Branwyn Lancourt says:

Failed to leave in this little nugget...

"have assets worth up to $2.1 million"

Moreover, this 166K figure is merely what THEY reported, it leaves out thousands of dollars worth of kickbacks, contributions, side deals, speaking tour earnings and god knows what else...

All that being said, while most of the country is struggling to survive on a fraction of 166K to classify that as NOT wealthy is a joke.

abomb says:

Branwyn,

I didn't expect this to last that long and appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond.

Bottom line: You are taking your perception of a demographic and applying it to everyone, and therefore making fun of people who are religious because you don't understand them. You are assuming that ALL conservatives hate homosexuals (or whoever) and deprive Americans of their equal rights, because that's what those guys at the tea parties (or whoever) do. When there are plenty of decent, religious people who are intelligent and "rational thinkers" and have come to different conclusions than you have. They certainly do not deserve statements like this:

"Whatever it actually turns out to be, I just hope they have an audio version up and ready to go, as it’s pretty obvious a large percentage of Palin supporters have “limited” reading skills."

Zing!

You haven't been any more objective than Jonathan is, and there's no moment of hope or optimism throughout your essay. I know, that's not the point; You're burning down a barn; any idiot can do that. I don't believe that you ever looked at Palin from any objective viewpoint. You get your facts from other places and so does he, as you just proved.

Palin is the easiest target there is, at least as you have depicted her. SNL already raked her thoroughly over the coals, and David Letterman had a good time poking fun at her too. She's the biggest political joke of the season and this biography will probably only further endear her to her followers and give more fodder to you and your web-site. But you haven't gone any further than SNL or Letterman or Jon Stewart have except in making the same tired jokes that they all do. But you are much more mean-spirited than all those folks, who at least can separate the target from those who might support her (even blindly), because they are people, after all - people who you apparently don't like.

What you are, unfortunately, is a mean guy who is kind of smart and kind of funny, operating out of cyberspace with a self-righteous, pseudo-objective axe to grind at caricatures and stereotypes, acting out of some enlightened view of your self that bypasses all the criticisms you throw at other people.

And, lastly, really? You know these people? You have conservative friends? You have conversations with reasonable conservatives (BTW, your dissent of Obama is not exactly ground-breaking)? Or have you become so insulated by your world-view that you surround yourself in your echo chamber with other people who think just like you? I know you can answer any way you want, and I can't prove you wrong except by saying "Nuhn-uh!" but think about it.

Jonathan says:

You are a joke!

Your entire article is a joke!

I refer back to my earlier posting about the difference between assets and income. The fact that I have to explain that to you is pretty absurd, and proves what a dim-wit you really are. I also refer back to my previous posting where I admitted that 166,000 was indeed a sizeable amount of money, but when you looked at the amount of money that it costs to raise one child, let alone five, you can understand why half a million dollars was a lot to ask of a their family.

Vix says:

only reason SNL and letterman aren't 'mean' towards the demographic of Palin supporters is because THEY NEED THE RATINGS. Im sure that in the privacy of his boudoir, Letterman has no problem tagging Palin supporters as idiot conservatives.

Vix says:

Where did you get that info about 200,000 to raise a child?
Maybe that is true if you count over the period of 18 years, and for all we know that number may include college. If she makes 166,000 a year she can raise 5 kids. Don't worry for the Palins buddy.

Branwyn Lancourt says:

Abomb - I said a large percentage of PALIN supporters.. and it was obviously meant to be humorous anyway.. (although I do find anyone who supports her to be cerebrally deficient)... I HOPE not all conservatives are Palin supporters... I've stated repeatedly FACTIONS of the right wing, when it comes to philosophy... I in fact have PLENTY of friends with conservative viewpoints, and philosophies counter to my own, but whenever we discuss politics it's never personal.. Time and time again I've been PERSONALLY attacked.. I don't really mind this, as I'm not thin skinned, but if you read through the comments, I have not once personally attacked any of the commenters..

Jonathan - you are a blind follower... The point was whether or not Palin "could afford" all the lawsuits against her.. law suits I might add that call into question her integrity, morality, and honesty... Her assets are her NET WORTH!!! You make no sense, and I think I've answered you as patiently and thoughtfully as I can...

Branwyn Lancourt says:

Vix - so true!

Jonathan says:

You are the one who is blind. You are so blinded by your hate and jelousy of Sarah Palin and what she has, that you could not see the truth if it was right in front of your face!

Vix says:

Jonathan, now you just sound like that 'leave britney alone' kid.

Branwyn Lancourt says:

hahaha... LEAVE SARAH ALONE!!!... I MEAN IT!!!!

Jonathan - Easy tiger, don't get your undies in a twist... You're getting so hot under the collar that it's starting to affect your spelling, and we all know what a stickler you are for spelling!!

Jonathan says:

Honestly, I couldn't care less what you think. I just do not understand the level of hatred that you people have for Sarah Palin, and other Republicans. The fact that someone like yourself can make a living writing trash like the article above disgusts me, and the number of people that share your views disgusts me even further. I can understand disagreeing with her politically, it’s all of the personal attacks against her and her children that I find offensive. I do not think that she has done anything to warrant that level of hatred.

I really did not plan on this going on this long, and like I said before, I am never going to persuade you into see things from my perspective, so there is no sense in me trying any further.

Branwyn Lancourt says:

Can you show me where I said anything about her children? One thing? This is whats the matter with people like you, you just chatter, spewing forth bible quotes, talking points, and out and out lies... This is what disgusts ME. My opinions are my OWN...they are not spoon fed to me by anybody... You're a young kid, 22 years old, and I do not hate you... I just really hope at some point you learn to think for yourself.

abomb says:

That's all fine and good Branwyn; I do think your shots at Palin and the conservatives who follow her are too easy, and don't really build on any of the SNL/Letterman/Daily Show caricatures.

You're just more biting at her constituents, which is where the mean-spiritedness comes in. But I guess you gotta do what you gotta do to build an audience. That's something I know nothing about - I wouldn't know where to begin if I had to do what you do, and like Perez Hilton, you have to be audacious and incendiary if you want people to follow your stuff. That may seem like a back-handed compliment, and I suppose it is, but I have a lot of suspicion towards this medium (the blogosphere in general, not your site in particular) and the way most of the people who inhabit it think that not giving a shit absolves them from writing anything that is meaningful or useful. And I still challenge your objectivity that you are wearing like a badge, because nothing in that article suggests anything remotely objective and seems inspired by personal indignance and disgust not only at Palin but the people who (however misguided) like her.

And sorry, but this piece isn't "controversial." It's intended to make like-minded folks laugh and opponents seethe. You're preaching to the choir here, and while you angered poor young Jonathan, you're probably just to turn the rest away who find you and your opinion of them repugnant. They'll just ignore you. I wouldn't let Jonathan build your ego as some kind of grand pot-stirrer.

But don't be surprised if "rational thinking" moderates who are beginning to turn from Palin see stuff like you wrote and are repulsed by it. Because like Obama or hate him or "lukewarm" him (I happen to really like him), he is building bridges by avoiding the association of such incendiary tactics. It's not really working as well I'd like it to, but he's definitely erasing the easy caricatures of liberals by being hard to categorize - a category Kerry and Gore fit like an Isotoner glove. Palin used Letterman as a rallying cry, and I don't think you want your legacy to be as one who further unites radical conservatives under a cause that they see as being absolutely necessary to defend.

Best of luck; that's the last you'll hear from me on this topic. It's your article, so I'll give you the last word, even if it dismisses me totally or unfairly.

Branwyn Lancourt says:

Again, I never said that this column is based on objectivity, I'm not sure why you're continuing to harp on that point. As far as comparing me to Perez Hilton, I hardly think that's the case.. Perez (or at this point his interns) merely lay out gossip, with absolutely no insight whatsoever other than adding moronic captions to photographs of celebrities, and or semen dribbling from their mouths.. As for this piece being particularly controversial, that wasn't the intent.. it was simply meant to be entertaining. Finally, for someone who "really likes" Obama, the fact that you can defend Palin, who's just been absolutely unconscionable when it comes to some of he incendiary things she's said at rallys is hard to swallow... All it would take is one nutjob to get so riled up by the BS that people like Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, et. al vomit up, that they'd attempt something nightmarish against our president... If you think I'm being dramatic, I hardly think so, just look at history, as we all know it has a tendency of repeating itself... During the Bush years, americans were labeled as unpatriotic for not going along with the war, patriot act, tax cuts, etc... I believe the actions of many republicans lwhen it comes to this presidency have proven to be not only unpatriotic but traitorous.

John Carpenter says:

Mr. Lancourt's eclectic background explains his complete lack of knowledge about how major publishing houses
decide to sign authors.

First, last, and always, there is the potential for profit.

Next, notwithstanding a books's potential for profits there are more pragmatic issues: Will the book reflect positively on Harper Collins? Founded in 1817, the house has published works by Mark Twain, the Brontë sisters, Thackeray, Dickens, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King.

Only to the terminally obtuse would this list still allow for the possibility that HC's editors would allow for an author to use the considerable resources available to the house to be used for a petty vendetta.

Harper Collins has thrived for almost 200 years because it is respected throughout the world for it's unflinching high standards and the considerable efforts it takes to protect itself from negative publicity.
For example, when Harper Collins realized Judith Reagan had brokered a deal to publish O.J. Simpson's,
"If I did it" she was fired immediately.

Anyone who thinks Levi Johnson will be treated with anything but respect by Pali,her editors, ghost writer and Harper Collins has spent too much time wallowing in Page Six or the National Enquirer.

Such people shoudl prepare to be disappointed.

Cerny says:

For what it's worth, I thought the column was amusing. Good work!

Branwyn Lancourt says:

JC - Thanks for the history lesson! I'm not sure what the point was, but it was fun.

Cern - thanks.

Karin says:

Branwyn wrote: "The Republicans have absolutely no ideas when it comes to health care, and their thoughts on global warming, gay rights and pretty much every other issue of the day are completely erroneous..."


None of that is true. The GOP has plenty of ideas on health care reform. However, their ideas, bills, and suggestions are being ignored by the democrats and the MSM. Imagine that! The GOP has approximately 30 bills on health care reform floating around the halls of Congress which are being ignored, as a matter of fact. One of the most promising bills is HR 3400.

GOP's HR 3400, is the Empowering Patients First Act, which Rep Price and the Republican Study Committee proposed back in July. There are more than 30 — proposed by members of the Study Committee."
http://www.picayuneitem.com/statenews/local_story_278101820.html

Just for the record, in case you want to check them out, these are the bills proposed, so far, by Price and his GOP allies in the House: HR 77; HR 109; HR 198; HR 270; HR 321; HR 464; HR 502; HR 544; HR 917; HR 1086; HR 1118; HR 1441; HR 1458; HR 1468; HR 1658; HR 1891; HR 2520; HR 2607; HR 2692; HR 2784; HR 2785; HR 2786; HR 2787; HR 3141; HR 3217; HR 3218; HR 3356; HR 3372; HR 3400; HR 3438; HR 3454; and HR 3478.

Unlike the government takeover bill the dems are pushing, the GOP bills rely on American-style free market principles and actually offer suggestions for bringing costs down for the American people. Sure getting everyone insured is a good idea, but if it causes the average American's health costs to go up by @ $4000/year how does that help anyone? We can get almost everyone insured AND bring down costs. If you don't do BOTH, why do it?

The dems' Baucus bill aims to get everyone insured on the backs of the hardworking middle class who will get squeezed once again. The Price Waterhouse audit, which is out today, confirmed what all the GOPers have been saying. The dems' plans to tax the insurance companies will result in the costs being passed on to consumers in higher medical costs and insurance fees. That is not the way to get everyone insured and bring costs down. I fact, it will ruin the health care industry.
"The other problem, according to the audit, is that all the fees, fines and penalties of the insurance and medical industry will simply be passed onto the insured. That's obvious. The bill, according to the CBO, will cost $829 billion over ten years. That won't come from the air. That will come from somewhere. Some of it will come from fees for the uninsured. Others will come from new fees and taxes on insurance companies and the medical industry. As the cliche goes, corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. By this, what is meant is that any taxes on corporations simply get passed onto the consumer. That's what the study concluded as well." http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-this-bombshell.html

The GOP bills focus on insuring everyone, getting rid of preexisting conditions, increasing portability, instituting tort reform to bring down costs, giving tax breaks to individuals and businesses to fund health savings accounts and deregulating the industry to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines unleashing free market principles to bring costs down further. Why do most people only have 3 to 10 insurance companies from which to choose in their states when there are @ 1300 companies in the USA? Imagine getting them all to compete for your business -- costs will be reduced substantially. Why are dems stopping this? It is a no-brainer.

Karin says:

Global warming (which they now call climate change since they had to admit the globe is NOT warming - oops), is scientifically suspect. Assuming arguendo that climate change IS happening there is NO conclusive evidence that it is not a natural occurrence repeating in cycle after cycle rather than something we contributed to or can do anything about.

"Al Gore dodges question about inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth
"A judge in the British High Court, after a lengthy hearing, found there were 9 significant errors," said Phelim McAleer, director of Not Evil Just Wrong. "This has been shown to children. Do you accept those findings and have you done anything to correct those errors?" Gore did not provide an answer, saying: "The ruling was in favor of showing the movie in schools."

When Mr. McAleer sought to press an answer to his question, McAleer's microphone was cut off and he was escorted away." UH OH.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/280354

There is no evidence that CO2 has ever caused significant warming on Earth, at least not when the concentrations were within 10-15 times of what they are today. Water vapor is, by far, the most important greenhouse gas in the Earth system. Water vapor accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. The temperature variations are much more correlated with the Sun's solar activity/sunspot cycle than with CO2 changes.
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

Having provided some strong evidence which disputes the claims of Gore and his ilk, GOPers do want to protect the environment and ween ourselves away from foreign oil. However, you don't do that by jumping into something that will bankrupt the country, ruin businesses and aid our opposition. GOPers want to do it all, invest in green energy, including solar and wind, as well as clean coal, nuclear, and drilling for oil in our own country. Do it all will reduce energy costs for everyone and will eventually reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. It will take a steady and slow transition to ween ourselves off of foregn oil without causing an economic debacle.

It is not only an environmental concern, but a national security one. However, you don't make the transition by forcing government mandates, regulations and taxes on already struggling businesses during a financial crisis. The two top polluters China and India will still be doing business the old-fashioned way. So no matter what we do they will still be polluting the Earth. Let's not be so naive (or arrogant?) to believe anything we do will change the world in this arena. We can and should do some things in this area, but crazy ideas like the cap and trade scheme will do much more harm than good.

Senate's cap-and-trade bill is a tax that will crush U.S. economy
http://www.pal-item.com/article/20091011/NEWS0302/910110339

Gay Rights.... There are no "gay rights" per se. There are human rights and individual rights which are protected by our founding documents. You get into trouble when people want to assign special status to some groups and not others, or they insist we change definitions of terms which have stood the test of time for over 2000 years based on the assignment of some sort of special status. There should be no discrimation based on race, religion, gender or sexual preference, but there should be no special rights conferred as a result of any such designation either.

Karin says:

"The temperature variations are much more correlated with the Sun's solar activity/sunspot cycle than with CO2 changes."<<----- This makes so much more sense. How can any rational thinking person deny that?

Branwyn Lancourt says:

The GOP are owned by the health insurance lobbyists... If they simply got rid of the middleman, and installed national health care, the overall costs would come down, and everyone would be insured.. The public option (which 65% of Americans want) is a compromise that would be far better than the mess we have now... The fact that The US pays twice as much yet lags other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy is a travesty...

Ourinfant mortality rate is higher than most of the world's industrialized nations... life expectancy 42nd in the world, after most rich nations, The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health.. This is disgusting...

The thing about a public "option" is that it's just that... an OPTION.. All this bullshit about socialized medicine, and the "middle class shouldering the costs" is a smoke screen.. You think Republicans give a rat's ass about the middle class? We already have many government run institutions in place that are intrinsic to our society.. medicaid, the post office, the VA... All these "proposals" you've cut and pasted are a joke.

As far as the change in moniker from "global Warming" to "climate change" is concerened, it's due to the fact that the current environmental catastrophe we find ourselves in is no longer about "warming" but about a general global change in weather... All scientists are on board with this )save a few crackpots) to ignore this is not only moronic, but dangerous...

As far as your thoughts on rights are concerned, no one's asking for "special rights" just EQUAL rights... You obviously don't believe that all human beings are entitled to them, as you specify them as "special"... Is it a special right if a gay couple wants to be married? Or do you believe the concept of marriage to be soley between a man and a woman? Do you believe women should be making equal pay as men or not? Do you believe that gays should be allowed in the military? IS that a special right?

Time and time again, since the beginning foundations of this country, "the right" has been on the WRONG side of history... If it hadn't been for the southern delegates in the forging of the declaration of independence, slavery would have been illegal... Incredible how the more things change the more they stay the same..

Dale Thompson says:

Does anyone really believe Palin wrote any of this book at all? C'mon, it took her five years and four different schools to get a degree in journalism. Her book will reveal nothing new startling, insightful or groundbreaking. Obviously, she's just out to capitalize on her fame with this book.

How can anyone take her seriously though? I'm a Canadian and she wouldn't stand a chance in the polls if she was a Canadian politician running in Canada. Hard to believe anything this woman says too... everything seems to be contrived or just plain unrealistic. You know she doesn't write her own speeches too (except for throwing in the odd "aw shucks" or "you betcha").

One question to pose to everyone: Would Sarah Palin had gotten this far if she wasn't attractive? Hillary Clinton is smarter, gutsy, well read and stable but, sadly, not attractive though.

Only in America could someone lie, cheat, fake and deceive and still have a chance to be President.