I have to ask... Were women present at the Boston Tea Party? And, is it very likely they would've huddled under umbrellas if it were raining? Those are 2 things I noticed in the limited footage I saw yesterday, while listening to commentators talking about how it was just like 1773.

Fox News has been going nuts about the "tea parties" for weeks, and now are going nuts about how "the media" (presumably not them) doesn't "understand" what they were all about.

Wow.

I hate Fox News, but I laugh at how they are painted in this thread. As the other networks are "angels". They all suck. They aren't even "news" networks anymore.

All the networks are horrible for promoting an agenda or people. If you lean to the left, you won't like Fox. If you tend to lean to the right, you won't like MSNBC/CNN. Both have talking heads that are morons (to be honest, I think they are all).

I will say that these protestors needed to stick to one issue instead of brining the stone-aged conservative religious stuff out.

I don't think there is any way you can do more than a surface deep comparison of the three networks and come up with the same brush strokes. It is intellectually dishonest at best and more likely deliberately misleading. They all have their failings but they are different failings. So, get your insults straight.

Speaking of intellectually lazy, not everything is binary in politics despite what we've really tried to paint the last decade. I don't just mean that some people think one side is better while others think the other is better and that everything the other side does is wrong. I mean in the sense that just because something has some similar circumstances doesn't mean the action/event/idea as a whole can have the same criticisms leveled on it.

This goes back to the charge earlier in the thread of the war protests and how these are "just like" these protests. Huh? You want to compare them to the protests after Gore lost the election in 2000- that's probably a bit more accurate. A losing side who had kindof lost their way just protesting that their guy lost. How are war protests anything like this except that they have the word "protest" in it?

This is the same for the news networks argument that I made above. Just because all networks have their failings doesn't mean they have the same failings. Just because Democrat and Republican senators have problems doesn't mean they are the same problems. Identify the problems and attack the problems. If there are similarities to be had, go after those. One could say something like "well, the GOP-led Congress ran up big deficits, too" when comparing the current and former Congress. But this binary line of reasoning is the equivalent of "the GOP-led Congress ran up big deficits so gays in the military, here we come" or "the last time our deficits were heading this direction, the Patriot Act was passed so get ready for Patriot Act III!" They're complete non-sequitors.

Leveling the criticism: "Bush crushed rights and civil liberties with the Patriot Act and torture so he's a fascist" and then hearing "Obama is taxing us to pay for social services, so he's a... FASCIST" just is ignorant. You want to call him socialist- great. That's an accurate hyperbolic (if accurate and hyperbolic can be used together- but you know what I mean) statement. If you really want to go all out, call him a Communist. But where's the fascism? Hell, the best course of action for the economy would be nationalizing the banks and exerting huge government control over them but he's been extremely reticent to do that- hardly sounds like the actions of a fascist. Throwing bad money at free market companies rather than tanking them? Again, sounds a lot like socialism not fascism.

So quit being so damn intellectually lazy and participating in this third grader "I know you are but what am I" ignorance fest. Get your criticisms straight, if you're going to insult someone. Because at this point, these things just sound like they're coming from Pee Wee Herman.

SI

No one's saying the other networks are "angels".

FNC has been pretty overt in their support of the whole Tea Party thing, so they're getting the brunt of the mockery here.

Are they are getting mocked for suport of higher taxes, or the fact that they take a position?

In this false choice, it could be... ... ... wait for it... ... ... ... ... NEITHER!

It could be something to the effect of pretending it's a grass roots effort when it's very much being organized from the top down.

Or that they had Fox News personalities actively participating.

Or that because of this vested interest, they gave it disproportional coverage to the relevancy of the event. I mean, geez- it looked like they had more reporters "out in the field" than they did for Super Tuesday.

But, if you want me to choose one of yours which is, again, a false choice as this isn't an either/or- it could be any number of things- but should they really be taking a position on a news story? That shouldn't be done either.

SI

You've made very good points in your past couple posts. Not that it will make any difference. But I appreciated them.

As SI notes, they're getting mocked for very obviously astroturfing.

I love how there's a battle going back and forth over the past few days on wiki over trying to add the Tea Party to that page.

SI

CNN is just as bad as Fox News was (Susan Roesgen certainly made a name for herself). MSNBC is kind of a joke as well. Let's be honest, all networks suck and tend to promote a view. They are no longer journalists, but talking heads who try to be journalists. Even CNBC drives me nuts.

Bloomberg does a pretty good job. CNBC is a joke.

I still think Fox News is the worst of them all. They really make no effort to balanced. I personally wouldn't mind it at all, but I think the "fair and balanced" shit they spout is a slap in the face to everyone. Just be like right or left radio stations and say what you are. Call yourself Conservative News or GOP News.

MSNBC is more or less becoming that way for the left but doesn't go as overboard. CNN on the other hand just plays the populist message and desparately tries to find their niche.

I actually think Fox does the best job when it comes to breaking news on non-political issues. They are usually quick on the scene and get more inside access than anyone else. Their reporting on Katrina was real good up until the Bush administration needed them to go into face-saving mode.

I also dislike CNBC. They don't slant in any direction (although most of the personalities lean to the right), but their personalities simply overshadow the reporting and news. It turns in to shouting fests about nonsense no one can predict. Bloomberg is by far the best and just sticks to the news.

How in the world does that sound more like socialism than fascism?!

A business-government partnership, as has somewhat been created by TARP, and the government running of some banks is far more like theoretical fascism (which very much was for a corporatist state) than theoretical socialism.

MSNBC does has it talking heads (Keith and Chris) that can compete with the worst of Fox News. I will give Fox News the nod on one part, they seem to have the hottest reporters.

As for CNBC, how is Bloomberg's TV channel?

Is it really either though? Do people really believe it is Obama's goal to take over every company in this country? Or is he just entering into partnerships with insolvent banks/companies to try and avoid what would be an economic apocalypse? What a lot of these protesters don't understand is that without these bailouts to AIG and Citi, our economy would have completely collapsed.

My issue is with how easily these words get thrown around. All it takes is wanting to add a health care program and you're now Joseph Stalin.

No doubt, although I do have a thing for Contessa Brewer. I'm also a little fond of the CNBC ladies like Erin Burnett and Becky Quick. Plus that chick that looks like a pornstar on Headline News. CNN is the one place that is really not even trying when it comes to news hotties.

Bloomberg's TV is straight reporting and news. CNBC focuses more on entertainment and opinion. I guess it depends what you're looking for, but I've grown tired of the screaming talking heads over the years and prefer Bloomberg now.

Some, and that would include a number of the tea party folks (as well as plenty of my communist friends) would think that both parties have been getting into bed with big corporations more and more. And of course, it can be said that it starts with just partnerships because of economic necessity (I think many people forget that fascism was very hostile to free market capitalism).

And to those on the farther ends of the spectrum, I can easily see the position of the two major parties these days being closer to fascism than free market capitalism.

Though the other point was that this hardly resembles socialism. In fact many socialists and communists are pissed off that Obama is basically giving money away to big business for barely anything (they already hated Bush for his crony capitalism).

Personally, I think socialism (particularly the democratic sort of Scandinavia) is a far better alternative than corporatism (which seems more the direction we are heading if not already there).

Again, see post 104- just throwing your hands up in the air in exasperation and then saying they all suck is a great way to be intellectually dishonest, either lying to yourself or everyone else.

There are degrees of suck- Millwood and Wang both lost yesterday, but they don't both suck equally and should be held proportionally to task. Millwood pitched well and lost to a better pitching performance. Wang got blown out of the building. Fox is the latter- they don't even try to moderate their bias.

SI

+1

SI

In all honesty: you have a lot of communist friends? I didn't think anyone really self-described themselves that way and it seems rare to see that. I have a couple of friends who are pretty far left socialist (in the European sense) but I don't think they would even describe themselves as communist. Tho, to be fair, we've never seen true communism in place anywhere- the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc were all just dictatorships pretending to be communist, but we're getting far afield.

I agree with most else of what you've said in this and other posts. But I have a major objection to the claim that we are heading more towards fascism: I think a key part of fascism is control of government over industry. We have the exact opposite where industry controls goverment, for the most part. It leads to a different type of dystopia- one that is neither fascist or socialist.

I also think there was a substantial shift between the past administration and this one in that the previous one had more control over industry, primarily using fear, something this administration has been reluctant to do. And that's not to say the previous one wasn't influenced greatly by many industrial figures.

SI

I think people are too quick to stick by one ideological stance and paint everything the same way. Things just aren't black and white in the real world and our politicians shouldn't treat it that way. Each political/economic system has its strengths and flaws. It is up to our politicians to do what they feel is best for the people and for the citizens to support what is best for it too.

The bailouts are an issue where people have gotten too ideological. I hate the bailouts as much as anyone. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we got put in this position. But I also realize that the bailouts saved us from an economic apocalypse. That if we abided by the wishes of those at the tea party, we'd see every major financial instituation in this country go out of business. We'd be sent back a century and it would take a generation to recover.

So if shifting a little more toward corpartism temporarily is the best solution for the country, why does it matter? Shouldn't the goal ultimately be what's in the best interest of the country? After the mess is cleaned up, the goal should be shifting back toward a capitalistic system that has much stronger regulations to avoid this happening again. Ideologies are nice on paper, but they don't work in the real world.

People shouldn't be mad about the bailouts, they should be mad at why they were necessary. They should be mad at the politicians who have been asleep at the wheel for many years. They should be mad at the people who ran these companies and defrauded millions. Those are the enemies, not people who are currently trying to fix the mess.

Hell, asleep at the wheel? How about the ones who actively have worked to undo regulation for the past two decades? That's not passively asleep at the wheel, that's driving the school bus to hell.

SI

Yep. I have a friend who ran for Congress under the Socialist Party of the America, down in Fort Lauderdale. He considers himself a full fledged Communist, but definitely not a Cuba/China, etc Commie. His wife is too. True, I met him online (on another forum), but I have met him IRL as well.

Oh, and European countries aren't socialist either. They are more into the welfare state, sure. But they believe in capitalism unpinning their economies.


Well, I think it'd be referred to as "proto-Fascism". And corporatism isn't necessarily all that cut and dried. Industry having power over government means that in times of populist anger (like real, hanging people from lamposts populist anger), industry turns to a strong corporatist leader who would let them keep their money (which happened in Italy, Spain, and, of course, German).

Now I'm not saying we are GOING to be Fascist (I don't even think we are sliding into it, not even on a sliding level). I'm just saying that if you are going to allow people to make a political hyperbole, we are closer to heading towards Fascism than Socialism.


Both parties are pretty intermarried to business. They may be more closely intermarried to different businesses, but the general point remains the same.

THAT, though is the fear and the problem. Rarely do things shift back, unless there is some sort of huge change (like the stagflation of the late 70s... remember before Reagan [and the problems under Carter], the Rockefeller/Nixon branch of the Republican Party was dominant, and Goldwater was just someone who failed horridly. Remember Nixon created the EPA and was pushing for universal health care... in the 1970s).

That leads to the question. Which regulations have been "undone" that caused this. Because it sure as Hell wasn't Glass-Stegall (undoing that may have actually helped prevent the recession of 2001 and the current one from becoming more severe).

Rainmaker is correct. It's asleep at the wheel. After all, Western European countries, who we apparently look at for regulation strength, didn't have the proper checks on their businesses either (and they didn't need a Gramm-Leach-Bailey, because they already allowed what the bill did in the US).

ISiddiqui, I'm enjoying the conversation- I don't often say that about the political ones on the board :)

Anyways, how did the part of Gramm-Leach-Bliley that ended Glass-Steagall help the economy (i.e. prevent 2001 recession and cushioning this one)? I guess one could argue that those large banks had something to cushion their fall (i.e. their lending banking business) when the investment side fell apart. But I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at.

That said, I would argue the creation of "too big to fail" megabanks is a much worse development for the economy than anything that could have happened if we taken the other road in 1999. I think these risks wouldn't have been taken in so heavily by major players.

(Then again, I'm an advocate for the government nationalizing the lot of them, breaking them up, and then putting them back out onto the market- which definitely has its own substantial problems)

SI

Gramm-Leach-Bailey helped the economy by allowing investments banks to buy failing deposit banks. Prior to GLB, those banks would have ended up failing as no one could buy them. Washington Mutual would have folded (or had to bailed out big time) instead of JP Morgan being able to buy them up, as one example (Merrill Lynch and BOA is another).

Without GLB, the TARP would have probably been twice the amount it was simply because you couldn't have had all those banks fail.

Isn't it Gramm-Leach-Bliley?

Probably... I was trying to go off the top of my head.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Glass-Steagall if we want to be really correct :)

SI

Tonight is the big "National Tea Party Convention" in Nashville.

Tickets cost several hundred each. Sarah Palin is the big "guest" speaker, supposedly pocketing $100,000 for her part.

I just spoke with someone I know who is there & asked him what teas are being served. Strangely enough, he said he has not seen anybody drinking tea.

Tancredo spoke last night. Just needed a pointy white hood and everything would have been perfect.

Tancredo's a member of the KKK?

Has he seen anyone with a nutsack on his face?

Let me guess: CNN and MSNBC mention a couple of minutes of it while Fox is giving it wall-to-wall coverage

SI

Did they change things and allow other broadcaster media besides Fox? I know initially they were very stingy with media credentials and only gave them out to "friendly" media, but reports have around 100 media members at her speech.

Palin can't remember "energy, tax, lift America's spirit".

She's not using a teleprompter?

That cant be true! That's gotta be photoshopped

Nope. Watch the video of the Q/A and she clearly checks her hand while answering a question about her priorities.

See House GOP Retreat, Obama discussion with.

Stefan Sirucek: EXCLUSIVE (Update): Palin's Tea Party Crib Notes

Here's the article from the Huffington Post that details the scandal in full.

Palin identifies with the common person by using her hand to write notes instead of an elitist liberal like Obama that uses these fancy machines to script every single word that comes out of his mouth.

{shaking head}

If she is ever our president I truly do fear for us and not in a "OMG hes a socialist" kind of way, or a "he's a maverick and we wont know what he'll do" kind of way, but in a "our president wont be as smart as most country's leaders might be" kind of way.

I don't mind Sarah Palin, but I don't support her Presidential efforts or the Tea Party thing (don't know much about it honestly). But I can't help but sympathize with her as the left-wing media mob attacks her relentlessly.

right, she didnt invite any judgment at all from scribbling crib notes on her hand while giving a key note speech and getting paid $100k. Totally unwarranted.

When she used the teleprompter line she kinda brought it on herself.

edit: On the Tea Partiers, right now they have the freedom to be all things to all people. If they ever start a real political [party and have to stake out clear positions on issues they'll be in trouble. There are a lot of people angry with the government, but once you start spelling out a platform I think most people will stick with the GOP or the Democrats.

Of course I'm still not convinced that at an organizing level the "movement" isn't about supporting the right kind of GOP candidates anyway.

At least writing something on your hand is much more cost effective than using a teleprompter.

It might be a little silly, but I wouldn't blame her for writing on her hand if it was something difficult to remember, say a specific quote of Reagan's. But it's telling when you have to crib the three things you consider a priority.

Let's be realistic here: Her presence was most of the $100k, not what she said. And she earned her money once she delivered "How's that hope-y, change-y stuff workin' out for you?" Anything after that was gravy for the organizers since they'd already gotten their money for ticket sales & she came up with the home run line that summed up the feelings of a lot of people in a very concise nutshell.

Given the problems that Obama has with speeches (and fair reminder that I defended him here for his lack of 'prompter skills) I don't know if anybody should say much about whatever works for somebody if it keeps them on track. Palin's trick isn't one I've used but I imagine plenty of people have, and could be as simple as an idiosyncrantic thing to avoid fidgeting with index cards (as one example).

There aren't detail as to whether the speech was good or not.

If she really attended this speech with only a few notes on her hand and with no telepromter and the speech was done well, would you feel differently about her? Or do you feel the Huffington Post told you all you needed to know about the situation?

That has to be staged, right?

I mean, she scratched out budget and put "tax cuts". Did she really change her mind on that on the fly? That sounds more like something her handlers told her to do beforehand.

SI

However, I think youre ignoring the point I brought up in the Obama thread which is that she is MORE than just a speaker, a paid for one at this particular event. She carries more weight with her words than just any joe blow and considering that I believe she will be running for Pres. than that makes things like this all the more glaring in regards to whether or not she is qualified to be a President of the country. Writing shit on your hand before giving a speech is just pure and simple outlandish regardless of party affiliation. Use a fucking teleprompter....she did just fine at the GOP convention with one. Its simply put stupid and in all honesty, so much so, that I was certain it was photoshopped.

A paid speaker solely because she was an attraction that could sell tickets. This had nothing to do with anything she said, this had to do with people willing to pay to be in proximity to her. Period.


I'll give you that one. And based on the quotes I've seen, she delivered quite well on what the audience wanted.


Sorry, I just don't see it as an issue. And I wouldn't have ripped Obama for it either (not many things I can say that about). Whatever works afaic when it comes to public speaking, and she appears to have hit the points she needed/wanted to hit for the speech to serve its purpose, I really don't give a damn how she got that done.

well we disagree there. I dont think the Pres or VP for that matter has their hands, In lieu of index cards/teleprompter, as a luxury to be written on.

Seriously? Bitching about writing on a hand? *sigh*

I don't think this is a big deal at all.

Same old mindless partisan bullshit. It goes both ways, I guess.

I don't know if anyone thinks it's a big deal. Maybe someone out there does.


...but it is kindof funny. *snicker*

SI

It's not a big deal, but it is very amusing. It gets a little more play because her intellect was already in question, this compounds it. But if it really blows up for more than a day or two I'll be annoyed.


I agree, but rather than going for the gravy or lack there of, she may haven taken a dump in the potatoes. If this gets play beyond rabid blogs it's damaging to the tea party's image, warranted or not.

Writing key points to hit during a speech on your hand is not questioning one's intellect. This will be a talking point argument of the left, nothing more.

Like I said, it compounds the image already there. On it's own? No it doesn't.


No kidding, but irrelevant. Everything is only a talking point for one side or the other at the end of the day.

Well I dont mind being in a camp alone, to me I find it mind-numbingly dumb to do it, and inexcusable for ANYONE on that stage. Perhaps, I view her as being on a bigger stage than most of you all, and that would explain our incongruity on the severity of the event.

We agree.

I still think the pics look photoshopped, and if that is the case more harm is done than good (much in the same way constantly referring to "teabagging" by the left provides an easy out for those on the right who rather than wishing to engage in an actual debate want to point fingers.)

Both sides suck.

Pretty much. It's what's in the speech that matters, not how it's delivered. Index cards, writing on hands, teleprompters, whatever. People more concerned about mindless bullshit to propogate hate.

I don't think his speech was far off from one you'd see at a white supremacist rally.

hate? thats an awfully strong word. I dont think I hate her. I think she's a liar, a hypocrite, and completely unqualified to be P or VP but I most certainly dont feel hatred. At least by how I define it.

come to think of it, I dont hate many people.

How would you classify yourself, Rainmaker? A moderate Democrat?

You don't get out much, do you?

Moderate libertarian. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal but not as far as Libertarians would want to go on eliminating stuff.

I donated to Ron Paul in the primary and no one in the general election. Knew he wouldn't win but thought his message should get out there more.

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read. You're not even close.

How so?

Unless you simply say things in your posts for the sake of saying them, there is no chance you would ever be considered a Libertarian in any, way, shape, or form.

You are firmly left of center in every post I've ever read from you in a political thread. You might be seeing yourself one way but the world is CLEARLY seeing you as the opposite of what you say.

That wouldn't make him the opposite, just the tangent. Libertarian is not the opposite of Liberal.

I don't argue my position a lot, just like to point out hypocrisy in statements by partisians. Don't see a huge difference in the two major parties with the exception of one party hates what they used to love four years ago. Rinse and repeat as powers shift. I'll even argue a position I like because I feel it's presented with bullshit. Such as those who want lower taxes for the rich because it'll "trickle down". I want lower taxes for the rich because I think they pay way too much of our revenues right now. I know the "trickle down" stuff is bullshit and just used to sell it the the public.

One of the problems is what you mentioned above. If you believe in 70% of a party's platform, they consider you on the other side. Independent thought within a party is discouraged and they essentially want robots spouting the daily talking points (see MBBF).

As for my thoughts and what you'd classify them as, I don't know. I don't believe in welfare and think unemployment should be privatized. People should have the ability to opt out of Social Security at any age in life. I think we should eliminate limits on competition in health care and open borders for prescription drugs. Only fight in wars that effect our direct public safety and stop occupying lands.

I know that's not hardcore libertarian thinking because I don't want to eliminate things like the FAA, NTSB, and CDC, but I think it's a rather drastic cutback in what we do spend and what our government operates and has control over. Liberterians are the only party for reduced spending so like I said, I lean in that direction. I don't know if I'd ever want that party controlling government, but I'd love to see them have a nice percent of the voting block in the Senate and House.

Socially I'm pretty much anything goes. I don't care what you inject into your body as long as you don't hurt others. I don't care if you want to gamble your paycheck away or spend it on hookers. Gay marriage wise, I don't even think government should be involved in marriage at all. Should be a spiritual thing between two, three, or 50 people if that's what they want. The fuck do I care if some guy wants to have 49 wives (as long as their not minors). At the same time, I do believe in the death penalty (in cases of extreme guilt) and feel it should extend beyond murder to multiple time rapists and those who sexually abuse children.

I don't know what the chart says that would make me. Moderate Democrat, Moderate Libertarian, or just an independent. I do know I liked a lot of what Ron Paul had to say in the primary with the exception of eliminating all the stuff he'd want to. I wish we had 50 people in the House and 10 in the Senate who would vote down all the bullshit like him.

I'm basing it off of charts like this and tests that are out there. Most of the time I show up near the middle and half way up the chart. Not in libertarian area but close.

really i don't need to even post in this thread, can we just create a new screenname that represents both of us, because i think you about nailed me in this post too (maybe with the exception of welfare+unemployment)

If scrawling notes on her hands can help her make sense, and maybe even make a few truly relevant points in her speeches, then it is a massive improvement for her. She might want to write the name of a newspaper on there too, before her next interview with hardballer Katie Couric. "All of them" is not a realistic answer and nobody with a brain bought that answer last time.

She read her speech. The notes were used in the Q/A session after the speech, which, btw, featured pre-screened questions.

She didn't wing her first major address on national television.

With unemployment I just think it could be better privately. We all pay 6.2% on the first $7000 we make. That's on top of whatever the state has for a program. So in essence, we are all paying for "insurance" one way or the other.

If you did it privately, it would allow those who don't need it to not have it. High school kids, college kids, or those working small part-time jobs would not have to give up that kind of money for something they'd never need. On top of it, if it was private, you could pay for more customized coverage.

Lets say you have a really in-demand skill and know that you'll never be out of work for more than 3 months. So buy a plan that will cover you for up to 3 months at a cheaper rate. Lets say you have a family and can't afford to miss or have any reduced income. Buy a more expensive plan and get your full salary. Or if you have a huge nest egg, don't bother with anything at all.

We all currently pay into a plan that doesn't really suit anyone in particular. I just think a more customized approach would work better for everyone and having a lot of competition would get everyone good rates. On top of it, it would be in their best interest for you to get a job quickly so maybe they offer job placement services or training for free.

I know when someone says eliminate unemployment it can sound heartless, but I actually think in this case it gives people way better options (including those who get hit hardest by job loss). Wouldn't you rather have a custom plan for your job based on what you need on a monthly basis and how long you think it would take to find new work?

Live by the teleprompter joke, die by the teleprompter joke.

If that is true, this certainly changes the spin a bit.

While I'd want to see it in detail, I can at least buy the premise of this. However, nobody should "know" they won't be unemployed for more than three months.

Google the video. You can clearly see her reading the speech and much later checking her hand during the Q/A.

I'm not saying you, just those that turn every single thing into a way to cut down someone on the other side. Those that throw a fit over a someone writing notes down for a speech or what kind of mustard they put on their cheeseburger. I think there hits a line when the person is no longer talking about the issue but instead a hatred toward the other person. Barack Obama could literally recite a Ronald Reagan speech word for word and before he finished there would be people flooding the web with how liberal and socialist. There is nothing he can do, just as there is nothing Sarah Palin can do.

I consider what people like Olbermann and Limbaugh do an almost form of politically correct hate speech. There are a lot of extremists on both sides that get off on hating others. You are definitely not one, but I'm talking about a percent of the Daily Kos/Red State diehards. They don't want to talk about issues, they just want someone to hate.

If you're over 50 or perhaps work a unique job that just doesn't have a lot of options, you might know it'll take awhile. Just as a guy working a grill at a fast food joint might realize it won't take long to find a similar job.

very interesting point - you know honestly i had never thought about it that way (and also wasn't sure what exactly your thought was). That's a really good idea!

I don't know if I can put myself through that so soon before the Super Bowl. Maybe tomorrow.

I just think it's a terrible idea for anyone to save for unemployment that they know won't last for more than three months. I wonder how many people in the current recession knew they wouldn't be unemployed for long?

Yeah, what happens when everyone needs to cash out at once in a recession. Particularly when those insurance companies go under at a time like this? It's a lucrative industry for 9 years and then they go under every 10 and people are screwed.

SI

I'm pretty sure antagonizing the left-wing media is part of her modus operandi. Surely it's at least 1/2 the reason she was hired by Fox News. (Clearly they didn't hire her for her extemporaneous speaking skills.)

good point on the other side

Confirmation on the speech thing. I am certainly convinced that (1) she read her speech, and (2) those notes on her hand were to help her with the Q&A.

Can anyone tell me what her appeal is? I get the whole MILF / Hot Grandmother thing, but I would never even slightly entertain $100k speaking fees or an election to any position of responsibility based on that alone. People tell me they like her because she isn't as polished as the other players. So, they like that she crashes and burns in her interviews? Even the friendly ones with people like Glen Beck. They like her speeches, which all seem to wander off into the wilderness, seemingly devoid of any major point or thesis behind them? I really don't understand.

When people say they like her because she isn't polished, they're invariably saying her lack of polish makes her more "real" than other politicians.

She would not be the first politician who has tried to use this particular bit of image-crafting to her advantage.

Well first, separate the $100k fee and being elected, because the two have different criteria.

Specifically the $100k fee is based almost entirely on her ability to draw achieve the desired result for the organization hiring her. In the most recent case, it was the ability to sell tickets & therefore raise money, so look no further than that on that part. How she does it (within the confines of the broader goals of an organization at least) is pretty much irrelevant.

Now the second part is tougher.

Well I dont think the money was her main motivation so I guess we differ there and therefore differ on the 'polished-ness' I think is acceptable or not...no?

I know. I was just stating that I couldn't understand doing either.

Not her motivation, the motivation of group(s) hiring her. In this case, raising money. In other instances probably more about attracting attention than directly raising funds.

Although I'd probably argue how much of her motivation the checks provide too.