2009.11.04
Will the masses greet her again?
First Oprah, then Roanoke. Yes, the Star City is one of the confirmed stops on Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue" book tour, according to an Associated Press story posted on our breaking news site.
Palin is shunning the bright lights of the nation's big cities and is planning to drop by smaller, more Republican friendly towns.
Do any of you plan to read her book or turn out to see her again?
RSS feed 
I would like to read her book as I really like her. And it makes sense to avoid the urban areas that have little or nothing to do with traditional American values.
Comment by Jim — November 4, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
Roanoke is a Republican friendly town? City Council is 100% what? Onzlee Ware is a what? The commissioner is a what? John Edwards is a what?
If only the RTEB was as relevant....
Comment by Bob H — November 4, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Nut case quote #165-
"I don't know if you're going to use the word 'terrorist' there." --Sarah Palin, asked if people who bomb abortion clinics are terrorists, NBC News interview, Oct. 23, 2008
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 4, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
#3 - The other nutcases think she actually said, "You can see Russia from my house".
Comment by Patrick — November 4, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
Yeah. Instead, she just said, "It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state."
So much more sane.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 4, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
#5 - My point, Dan, was that way too many people take what Tina Fey said on Saturday Night Live as what the real Sarah said.
Same group of people who think The Daily Show is a reliable news source.
Comment by Patrick — November 4, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
Sarah should hope so. Tina Fey's version was probably more palatable.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 4, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
Sarah Palin will make B.O. the next Jimmy Carter in 2012. She doesn't need the media. Like Reagan, people respond to her. She can go above the media. The Dems don't have anyone in their party that can draw a crowd that compares to the crowds Sarah draws. This "event" at Barnes and Noble is further proof.
Al Gore, could be at Barnes and Noble spreading his lies and about 6 people would show up. Same for anyone else in that party. Let Sarah show up and even the media who hates her will wait 6-9 hours to see her. This is the event of the year in Roanoke.
Something about leftwingers, they hate strong women. The Dems don't have any. If today was a fun time to watch the libs whine and cry about last night's elections, just wait until Sarah sends B.O. back to Chicago in 2012.
Comment by VRWC — November 4, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
Sarah's book tour will be highly successful here in Roanoke, no question. I probably won't go to see here because I hate long lines.
#5 I wouldn't talk about Sarah. 0bama didn't know the states that bordered Illinois nor did he know the number of states in the union.
Comment by Suzie — November 4, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
Still laughing at the left making fun of Sarah and yet ignoring Ol' Joe.
And yes... I believe that plenty of people will show to support Sarah. I doubt I will be one of them but there will be plenty.
Comment by TScottW — November 5, 2009 @ 6:51 am
Suzie, dont you know we have 57 states, bh0 says so
Comment by pammala — November 5, 2009 @ 6:57 am
Pammala, LOL. Yep. SNL could have done great skits on 0bama and Biden last year. Loads of material available. But, well, it's run by liberals.
Comment by Suzie — November 5, 2009 @ 7:43 am
@ Dan #4
Do you know where we might get a transcript of Biden's speech where he applied the biography of Neil Kinnock to himself?
That would be the Fair and Balanced thing to do after a post like #4.
Comment by Mike — November 5, 2009 @ 9:18 am
Not a transcript, Mike, but here's an interesting story about that event:
Veteran US senator Mr Biden's hopes of winning the 1988 White House race were scuppered when it emerged he copied parts of a speech from Lord Kinnock without acknowledging him.
Lord Kinnock said the two men had become firm friends since the scandal - with Mr Biden jokingly calling him his "greatest speech writer".
The Labour peer told BBC Radio 4's PM programme: "He is a man of immense maturity and unmatched in the Senate, and probably much more widely, as an analyst and advocate in the foreign policy and defence policy areas.
But I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of that to Sarah Palin's quote - except that maybe she would have been better off plagiarizing Tina Fey?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 5, 2009 @ 9:25 am
I found this story far more compelling:
http://www.slate.com/id/2198543/
From Slate last year:
"Biden lifted Kinnock's precise turns of phrase and his sequences of ideas—a degree of plagiarism that would qualify any student for failure, if not expulsion from school. But the even greater sin was to borrow biographical facts from Kinnock that, although true about Kinnock, didn't apply to Biden. Unlike Kinnock, Biden wasn't the first person in his family history to attend college, as he asserted; nor were his ancestors coal miners, as he claimed when he used Kinnock's words. Once exposed, Biden's campaign team managed to come up with a great-grandfather who had been a mining engineer, but he hardly fit the candidate's description of one who "would come up [from the mines] after 12 hours and play football." At any rate, Biden had delivered his offending remarks with an introduction that clearly implied he had come up with them himself and that they pertained to his own life."
It's great that Kinnock became friends with Biden (after all, they have so much in common!
) but that does not explain the very awkward quotes from Biden when he had to explain how his stump-speech bio was factually incorrect. Palin's answer about Russia was awkward and tortured, but it pales by comparison to Biden's gaffes over the years, including the fact he couldn't get right about his own life story. When we take into account Biden's bizarre answers during the debate last year, it just seems weird that you wouldn't see the double standard in place.
Perhaps this will help...
"When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon" Joe Biden during the 2008 VP Debate
"Most people look at the halt in the month-long war between Israel and Hezbollah and see part of a country left in ruins and more than a thousand lives cut short. They also see a fragile opportunity to build a peace that might allow Lebanon's shaky democracy to gain stability." - RTEB 8/16/06, commenting on the Bush Administration's response to Hezbollah's cease fire agreement with Israel
Hezbollah is not only still in Lebanon; it's based there and plays a major role in the country's governance.
Comment by Mike — November 5, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Sarah rocks...can't wait to see the crowd that shows up for her. She knows the media is a JOKE...that's why they hate her so. It is what it is.
Comment by T Witten — November 5, 2009 @ 9:58 am
Nut case #166 quote:
"They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan."
Hint: It's not next door.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 5, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Mike,
This double standard pervades "progressiveness". How about "Hillary" Clinton who claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary when she was born BEFORE he and Tenzing Norgay climbed Mt. Everest. Was the press all over that?
Or that she touched down amongst bombs and warfare zones when that was also proven false.
The rocks that Bill Clinton used to make that cross on the beaches of France in 1994 were placed there for that purpose but he acted like he just found them and did it on a spur of the moment. It was all for the show of the press. BTW, how come all of the anti-religious fanatics weren't all over that?
Its as hollow as an Easter bunny but you won't see the press on it.
Comment by Bob H — November 5, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Question: What country nearly connects with Alaska in the Bering strait?
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/graphics/maps/landbridge_maps/Bering%20Strait.jpg
Looks awful close to ME. I guess you guys wouldn't worry if Mexico had nukes and was encouraging/helping our enemies to build their own?
Why was Cuba such a threat?
Educate yourselves.
Was 0bama referring to the 57 of Islam or is he just that stupid?
Comment by T Witten — November 5, 2009 @ 11:14 am
@ Bill #17
We can go quote for quote....
"Cheney has been the most dangerous Vice President we've had probably in American history" - Joe Biden 10/2/08
Alexander Hamilton has been unavailable for comment since July 11, 1804 after being killed by then Vice President Aaron Burr
Comment by Mike — November 5, 2009 @ 11:32 am
#20 Maybe for once I agree with the quote about Mr. Cheney but the great thing about Palin is she is the gift that keeps giving.
But don't take my word just listen to what people from her own party say,
"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone. She does not have any relationships of trust."-an anonymous McCain adviser
"A whack job." ―a top McCain adviser
And it goes on, but my question to the right,why get someone who is such a mental light weight? Is that the best you guys got? Drill Baby drill? Is that it?
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 5, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Burr actually left to start his own country (with tar and feathers not far behind). He was pretty much involved with treason.
BTW, Jefferson, you know, the father of the democratic party (and of several illigitimate children via slave Sally Hemmings), actually ended up tied electorally with Burr and was selected by the House of Representatives to be president. And Gore lost electorally and feels he got a raw deal?
Needless to say, Tom's first time was a complete failure as the legitimacy of his presidency was in question.
Comment by Bob H — November 5, 2009 @ 11:53 am
"Why do they call this thing a "football?" Whoops! You betcha!! KABOOOMM!!!
Comment by Art Hill — November 5, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Maybe #23 the reason might be is they see it like a good sports game and they will win no matter what. Like the 30 Republican Senators who opposed Franken's amendment concerning the gang raped by her co-workers, that's gang raped.
So another words they were for rape? And they let those guys get away with this? At he at the end of the day I hope Jamie Leigh Jones gets to have her day in court.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 5, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
@ Bill #21:
I'll avoid the anonymous sources who typically form the circular firing squad after an electoral loss (remember the staffers who trashed John Kerry in '04 and '05?) and stick with Biden's own words:
From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/world/americas/11iht-biden.4.16081515.html
"Chuck, stand up, let the people see you," Biden shouted to State Senator Chuck Graham, before realizing, to his horror, that Graham uses a wheelchair. "Oh, God love ya," Biden said. "What am I talking about?"
One of my faves is Joe's answer during a Dem Primary debate last year. Reacting to John Edwards' answer about unemployment, Joe said:
"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."
'Mental lightweight' indeed.
Comment by Mike — November 5, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
@ Art #23:
Do I detect a 'Mouse That Roared' reference?
Comment by Mike — November 5, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
#25 Point taken, but it is interesting to see who might run for your party and the wind is blowing far to the right. And that in the end and long term will sink your own party.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 5, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
@ Bill #23
All kidding aside, I think Art was referring to the proverbial 'football', which is actually a briefcase with the President's nuclear codes.
Comment by Mike — November 5, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Does someone actually think Sarah Palin would beat Obama in an election? That is absolutely delusional. She quit her first term as governor. She says she reads everything. She boasts about her 'family values' and abstinence only education, yet her daughter was a pregnant teen. Her husband is a member of a secessionist group. Her church is dominionist...she believes God wanted us to go to Iraq. On top of that, she lacks eloquence and speaks only to "real Americans," or hard-right conservatives. No way she'd ever be elected. The Republican Party will never make that mistake again.
Comment by WPGHSC — November 5, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
#28 Thank you in clearing that up, but the proverbial football is just a bad word for it.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 5, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
@28
The last thing the world needs is Palin with the nuclear codes. This cult of personality is ridiculous.
Comment by Art Hill — November 5, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
@ Bill #27:
Interesting question (and the Republicans are not my party). A lot will depend on the circumstances in 2011 or so. If there is another attack on US soil or a foreign policy crisis (e.g. an Iranian-Israeli war), the Republicans may go to one of their old warhorses. If the nation is at peace, but unemployment is 10%+, Mitt Romney might be attractive with his business background. Bobby Jindal, despite his horrible opposition response speech a few months ago will always be a player. Tim Pawlenty, who is popular in the upper midwest, can't be ignored either.
Now if you combine the two scenarios above, and the nation finds itself in some sort of foreign policy/national defense crisis and unemployment remains high, the door may be open to an 'outsider' candidacy along the lines of a Sarah Palin.
A lot of people would probably disagree, but I believe elections are more often shaped by the events of the time (or at least those of that specific year). Obama could have never run in 2004 on the record he had in '08; the focus on national defense would have eliminated him early on in the nomination process. 2008 was the right time for him, just as 2011-12 will shape up for some Republican. It just seems too far off right now to predict.
One last thought....who in November, 1989, would have put their chips on an obscure governor from Arkansas?
Comment by Mike — November 5, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
@ Bill #30
I don't think anything was meant to be implied by the name 'football'. It was a code word assigned to the codes themselves whatever they are carried in. If memory serves, the name has been around since the Kennedy Admin or before.
Comment by Mike — November 5, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
I might turn out to protest her presence. But I wonder if she sets up "free speech zones" blocks away from where she appears a la GWB.
Comment by gdad — November 5, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
#32 Very true in some ways, voters vote at time in the moment or who is going to win, which I find strange. But yes if jobs are doing well and we somehow find peace then yes Obama will do well but it depends on how the the employment is doing.
All this is not going to happen over night, I wish it could.
The one thing I think we still have to worry about is the Taliban in Afghanistan. If we just let them be they will attack again, they make no secrete of that. But we have to win politically and banging down door is not the way to do it.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 5, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
I'm not sure why anybody reads these type books, whether they're written by a liberal OR a conservative. You know ahead of time that the subject of the book is going to reveal only what he or she wants to reveal, which means that any REAL goodies won't be in there. Boring.
Comment by gdad — November 5, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
@ gdad #34
Are you sure free speech zones are exclusive to GWB?
They seem to be the fare of our current President as well.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/4/800730/-Obama-came-to-town-today.-Free-Speech-took-a-hit.
Comment by Mike — November 5, 2009 @ 2:22 pm