing very well at that, and he encouraged us to moderate our rhetoric a bit, doing OK at that... (I apologize to rhetoreticians for having to sound as if I disparage a fine art, or fine aspect of verbal arts.)

...but he could have risen to a higher level, I think, if he had agreed by name with Gov. Palin, as she'd implicitly invited him to, that vigorous discourse kept peaceful by elections is a strength of the USA. And if he'd admitted that some of his own wording--punish your enemies, bring a gun, etc--had been rather fierce. Love your enemies, and confess and renounce your sins: he didn't rise to that level. (Nor did he, as Jesus did, rebuke his overzealous friends, if Paul Krugman & co. are his friends.)

January 16, 2011 at 7:54 a.m.
alprova said...

Let's put this all into perspective.

311,999,999 other Americans heard the same gun rhetoric that Jared Loughner heard, and they didn't go buy a gun and ammunition and seek out a politician and attendees to shoot.

Sarah Palin bit the bait in her quest to be sure that those seeking to hear her words of wisdom, were not disappointed. Light up a camera or turn on a microphone, and Sarah thinks it's a pageant every time.

Don't blame anyone at all but the woman herself, for entering the elevator that was headed to the ground floor.

January 16, 2011 at 8:19 a.m.
Francis said...

"sheeple" the libs on this forum,

"unique and consistant ways to bash the man who is president of he united states" you libs did when bush was president?.....what hypocracy.

after two years of this jackass in the white house to argue that sarah palin is not qualified to be president is pretty silly.

alprova..."she bit the bait"...."ignored the affair? soon as giffords' was shot the media and liberals like you started shouting palin is responsble, rush is responisble, beck is responsible... then you jump all over her and everyone else for defending themselves....

alprova why don't you apply to be obama's press secretary..your posts sound like you're interested.

you libs attack on palin smacks of misogyny....this past week proves that you can't handle a strong woman who has a different political philosophy. you came unglued when this happened..and like "sheeple" followed the liberal media's cue...foaming at the mouth and blaming palin.


hillary clinton is way, way...way more qualified to be president than obama. when rush limbaugh, who is right on the mark most of the time....waged a campaign to stop hillary.....i cringed because it would pave the way for the incompetant authoritarian we have now in the white dems chose the wrong person to run for president in cannot handle a strong woman. whether it's sarah palin or hillary clinton....

this cartoon is wishful thinking on bennett's libs are putting all your effort into destroying palin...who probably won't even run for president. you and the liberal media look terrible jumping all over her then blasting her for defending herself......arrogance, misogyny and what you libs displayed in the wake of this shooting....disgusting

i suggest you stop focusing on the white house and start thinking about the fact that dems are getting their asses kicked at the state and local level.

January 16, 2011 at 8:27 a.m.
Clara said...

I wonder if Francis's diatrabs are the reason I'm throwing up all the time.

What a horrible way to lose weight!

January 16, 2011 at 8:47 a.m.
Francis said...

the over the top and instantanious attack on palin before giffords' was even loaded into an ambulance makes you libs looks just as wacked as loughner...

it was disgusting.....a feeding frenzy....and typical liberal hysteria followed

take away everyone's guns....get rid of talk radio......cut off ads to talk radio.. don't allow state employees to call or listen to talk radio...etc..etc.....


January 16, 2011 at 8:53 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Awesome, alprova. I have nothing to add so I won't.

Curious, though, regarding rhetoric: Why do folks accuse imams of inciting violence in their followers using hateful rhetoric and calls to violence, but somehow our own pols are off the hook. The young man was delusional, so it isn't the Palin's fault he did this, but are we not using a double standard when we say that a mosque can't be built because some followers are encouraged to deal violently with infidels?

January 16, 2011 at 8:53 a.m.
delmar said...

One question for Francis - Would you vote for Ms. Palin or Ms. Clinton if an election were held today for President and these ladies were your choices?

January 16, 2011 at 9:07 a.m.
jimbob said...

I live so far back in the woods they have to pipe the day light to me. The closest town is 35 miles away. I'm not a member or any politcal party Have never asked the gov. for any thing and never will.I'm very happy where I live. I don't bother any one and nobody bothers me.I don't have much but I will fight to keep what I do have and to protect my family. It's because of wackos like Francis that I chose to live the way I do.

January 16, 2011 at 9:24 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

clay is out of touch with reality. Palin is still on Amazon's top 100, along with Beck, his beloved Pelosi is no where to be found. As a matter of fact, Alexander Hamilton is doing better than Pelosi and Obama or any other liberal I can think of that has written a book in recent history.

January 16, 2011 at 9:38 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

So's Oprah and Steven King. Your point?

January 16, 2011 at 9:39 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Ms. Palin makes a lot of money. She knows exactly what she's is doing. Her audience thinks she can do no wrong. Keep to the high ground to show that 'that' way is not the 'right' way.

Remember the high ground. See who is hurling insults, but offering no solutions.

January 16, 2011 at 9:45 a.m.
librul said...

Wanna see Francis' head explode ... OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT!!!

January 16, 2011 at 9:48 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: lkeithlu | On: January 16, 2011 at 9:39 a.m. So's Oprah and Steven King. Your point?

lkeithlu, I think clay was trying to challenge Palin's relevance by suggesting she could not sell a book. Maybe she cannot sell a book to clay but as much as it pains his pathetic, irrelevant a$$, she still has a pretty big following and much more name recognition than the bitter little cartoonist ever will!

I honestly don't know what kind of book Oprah writes and King is fiction. What is your point?

January 16, 2011 at 10:05 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

My point is that book sales are irrelevant to importance. This is a cartoon, not a column. You don't like it or agree with it, so what? Sarah's book sales do not measure her readiness to run for office.

You post a stereotype list of liberal beliefs as fact, and yet you want to quibble about a cartoon?

January 16, 2011 at 10:10 a.m.
acerigger said...


January 16, 2011 at 10:14 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Don't worry financially challenged republics... you'll be able to find copies in the free bin at your local used book store pretty soon.

I have found many such "best sellers" in free bins. They make great props for the door, planter risers or furniture stabilizers.

January 16, 2011 at 10:39 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: lkeithlu | On: January 16, 2011 at 10:10 a.m. "My point is that book sales are irrelevant to importance."

That might be a tough sell. Book sales are a decent indicator of what people are interested in, are they not?

I checked Top 100 Non-fiction on Amazon and found Hamilton, Beck, many other lesser known conservatives... and Palin (been there for 52 days), but no liberals, although I may have missed one that I did not recognize.

January 16, 2011 at 10:41 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Americans are interested in Dancing with the Stars, America's Got Talent, NFL football, March Madness and Survivor. Americans read (and many believe) horoscopes and think they have a decent chance of winning the lottery. Book popularity at any particular moment has about as much meaning. Obama's books were bestsellers once too. So was Jon Meacham's book American Lion. Both men are liberals.

Once again-this is a CARTOON. You don't like it or disagree, don't read it.

January 16, 2011 at 10:48 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: lkeithlu | On: January 16, 2011 at 10:48 a.m.

I don't think I will find any of those topics covered in Non-fiction book sales lkeithlu!

I have to keep up with what the libs are up to so I know what they are going to try to do to me next! I did not like Dreams from My Father either but made myself read it.

Actually, I visit this page for the comments much more than clay's work.

January 16, 2011 at 10:54 a.m.
acerigger said...

b=r-p, did your research tell you who's responsible for the vast majority of the quitter's book purchases? Answer;; "SARAHPAC"! They buy 'em in bulk to give out to donors, and warehouse the rest,which in turn drives the book up the best-sellers list. What a sweet racket for the "grifter".

January 16, 2011 at 10:54 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Nice theory ace. PELOSIPAC should follow her example I guess?

January 16, 2011 at 10:55 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Just wondering, why would SARAHPAC buy through Amazon when I am sure they could better buy in bulk at a discount direct from the publisher?

January 16, 2011 at 10:57 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I don't agree with "Mallard Fillmore" cartoons (they are highly insulting to educators) but I don't go to the author's home paper website and challenge them, argue with fans about them, or call the author/artist names.

January 16, 2011 at 11:12 a.m.
delmar said...

I doubt the cartoon is actually about book sales, I could be wrong. Just putting that out there.

January 16, 2011 at 11:16 a.m.
fairmon said...

I can't make the connection with the AZ. tragedy and any political comment of which there are many from both parties and independents. He is obviously a nut case like many in the past and like there will be in the future. Palin is sexy and I think she is good looking but not presidential. Pelosi is ugly as sin and I wouldn't vote for her to hold any political position at any level of government. It is way too early to speculate on who may be candidates but none currently considered by either party appeals to me.

I see both parties acting to gain favor for the 2012 elections over consideration of the countries economic dilemma. The dollar is at risk and if the current trend continues will cease being the world's reserve currency within a few months. Those not understanding what that would mean would be well advised to learn more about it.

January 16, 2011 at 11:20 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Palin's shtick isn't cute anymore. The novelty has worn thin. She's becoming a Republican punching bag and Democrats are heeding the old political adage: When you opponents are fighting each other, don’t get in their way.

Her first mistake was quitting as Governor of Alaska.

Her second mistake was endorsing and supporting so many Tea Party candidates that lost their Senate races.

Her Tea Party challengers defeated mainstream candidates in Republican primaries who would have been stronger in the general election. Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, John Raese, Joe Miller, Linda McMahon, Carly Fiorina, and Ken Buck all lost.

Palin's interference cost the GOP a majority in the Senate. Peggy Noonan called it "Ignorant even for Mrs. Palin."

Karl Rove, Lindsay Graham, and George W. Bush did not let her betrayal go unnoticed, and attacks on her credibility have already begun.

The conservative NY Daily News has been reporting gossip from George Bush's inner circle:

"Naming Palin makes Bush think less of McCain as a man."

And this sugarplum:

"McCain ran a lousy campaign with an unqualified running mate and destroyed any chance of winning by picking Palin."

When Republicans start attacking her political future looks mighty grim.

She's made too many errors, gaffes, and outright blunders, the most recent just hours before Obama spoke in Tucson. On a seven-minute video she tried to paint herself as the victim and described attacks on her ‘Blood Libel.’

She obviously didn’t know ‘Blood Libel’ was a Jewish term. She probably didn’t know that Representative Giffords, who more closely defines the term, ‘victim,’ is Jewish. Her statement was either colossal irony or blatant ignorance but the outcry and backlash lasted barely one news cycle. I think a lot of people just shrugged and said, “Yeah, well, that’s just Sarah.”

Right now, Sarah's problem isn't that more people hate her. Her problem is that fewer people take her seriously.

January 16, 2011 at 11:23 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: delmar | On: January 16, 2011 at 11:16 a.m. "I doubt the cartoon is actually about book sales, I could be wrong. Just putting that out there."

You would be correct but, I think, clay is implying that Palin has become so irrelevent she cannot sell a book.

Username: lkeithlu | On: January 16, 2011 at 11:12 a.m. Millard Filmore is not the editorial cartoonist for the on-line version of our local paper. I think I have a dog in this fight, as clay tries to influence opinion with his shallow drivel. He might not be able to influence anyone who reads books on the Non-fiction bestseller list but he does have a pretty good shot at the American Idol crowd!

I think he can handle it. If not, he should consider a new job.

January 16, 2011 at 11:30 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: blackwater48 | On: January 16, 2011 at 11:23 a.m.

By your yardstick Biden is ready for impeachment, right?

January 16, 2011 at 11:33 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

"I think I have a dog in this fight, as clay tries to influence opinion with his shallow drivel. He might not be able to influence anyone who reads books on the Non-fiction bestseller list but he does have a pretty good shot at the American Idol crowd!"

I hardly think that an intelligent person would form their opinions based on a cartoon. Are you saying that your job is to expose Clay's "agenda" so that the ignorant (American Idol-watching, fiction readers) are not "swayed" in their opinion? Oh, I hate to bust one of your stereotypes, but I am a non-fiction reader, a liberal and I don't watch TV. Ever. I don't recognize most of the names on the tabloid magazines I pass in the store checkout line.

January 16, 2011 at 11:44 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

BigRidge"Patriot" reasons, "By your yardstick Biden is ready for impeachment, right?"

See, we have to forgive our conservative friends for lapses in judgement. Many of them had it, once, but it atrophied. Others never had it all.

Mr. Ridge cannot defend Sarah Palin. He can't point out how relevant she is or how bright her political future may be. So he takes a swing at the Vice President.

I suppose you're right. If you can't argue the assertions it's probably better to change the subject.

Maybe you can spend more than a few nano seconds explaining why, in your twisted opinion, Vice President Joe Biden should be impeached.

I'm going to fix some more coffee so take your time.

January 16, 2011 at 11:52 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Just wondering, as I missed the Palin video, what did she say that was worse than:

"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,"

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go."

"The Cambridge police acted stupidly."

"I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances."

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

"What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith..."

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

January 16, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

You just changed the subject again.

Do you have a point?

Or do you just chumming the waters again?


January 16, 2011 at 12:01 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: lkeithlu | On: January 16, 2011 at 11:44 a.m.

I did not mean to imply that you were part of the American Idol crowd, I am sorry if it came across that way. I was just using your example of some Americans who might be susceptible to not voting based on the best information available. This would, of course, not be all inclusive.

January 16, 2011 at 12:06 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: blackwater48 | On: January 16, 2011 at 12:01 p.m.

Not very nice today are we blackwater!

I have no point that I am willing to specifically spell out for “you”. I also take great joy in never answering the question that “you” would like to drag me to. So, I suggest, my dear angry friend, that you do not hold your breath!

January 16, 2011 at 12:11 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I appreciate your acknowledging this, since in the past you have stereotyped liberals, listing attributes and beliefs that I and most liberals I know don't have. Liberals and conservatives come in all stripes, including those that make sure they are well informed (by reading, as you stated, non-fiction) and those who are swayed by popular culture, cartoons or misinformation they are ill-prepared to vet. It just goes to reinforce the notion that, liberal or conservative, there are good ideas out there and there is also garbage. Ignorance is non-partisan.

January 16, 2011 at 12:13 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

Per the New York Times Best Seller lists..

An asterisk (*) indicates that a book's sales are barely distinguishable from those of the book above.

A dagger (†) indicates that some bookstores report receiving bulk orders.

I've seen far more daggers for the wingnutters and teabaggers, than their left winger counterparts that make it to the top.

January 16, 2011 at 12:17 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

BRP just explained why no one should take him seriously, or no more so than his beloved Saint Sarah.

"I have no point that I am willing to specifically spell out for “you”. I also take great joy in never answering the question..."

Definition of a conservative:

Start with a Liberal and remove all reason and accountability.

I knew you had nothing:D

Peace out, Chum.

January 16, 2011 at 12:18 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: lkeithlu | On: January 16, 2011 at 12:13 p.m.

Agreed, there are good ideas on both sides. I think the differences come from a few key premises that form powerful paradigms on both sides that make the opposing viewpoint look “shallow”, “extreme” or “illogical”. Its hard to keep the dialogue civil when the other side cannot recognize the “obvious”.

January 16, 2011 at 12:20 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: eeeeeek | On: January 16, 2011 at 12:17 p.m.

Can't speak for the NYT. I was looking at amazon. I think the amazon list only applies to amazon sales?

January 16, 2011 at 12:23 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Actually, in principle, both sides agree on what the problems are but disagree on solutions. The heated rhetoric results when each side decides to manufacture fantasies about the other side's motivations. To paint all conservatives as motivated by greed (I personally know no conservatives that are that shallow) and all liberals motivated by communism does not move us closer to solutions that would take the best ideas both sides have to offer. Attitudes and rhetoric that serve to advance one side by stereotyping the other do NOTHING to solve the serious problems this country must face. However, this kind of polarization is not new, nor is it any more vicious than in the past. Thanks to the intertubes, everyone, even the most extreme, has a voice and a large audience. (It's hard to feel empowered when you are the only one in your neighborhood who is convinced that there are conspiracies out there; thanks to the internet you can find others to reinforce your crazy notions) Now more than ever all citizens need to know how to cut through to the facts.

January 16, 2011 at 12:56 p.m.
fairmon said...

Ignorance and foot in mouth disease are not impeachable offenses therefore Biden is safe. Palin will not be the republican candidate unless the new leader of the party is a fool. I would like to see a strong independent in the race. It appears to me the republicans are hurting for a good candidate.

January 16, 2011 at 1:07 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I just heard (from Media Matters) that the AP reporting had managed to implicate Palin in the AZ shooting before they even knew the gender of the child that was killed. That makes it look kind of like the AP has a loaded gun of their own!

January 16, 2011 at 1:44 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: lkeithlu | On: January 16, 2011 at 12:56 p.m.

I would love to dig into this topic (principles) deeper with you but I am not going to have time for it today. Let’s try to make a point of picking it up again on some later date.

January 16, 2011 at 2:11 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Andrew Lohr said: “In their Wednesday speeches, our President took on larger responsibilities than she. She handled hers well enough: she and other conservatives had been accused of encouraging murder. . . and she defended herself."

Yes, we know, Andrew . . . poor, poor, poor . . . former half-governor Sarah . . .

“Twenty people shot.

Six killed.

Fourteen wounded.

And guess what?

It appears Sarah Palin is the principal victim of the shooting. . .

Don't believe me? Watch the video she posted to her Facebook page. There she sits, in front of a fireplace and beside an American flag . . . wreathing herself in pity because people are coming to the conclusion that politicians like her - the ones who have spent the last two years talking about guns and civil war and reloading and such - should bear some of the blame for what happened in Arizona.

How on Earth could anyone come to such an irresponsible and reprehensible conclusion? . . .

. . . Poor, poor Sarah. We weep bitter tears for your travails.”

January 16, 2011 at 2:18 p.m.
Francis said...

blackwater.....the problems have been created by both republicans and democrats...the modern democrat party is nothing more than a left-wing radical least at the top.....liberal is a bad word because liberal thinking, whether it dominates the democrat party or has watered down the republican party has damaged t his country both economically and socially.

sarah palin will not run for you libs soiling yourselves over her is a waste of hate her because she's unapologetic and has no problem exposing you for what you are.

the way you liberals implicated palin, as brp pointed truly disgusting and makes you out to be the nutjobs.....

what you libs did by slapping palin with blame for the shooting is turn off more of the electorate..

you are desperate to prove palin's just want her to go away.. but she's not going to..she'll contiunue to be out there and it's killing you..

it's illogical to say she's irrelevant when she's the topic of conversation... this forum proves her relevance.

you thrust her more into the dialogue by blaming her and then attacking her for defending're just flat out stupid and emotional..

January 16, 2011 at 2:22 p.m.
SBrauer said...

After reading all this drivle, I've come to the conclusion that only Francis and BigRidgePatriot have any brains at all.

January 16, 2011 at 2:41 p.m.
Johnnie5000 said...

Can't post here, this is banjo country.

January 16, 2011 at 3:26 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

EaTN said: “There will always be sheeple in this country that are eager to read, watch and follow the big three (Sarah, Glen and Rush), but there is still hope for this country as they are being exposed as comic political pundits. . .”

I’ve sort of come to the conclusion the overall goal of pundits like Glen, Rush, Limbaugh, Hannity etc. is to stir up hate and deflect the public’s attention away from some of our Nation’s greatest problems like high unemployment, our national healthcare crisis, excessive corporate influence in our political system, global warming and the costly twin wars in the Middle East.

January 16, 2011 at 4:01 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Mountainlaurel, the big ridge log cabin patriot said it best:

"I have no point that I am willing to specifically spell out for “you”. I also take great joy in never answering the question..."

Francis is not quite that articulate but it seems he shares the same agenda.

Trying to have a reasonable exchange with these clowns is impossible.

In my original post this morning I pointed out that Palin cost Republicans the Senate by backing Tea Party candidates that won their primary races but were defeated in the mid-term elections.

I was expecting someone, anyone, to point out, for instance, that ultra -liberal Russ Feingold was defeated by a Tea Bagger. That the Baggers helped the GOP gain control of the House. That they helped generate campaign contributions at a time when the RNC is reportedly $20 million in the hole (what is it with Republicans and debt?)

The Tea Party impacted the elections but apparently none of the conservative contributors know that.

I'm only pointing that out because I see your frustration. I have already given up trying to debate them.

I will tell them when they are wrong - which will be keep me busy enough - but ignore the chirping responses of opinion and innuendo tied together with flat out lies.

January 16, 2011 at 4:30 p.m.
miraweb said...

Though everyone can have a poor choice of words from time to time, politics is one field where getting a "do-over" is pretty rare.

The compassionate response to a horrific massacre for a person in the public spotlight is to acknowledge the grief of the families, and then shut up. Period. Full stop.

January 16, 2011 at 4:37 p.m.
wallyworld said...

blackwater, I have found you cannot argue with people who think reality is a theory. Good luck with arguing with brainless, thoughtless un-American know-nothings. I've finished wasting my time on this idiotic site. Good luck to all you real Americans who truly do want to move this country forward and not backward to the dark ages.

January 16, 2011 at 5:50 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said: “what is it with Republicans and debt?”

I believe it’s become clear the sole interest of the banana republicans is to protect the less than one percent who have profited beyond their wildest dreams under the economic policies of the Bush/Cheney administration – Wall Street CEOs with their excessive salaries/endless stock options AND giant corporations with their high-powered lobbyists in Washington, D.C.

As for everyone else in America - including small businesses, mid-sized businesses, upper-middle class and middle class – the banana republicans are working to see that we will all be financially wiped out until the day comes when there will only be the super rich and the poor - along with the “forever more” banana republican issues like abortion, guns, and gay marriage, of course.

January 16, 2011 at 6 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

After reading through these posts, I'm convinced that the low demand is because her followers only have auditory skills and no visual ones.

January 16, 2011 at 6:27 p.m.

Again with the short memories. What's wrong with the world is our demand for political celebrities. It didn't start with Palin and it won't end with her. Our appetite for clever sound bites, pep rallies, paparazzi shows few signs of abating. The victors are those who are best at meeting our demand for celebrity politics.

January 16, 2011 at 6:32 p.m.

It may even be that our giving such rapt attention to media celebrities (political or otherwise) plays a role when deranged individuals such as the man in Arizona take such extraordinary, desperate, and tragic measures seeking their own fifteen minutes of fame. Maybe that's going too far. I would interested in your thoughtful comments.

January 16, 2011 at 7:51 p.m.
hambone said...

I don't pick on Sarah!

And I don't pick up road-kill!

January 16, 2011 at 7:53 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Interesting thoughts on “Sarah Palin and The Dumbing Down of the American Presidency” from John Dean at

“. . . I don't believe that Sarah Palin has a clue what she is doing -- other than making easy money, and more of it than she ever dreamed she might, by cashing in on her celebrity. She keeps those dollars coming her way by flirting with a presidential bid, for she is very savvy, and she knows that by playing this game, she keeps herself relevant, as well as in the news. . .

. . . We must stop encouraging candidates who require the dumbing down of the job of the nation's chief executive, because in the real world -- and I have been there -- you must know what you are doing (or be a very fast learner) to deal with the myriad difficult, and sometimes novel, issues that reach a president's desk. It is a tremendous challenge to face the day-to-day grind of running that office in a manner that actually serves the nation and the world. . .

. . . There has been a pattern in recent history that goes as follows: We elect a conspicuously-able president and he does not magically cure all the nation's ills (for instance, Bill Clinton). Then, we elect a new president (for instance, George W. Bush) who is not so able, and who not only fails to solve all the problems before him, but also creates new problems. What no one seems to notice, in this pattern, is that the able presidents spend most of their time cleaning up the mess of their predecessors who were not so able. Thus, in dumbing the office down, we are creating a legacy of increasing the unsolved problems that call for presidential attention.

One thing I am confident Sarah Palin could do as President of the United States. . . would be to make a terrible (if not fatal) mess of things. She is not prepared to solve problems that have accumulated over the years. Nor would she be up to the task of governing, even if President Obama were somehow able to solve those inherited problems before he departed -- which will not happen either. It takes more than a 140-character tweet to be president."

January 16, 2011 at 8:15 p.m.
Francis said...

what makes you think you're so articulate, blackwater?

my points are pretty clear.

sarah palin has never been more of a factor and more relevant than she is right now thanks to you libs' attempt to blame her for the shooting in arizona before congressman giffords was even loaded on to the amublance.

the utter idiocy of blaming her as soon as it happened and then slamming her for defending herself is the perfect example of how you libs operate and how wacked you are.

you continue to make her releveant by revealing your obsession with her.....even though you say she's irrelevant.

if that's not articulate enough for you...then too bad...

January 16, 2011 at 8:19 p.m.

I'm not sure what consequential political patterns can be discerned from a partisan comparison of two recent presidencies. The John Dean piece is little more than a partisan diatribe, every bit as simplistic and unhelpful as those of Sarah Palin. Maybe the dumbing down of politics includes the simplistic attribution of causes for and solutions to our most important problems to a celebrity-in-chief. Political celebrities win (and we lose) when we look primarily to them for blame or solutions. We are what's wrong with politics.

January 16, 2011 at 8:49 p.m.
acerigger said...

Remember,,,,,DFTT!(I know,I know, sometimes it's fun and you can't help it)lol

January 16, 2011 at 11:53 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_ Wrong_with_the_World said: “The John Dean piece is little more than a partisan diatribe every bit as simplistic and unhelpful as those of Sarah Palin.” 
 Politically speaking, John Dean is a registered Independent so I don’t think it’s really accurate to suggest his comments stem from a partisan perspective – unless you’re saying a personal opinion is partisan opinion.

As for the concern that John Dean’s expressed about “dumbing down the job of the nation’s chief executive, I believe it’s is a legitimate concern. Eight years of George W. Bush have shown us what kind of chaos it can bring.

In regard to your comment - “We are what's wrong with politics” - I’m not quite sure what you’re referencing. Specifically, what are you referencing? There are some like Missouri’s Westboro Baptists who say we are to blame for everything.

January 16, 2011 at 11:53 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Dear Francis,

First, I apologize for calling you inarticulate. You may be another innocent victim of my pointless rage. Or maybe I had you pegged all along.

Second, I'm tempted to refer you to BRPs, "I have no point that I am willing to specifically spell out for “you”. I also take great joy in never answering the question..." (A classic example of conservatives lacking reason and accountability.)

But, since you made half an effort to ask serious questions I'll do my best to provide serious answers.

"what makes you think you're so articulate, blackwater?"

Never claimed to be. However I try to provide facts and quote source materials to support my assertions. I also try to avoid relying on my own opinion to make a point.

"sarah palin has never been more of a factor and more relevant than she is right now thanks to you libs' attempt to blame her for the shooting in arizona before congressman giffords was even loaded on to the amublance (sic)."

As I pointed out earlier, even Republicans are starting to attack her. I quoted Peggy Noonan and cited the NY Daily News as two examples.

I don't know where you get your "information," but the earliest reports about the gunman that I saw stated he had no political affiliation.

You see Francis, this would be a perfect spot for you to do a little digging and quote a few of those sources that were blaming Palin for the shootings. You need a couple of quotes from the NY Times or Fox "News" or CBS or CNN or the Washington Post or MSNBC or Newsday or NPR or ABC or the Wall Street Journal.

Should be a snap and you would become as relevant as Saint Sarah.

"you continue to make her releveant by revealing your obsession with her.....even though you say she's irrelevant."

I don't believe writing a short piece assessing her political viability qualifies as an obsession. I kinda feel sorry for her. I offer my observations on a variety of topics.

I'm a political junkie, however, and I became fascinated when Sarah's tea bagger candidates started winning Republican primaries.

That was truly historic. Hard to imagine the long term impact but it could be significant. The short term results, however, were disastrous.

When Sharron Angle became Nevada's Republican candidate for the Senate, Harry Reid's poll numbers were in the toilet. Remarkably, Angle turned out to be about the only Republican candidate that Reid could beat. And Palin served her up on a golden platter.

I bet plenty of Nevada voters held their noses on election day, but despite millions of campaign dollars pouring in from out of state, Sarah Palin did the impossible: She revived Harry Reid's career and transformed him from dead man walking to the comeback kid.

That alone should earn her the everlasting wrath of the Republican Party.

January 16, 2011 at 11:57 p.m.
GlacierClipper said...

Popular vote doesn't elect the President of the USA.

But prayers do help!

January 17, 2011 at 1:42 a.m.
mymy said...

We certainly need something different in DC than the left wing nuts:

Ahead of his visit to Washington this week, China's president calls the present U.S. dollar-dominated currency system a 'product of the past' and highlights moves to turn the yuan into a global currency.

January 17, 2011 at 5:33 a.m.
woody said...

Where have you been hiding Mymy?? The "Right Wing Nuts" now outnumber "The Left" in DC. You've apparently been too busy to pay attention.

And if China's president seems a bit preoccupied with money it's likely due to all of the funds borrowed by "W" and his supporters to finance all of their wars.

Of course, if he were to get his way (quite unlikely, but you never know) we'd probably be paying for Iraq and Afghanistan until the very last cow comes home....

I have no yen for that scenario, Woody

January 17, 2011 at 6:21 a.m.
jimbob said...

blackwater48, You must rember trying to have a battle of wits with francis is like haveing a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

January 17, 2011 at 7:49 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

You couldn't pay me enough to have her nasty book in my house.

January 17, 2011 at 7:58 a.m.
acerigger said...

If Palin,Beck,Rush,Sean,and the rest are so worried about being unfairly accused of inciting violence,maybe they should ask the Muslims for some advice on how to handle it.

January 17, 2011 at 9:37 a.m.

Regarding acerigger's comment: If you are referring to unfair characterizations of Muslims by Joe Citizen and the celebrities they believe, I will agree. If you are speaking about the treatment of Muslims in textbooks or on NPR, I'm not sure you have such a good case - at least not in the same direction. I guess the lack of fair treatment would also be limited to societies which are not controlled by Muslims. Criticism or desertion is not tolerated in those that are. Maybe what's wrong with the world are religions (theist, atheist, or agnostic) which lack self-critical components. It's the religious form of moralism which is part of the problem.

January 17, 2011 at 10:07 a.m.
mymy said...

Where have you been? The current Administration and company has increased the debt more than Bush many times over. I'm no fan of what Bush did either. Bush sure set it up for Obama to try to have his way and completely destroy/weaken this country. If you can write a check for your share of the national debt of $45,000ish - have at it and thank you. If/when he tries to bail out some states, that amount will increase.

What has been missing in DC is a "balance of power" for the last two years. That is about all there bearly is now.

I'm not happy with any of them. This country is in a big mess and no leadership for generations. They only have their self interest at the top of their list - not this country. Just look at the "third war" going on at our border that is spreading all over this country and generations of not protecting us. Maybe bring our troops home and put them on the border is the only answer at this time. Ops, can't do that might loose a vote or two.

Time will tell if any thing will change. You had better hope it does!

January 17, 2011 at 10:16 a.m.
acerigger said...

I was referring,mainly, to Muslims in America,also Muslims in general who have been demonized by the right-wing hate machine in America.

January 17, 2011 at 10:19 a.m.
Francis said...

this shooter in arizona was all over the place mentally....he clearly hated bush from what has come out and he pretty much hated now it looks pretty damn silly that you libs just jumped all over palin with blame.... doesn't it...

to compare limbaugh, beck, palin, hannity or levin to extremist muslim terrorists just speaks to how wacked you libs are.....your over the top hatred for palin is unbelievable......she holdz no office, doesn't make policy...has no power...and i'm pretty damn sure she won't run for president...yet you're angry as sin at her for her proven in the wake of the shooting you libs want to silence and clamp down on freedom......i can't concieve of calling for the shutting down of cnn, msnbc, ny times, pbs, abc, nbc and all the other liberal mouthpieces even though palin is being savagely attacked......damanding that state employees not listen to those mouthpieces would be ridiculous.......

what's shocking about this whole thing is how unhinged you libs and the liberal media became as soon as it about desperation!

instead of being alarmed at the price of oil, china's attempt to further make the dollar insignificant and other massive libs are foaming at the mouth when the name palin is mentioned....

January 17, 2011 at 10:28 a.m.
acerigger said...


January 17, 2011 at 10:54 a.m.

Regarding mountainlaurel's John Dean comments: I apologize for the confusion. I didn't mean partisan in the usual sense of blind loyalty to a major political party. I meant it in terms of simplistically directing blame for the nation's problems at political figures, causes, or parties with whom we disagree. Honestly, I had him confused with Howard Dean, another partisan celebrity. John Dean is an example what happens when someone believes that the major parties are not extreme enough for them. They find a third party or register as independents. I admit it's tempting when it seems that both parties have gone to pot. But sobriety reminds us that there are degrees of going to pot and independents are often no better. My point is that political judgments are best made without a good guys (their team) vs. bad guys (my team) mentality. Missouri’s Westboro Baptists are not an example of the solution I am suggesting. They do not include themselves as part of the problem. They are moralists like Palin, Limbaugh, Dean, and Dean. Though I don't agree with him on everything, a quote from G.K. Chesterton is the inspiration for my username. A century ago, a newspaper asked celebrity authors (including him) to submit essays responding to the question "What's wrong with the world." (A perfect prompt for moralist diatribes.) His thoughtful response was "Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely yours, G. K. Chesterton." He also wrote a book by the title "What's Wrong with the World," emphasizing that we are fallen and that we need more humility and levity in public discourse. In a column, he observed that “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”

January 17, 2011 at 10:56 a.m.

Acerigger: Ah. THAT hate-machine. Thanks for clarifying.

January 17, 2011 at 10:59 a.m.

Another Chesterton quote: "I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid."

January 17, 2011 at 11:22 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Mymy wrote, "Where have you been? The current Administration and company has increased the debt more than Bush many times over."

Not true. The National debt as of September 30, 2000, stood at $5.6 trillion. By September 30, 2008, it has risen to $10 trillion. On September 30, 2010 it was up to $13.5.

You can make the argument without making up numbers. What makes the Bush "accomplishment" even more remarkable is that, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury had actually been paying DOWN the debt over the last three years of the Clinton Administration.

I know all you surplus deniers will claim, "You lie!" and that those numbers are just part of a vast left-wing conspiracy, but I double checked with the CBO.

I report. You decide. Fair and balanced.

While the current economic forecast looks gloomy there are glimmers of hope.

I was reading a newspapers the other day and came across some interesting facts. According to the National Retail Federation, the Christmas holiday sales report for 2010 was best ever. The 5.7 percent increase over 2009 resulted in retail sales of $462 billion.

December marked the sixth consecutive month of rising retail sales. According the Commerce Committee, annual sales rose in the United States by the largest amount in a decade. Economic forecasters predict continued improvement because consumers, who make up 70 percent of economic activity, are spending more money.

Then I got to thinking about how recent political history is punctuated with bizarre similarities.

President Bill Clinton took office in 1993. The Democratically controlled House and Senate passed his legislation and budgets, but the President was constantly facing vigorous Republican opposition. The result? Arguably the greatest economic boom in American history (conservatives are yelping right now, “ bubble this,” and “Increased taxes that.)”

Bill Clinton was President and, right or wrong, he deserves a lot of the credit for a solid economy.

President George Bush took office in 2001. The Republican controlled House and Senate passed his legislation and budgets, but the President was constantly facing vigorous Democratic opposition. The result? Arguably the greatest economic bust in American history (conservatives are yelping right now, “9/11 this,” and “Nobody saw Katrina coming” that.”)

George Bush was President and, right or wrong, he deserves a lot of the blame for a shrinking economy.

Obama took office in 2009 and, with consumers spending more money, we now seem to be emerging from the worst of it.

Are happy day here again? No, but you can see the sun trying to break through all those dark and ominous clouds.

January 17, 2011 at 12:06 p.m.
Francis said...

DFTS - don't feed the liberal slug

and that's you , ace....that's the kindest thing i can say about you...

mark penn..a democrat strategist..or pollster..or whatever the hell he is said that obama needs this shooting like clinton needed the oklahoma city bombing.......there it is......the liberal mindset for all to see........a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, huh.....creeps

January 17, 2011 at 12:17 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

francis.. a republic troller.. or scabbed up harlot.. or some sort of beechy whiney old sack of poo..

January 17, 2011 at 12:35 p.m.
delmar said...

blackwater48 wrote - "Obama took office in 2009 and, with consumers spending more money, we now seem to be emerging from the worst of it.

Are happy day here again? No, but you can see the sun trying to break through all those dark and ominous clouds."

blackwater48, I can't speak for everyone but I hope you're right!

January 17, 2011 at 12:52 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I can see I have not missed much here! You would think that clay would try to give us a decent cartoon on the next day after dropping a bomb like this one.

The dialogue has deteriorated to the typical clay lover posse trying to drown out the conservatives who come here to provide a little balance.

lkeithlu, still looking forward to reengaging that discussion but after reading all of this I have lost interest, for now.

Here is a new cartoon to look at until clay gets off his butt.

January 17, 2011 at 1:17 p.m.

When the economy recovers, it will not be because of the 2008 election OR the 2010 election. Presidents play a significant role in causing recessions. They never end them. Wise risk-takers in the private sector end them (temporarily). Markets find a way to adjust every 4-5 years to recover from political opportunism. The 2001 recession was well underway before 9/11. And it had little to do with Bush's first two months in office. The Republicans' response to the recession was to act like Democrats and exponentially increase government spending so they could be re-elected. It worked until 2006. It was another short-term solution to a long-standing problem and the beneficiaries were politicians. The longer term problem is that politicians (with our approval) have built our economy on consumption rather than on productivity and sound investment. Political Heroes and Villains is a diversionary game.

January 17, 2011 at 1:27 p.m.
Francis said...


a republic troller? what's that?....a boat of some kind operated by a republic?

i'll let mark penn speak for you i wrote in the previous post..

he represents you libs well...

you can babble about whores and poo...which i'm sure you're very familiar with.....

January 17, 2011 at 1:31 p.m.

If Obama responds to 2010 like Clinton did to 1994, it shouldn't be too bad.

January 17, 2011 at 1:42 p.m.

The pertinent questions for the next election are: Will Republicans continue their tradition of nominating their weakest candidate? and Will Democrats unwrap the gift?

January 17, 2011 at 2:01 p.m.
woody said...

Blackwater, I thank you.. You saved me from some really tedious fact searching...I knew Mymy was 'off' but I couldn't say for sure by just how much...It's good to have 'back-up'.

TTFN, Woody

January 17, 2011 at 2:55 p.m.
Clara said... wrote,“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives." etc.

NOT the "whole world." There are a few of us on this blog and some writers of articles that profess absolute disengagement from any political entity.

I'm sure the same occurs in other countries.

I'm not talking about political Independents. I'm talking individuals.

I'd be pretty disgusted if a group of people got together and called it the Individulist Party.

It's pretty obvious that even within the existing parties, people get disgusted and become a free-minded individual again.

January 17, 2011 at 3:20 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_wrong_with_the_world said: “John Dean is an example what happens when someone believes that the major parties are not extreme enough for them.”

Based on what he has to say in most of his books, I believe you’re misjudging John Dean. And from what I’ve read, he doesn’t appear to be an extremist in any direction. Perhaps, you can explain specifically why you think John Dean feels that the major parties are not extreme enough for him.

Generally speaking, I agree that political judgments are best made without the good guy VS bad guy mentality, but I’ve also learned that sometimes it just can’t be avoided. The reality is that unscrupulous individuals do exist and they often have their own agenda, which very often conflicts with the group’s goal along with the action needed to resolve a problem. If the group in some way does not recognize and deal with this hurdle, the problem will not be resolved.

January 17, 2011 at 3:28 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Acerigger said: "If Palin,Beck,Rush,Sean,and the rest are so worried about being unfairly accused of inciting violence,maybe they should ask Muslims for some advice on how to handle it."

I doubt this group is looking for advice from anyone, Acerigger. From what I’ve observed, they appear to be pros and very proficient at pulling their viewer's “victimhood” strings:

“Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly and the rest of the right-wing media machine have turned professional victimhood into a license to print money. . . You're losing your country, your rights, your guns, your family, your religion, the sanctity of your marriage, the supremacy of your heterosexuality, my God, you're losing Christmas, for the love of God! You're losing everything.”

January 17, 2011 at 3:33 p.m.
acerigger said...

While I was out trolling I found this from Public Policy Polling, "Do you think violence against the current American government is justified or not?

       Justified  Not Justified

All 6 82

Tea Party 13 75 Non Tea Party 4 86

That's 13 percent of teabaggers who are this close to becoming domestic terrorists.

January 17, 2011 at 3:46 p.m.
steve_smith_tn said...

What an appropriate cartoon to leave up over the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday.

January 17, 2011 at 4:21 p.m.
mymy said...

"New numbers posted today on the Treasury Department website show the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office.

The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion.

The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama's fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That's more than 100 percent of the value of the nation's economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job."

Obama in 2 years vs. Bush 8 years.

The CBO = garbage in, garbage out.

Consumer spending up: consumers spent more money, but bought less as a result of inflation. It is gona get worse. So much of our necessary expense is left out of figuring inflation - energy, food and other necessities.

January 17, 2011 at 4:50 p.m.

Good points Clara and mountainlaurel. I think we agree that people often become consumed with a narrow, take-no-prisoners approach to politics. And it's a magnet for corruption. If we find ourselves unable to detach ourselves from the party line, we're in trouble. But ordering our lives together (which is one definition of politics) is necessary for civilization, so politics is necessary and it does require participation. I just worry about how it seems to consume us. Someone said that the first thing to say about politics is that politics is not the first thing.

So it goes back to books, basketball, and hugs.

January 17, 2011 at 6:39 p.m.
sandyonsignal said...

my my, almost all of the debt is from Bush's reckless policies. First of all, the two wars have finally shown up on the books that accounts for nearly $ 3 trillion. The Bush tax cuts for the rich, two wars and the worst economic downturn since the depression have hurt our recovery, but it looks like it is not as bleak as you make it out to be. Certainly, Obama is not Bush.

The Affordable Health Care Act will cut the deficit by $143 billion from 2010-2019 and the following decade it will bring it down by $1.3 trillion. Figures and story here at the Center of Budget Priorites:

January 17, 2011 at 7:31 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

Keep us in line, acerigger, keeps us in line.

Keep us laughing, eeeeeek, keep us laughing.

January 17, 2011 at 7:59 p.m.
sd said...

francis wrote, "you libs attack on palin smacks of misogyny," and, "you cannot handle a strong woman. whether it's sarah palin or hillary clinton...."

Saying that criticism of Palin is misogyny undervalues the criticism--and I believe there is some very legitimate criticism to be made. But I think you're right when you say people (I won't limit it to just liberals) go on the offensive when a powerful woman enters the picture and there has absolutely been a lot of sexist criticism (and praise, for that matter) of our female politicians. Pelosi and Bachmann are 2 more examples, but they are also extremists, and extreme views are going to attract extreme criticism regardless of gender.

You're right that a lot of liberals seem fixated on destroying Palin, and frankly I don't see why they bother either. I could go the rest of my life without seeing another Palin 'toon. 1. She's not viable politically. 2. She is capable of destroying herself without any assistance whatsoever.

I figure Palin was doing "okay" politically until the reality show. Maybe in the future people will be able to do reality television and then go into politics without voters batting an eye, but right now it blurs the "entertainment" line in an unflattering way that film acting (even flicks about homicidal robots from the future) apparently doesn't. The TV show, combined with overexposure and recent gaffs, has nailed her political coffin shut.

January 17, 2011 at 8:26 p.m.
Clara said...

You can't follow a party line,wwwtw, and be an individual. Misuse of the law raised a lot of hackles when Palin used her power as governor to harrass an ex brother-in-law, (I think it was).

You can examine what's offered by all the parties,and make a free choice, if you wish. Yes! I am the first to agree that laws are necessary, but as I stated in a former post, it's going to take a lot of work to remove those laws that are kept merely to let law-enforcement pour through the books and find something that will pin you to the wall.

How many years of driving cars was it before it was permitted to make a right turn on red if the road were clear? I sure don't know if the former law was recinded, so if it's still on the books, though I doubt it, it could be used. I think the one in the midwest I quoted before was forbidding the eating of pickles in public on Sunday. One regulation I don't like, and many another individual will agree, is the formation of the electorial college?

There are lots of laws on the books that are outdated but still applicable if courts want to use it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I remember distinctly in DC, during a protest rally, that two policement were thumbing through their book of ordinances over the hood of their patrol car, to find something obscure they could use to harass a protester.

And I believe in Lawnorder.

Most of the laws controlling me are local. If I were in business of any kind, I would be subject to the enourmous amount of paperwork and nonsense and gobledeguck which spouts from the pens of our "leaders?"

The health care bill first draft was about 1,200 pages. Then it was taken higher up, and it is well over 2,000 pages and, as I understand it, none of our legislators have really read it.

I don't need a party to tell me something is Rotten at the bottom of my fridge.

This is my humble opinion and rant, and it really isn't directed at you.

Have a good day tomorrow. I'm afraid to hope for anything beyond that.

I wonder if Palin ever read that health bill herself, and could discuss it intelligently without her husband prompting.

January 17, 2011 at 8:28 p.m.
mymy said...

Sarah P. is like the good old Timex watch. She can take a lickin and keep on tickin. The competitors just can't stand it especially from a strong woman. I doubt she will run for President. I think there is a lot more important ways she can contribute. So the left has launched an unbelievable attack out of fear.

What do you fear? Commonsense, being reminded of how far we are away for what built this country and that maybe we need to get back there (if you even know), or you might be forced to take on some personal responsibility? I guess you need a Nanny to take care of you. Then what hapens is you loose your freedom. I don't want a Nanny State telling me how to live my life. It is bad enough now on many levels.

When a left CNN host says that her New Year's Resolution is to bring down Willow Palin (a sixteen year old child), how sick is that? When her children receive death threat, how sick is that? Most of you need to quick drinking the Kool-Aid that is such poison for this country. Unfortunately, I don't think you will.

Mymy shame on you.

January 17, 2011 at 10:54 p.m.
codymaxwell said...

Wow! Is this what politics has become? Clay Bennett draws a very appropriate cartoon and shows a bunch of regular people to be registered buffoons.

Sarah Palin has shown herself to be way beyond inept and those she inspires have proven themselves to be even less than she is. Even those who disagree with her politics are "followers" of such politics.

Why not forget about the ignorance and the hot-tv-news/talk radio debates and try to find something that matters?

January 18, 2011 at 2:21 a.m.

Sarah Palin caused Giffords to be gunned down by that psycopath in AZ. She has promoted gun violence for years in Alaska, and has never taken responibillity for her speech or her actions when violence spills out around the area of her fellow government co-workers and friends.

I am glad she will never be a president for if she was there would be a mass riot for months on end and have the country would be very destroyed.

  • Barack Obama for 2012 *
January 25, 2011 at 5:07 p.m.

Progressives it is time for us to stand up and tell conservatards like Sarah Palin to suck on a Glock 40!

January 25, 2011 at 6:08 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.