Doug Wilson Advises Sarah Palin

Doug Wilson advises Sarah Palin that she needs to work on three things in order to be a viable candidate in 2012. I have great respect for Wilson. He’s a first-rate Christian thinker, and I love to read his commentaries. I consistently find him to be on the side of the angels. If you’re not a regular reader of his blog, you should be. Nevertheless, I have to disagree with him on this one.

I don’t think Palin’s problem is that she appears vapid (his word). I think she is vapid. Moreover, I disagree with Wilson about Palin’s viability as a leader and especially about the analogy that he draws with Deborah. Palin is no Deborah. But even if she were, I doubt that Deborah’s example establishes the point he wants to make about a Palin candidacy.

One last thing. Wilson takes the current administration to the woodshed, and on this point I couldn’t agree more. He writes:

“[The pro-life issue] is the driving issue of our time. The abortion carnage is our nation’s great defining evil, and it is organically connected to almost all our other evils.

“But then Obama the Prophet was swept into office, the first black president of the United States. A number of people were quite pleased with that fact, including people who didn’t support him or vote for him. But the sheen wore off quickly, and the mismanagement of the Bush years was replaced by mismanagement on a larger, grander scale than anyone had dreamed possible. All of a sudden, the first black president didn’t seem all that cool anymore. Who can name the first black mayor of Detroit, and who really cares anymore? Now that we are rapidly becoming a continent-wide Detroit, the milestones we have passed are all covered with debris by the side of the road, we can’t see them anymore.”

Read the rest here.


  • El Bryan Libre

    I’m not displeased with Obama. I don’t know anyone that voted for him that is displeased with him (unless they voted for him as the lesser of two evils). I think if anything, real liberal/progressives have been a bit disappointed that Obama hasn’t been more liberal/progressive and that he hasn’t gone further and instead has been more conservative than they expected.

    I agree with you about Palin. She is vapid and I don’t think she will be a viable candidate. I remember seeing her on O’Reilly the other day and he was pressing her to be more specific on the issue (I think it was immigration) beyond slogans and platitudes and she just started talking in circles and not making much sense. I think he sees her quite different than others on Fox. His interviews with her have been good.

  • Sally

    Palin is vapid. She is out to promote her brand, rake in cash, and stay in the limelight. She has no idea how to actually RUN a country.
    Obama is doing a great job! He has passed major legislation that will help this country. He is trying to end the wars that are the real cause of our economic problems, and he has been faced with loud, angry,obstructionists in Congress who are nearly impossible to deal with. They will never agree with anything he promotes. No one thought he was the ONE except the right…we who voted for him just saw an intelligent, caring man, who wants to make America better for all, not just the rich. Those are the people who distrust him…they are so determined to hold onto what Bush gave them. They call themselves Christian, and act like heathens, Palin included.

  • Amy

    I have to agree with El Bryan Libre. I’m not displeased with President Obama, either. The sad truth is that his myriad of accomplishments are not really tangible, as they have just kept things from getting REALLY bad.

    Unfortunately, reproductive rights has been allowed to become an “issue” over the years. This non-issue should have been put to rest in 1972 with RvWade. The government, rightfully so, determined that it had no business in my uterus. It’s since been used as a wedge and distraction starting with Ronald Reagan and it isn’t going away anytime soon.

    Palin is vapid and O’Reilly picked up on this quite a while back and is about the only “reporter” who has called her out. If she announces her candidacy, she will be absolutely destroyed by the press, most of which sees her as O’Reilly does, but say nothing (because of ratings?)

    These are just my opinions.

  • jerry bishop

    OK, Denny, tell us what you really think of Palin.

    The phrase “she is vapid” is rather harsh in light of Matt. 5:22, isn’t it?

    Probably no better than Romney saying that she is not a serious person.

  • Fletcher

    Palin was a throw away VP choice for an election Republicans knew they would lose. It insulted the the GOP party and Dems. A woman for novelty sakes is the only value she had, not qualifications or experince or thought out convictions. What where they thinking? Liberal Hillaryites -pro abortion crowd-feminists are not going to slap themselves and say “I will forget all of my whacky convictions and years of whacky liberalness-the Republicans are the right party because they have a woman candidate.” You have to respect your opponets more than that. What I am concerned with is this Palin attachment to the God and Country crowd who thinks you are subversive if you do not back this valuless flag waving candidate- if we want to get a Reagan we have to go back to the ’80’s slogan “Where’s the beef?”
    Conservatives have to keep looking and not look back at this candidate.

  • Denny Burk


    I should have said this in my post but left it out. I love Sarah Palin’s conservative views. I agree with Wilson’s commendation that she is genuinely pro-life. She obviously is. My concern about her is that she would not be a good standard-bearer or leader.

    One indication of these things is the way that she communicates. When George W. Bush used to talk, it was frustrating. I liked his views (generally), and he was an effective leader. But he was terrible a terrible communicator. I always had the sense that he was smarter than he was articulate.

    I don’t have that sense with Palin. I have the sense that her ability to articulate reflects a muddle in her own thinking. I would love to be proven wrong, but that’s just the sense I get from watching her.

    I don’t mean anything personal by the word vapid. Maybe that’s too strong a word (I was just echoing Wilson in using it). In general I agree with Derek (#3). She needs to learn more and talk less. Personally, I really like her. It’s her skill-set as a leader that I question.


  • Donald Johnson

    At least no one can accuse Wilson of being vapid, his defense of slavery in “Black and Tan” assures him of that.

    I do see him as more consistent that some others, but when one starts from flawed premises, consistency is not a virture.

  • David Vinzant

    Bush was “an effective leader”? Is that a joke? A recent poll of presidential historians ranked Bush as the 5th worst president.

  • DEO

    $arah may run for president but she is only doing for herself to perpetuate her money making machine. She is in it for herself….wake up.
    I mean her no malice, however I can’t say the same for her….she’d sell her grandmother, she would certainly put my safety on the line….she is a dangerous choice. Not only is she not ready, but she just wasn’t cut out to be anymore then Oprah. Oprah is doing fine, and $arah can too…but a presidency run is silly. She KNOWS she isn’t ready, but she doesn’t CARE, that’s my point. She doesn’t really care about anything except the publicity and the self promotion.

  • DennyReader

    I have been a fan of Sarah Palin long before McCain tagged her as the VP. However, I have to agree with Wilson that she lacks depth in her numerous appearances. She is great as a cheerleader for the conservative movement but she does not come across as someone who can deal with an issue beyond general principles. She is the counterpart to Obama who is charismatic but just as shallow. Obama cheerleads for his radical liberalism without any understand the details of anything. However, Obama gets a pass with the propaganda media while Palin is excoriated. Palin is dumb while Obama is a smart constitutional scholar who thinks we have 57 states, corpse-man instead of corpsmen, and Europe is a country. I don’t see SNL skid on Obama’s intellectual prowess. If Palin wants to run for the Presidency, and I don’t think that is her intention at this point, she needs to emulate Clinton. As much as I disagree with him, Clinton has shown that he comes across as someone with depth. His answer to almost any question shows more than just the superficial ideology, but ideology with depth of the issue. His answers to how he would handle the gulf oil crisis to his interview with Bartoromo on CNBC on the financial crisis shows depth even if he might be wrong on some points, shows he understands the subjects.

    Palin needs to study every subject she speaks on with at least as much depth as she has on the oil industry.

  • DennyReader

    When George W. Bush used to talk, it was frustrating. I liked his views (generally), and he was an effective leader. But he was terrible a terrible communicator.

    I don’t know about the effective leader part but I generally agree with this. I think Obama is the worst President in history but that is not Obama’s fault. He is just being who he is. There was never any doubt what a far-left President he would be. No, the fault is not with Obama it is with GW Bush. If we didn’t have Bush 43 we would not have Obama; if we didn’t have Bush 41 we would not have Clintion. The fault must be lay at the feet of the Bush family. I think the problem with these 2 Bush lies in their egotistic self-righteousness who don’t think they need to answer to the American people for their fumbling of policies. Bush 41 thinks that his greatness in his handling of Desert Storm should earn him the loyalty of breaking his promise of “read my lips”. Bush 43 is egotistic enough to think his leadership after 9/11 abdicates him from justifying his bungling of the Iraq war. Their ego convinced themselves that they are doing the right thing and they don’t need to justify it to anyone. That might be fine but he dragged the entire party down with him.

  • Andrew

    Why compare her to Deborah? Deborah was a woman who filled a power vacuum and was used by God to shame the men who should have been leading Israel. Are we so desperate for a Christian leader that we’ll accept anyone we can get? As a Christian woman, Palin should have long ago withdrawn to tend to her family. That was what concerned me most about her during the last election. Her response to her family situation showed poor judgment that undoubtedly said something about her abilities as a leader.

    The GOP needs to regroup and force the Democrats to engage the issues. Conservatives still hold the moral high ground on many issues, but have continually allowed Obama and other Dems to act like children with their fingers in their ears going “Lalalalala, I don’t hear you.” Abortion is a great place for this to start. The pro-choicer cannot demonstrate that a fetus is sub-human, and until they can demonstrate this, they cannot make the argument that abortion is somehow not murder. But it’s time for conservatives to be pro-active.

  • DennyReader

    As a Christian woman, Palin should have long ago withdrawn to tend to her family. That was what concerned me most about her during the last election. Her response to her family situation showed poor judgment that undoubtedly said something about her abilities as a leader.

    Before the egalitarians slap you silly for this statement, let first express my denunciation of this demeaning view of women as a complementarian and conservative. We do not live in a theocracy and women are just as capable of being a political leader as men. I hope you would not say that to Thatcher or Merkel. As a matter of fact I wish Palin was our President now instead of Obama. And using your criteria our last 4 male Presidents also show poor judgment and dubious leadership abilities.

  • Andrew


    Palin’s family situation was not in hand when she began her run for Vice President. That’s not a statement of complementarian vs. egalitarian, but simply that her first responsibility is to her home as a wife and mother before pursuing a career or ambitions. The same would be true for a husband and father. As Christians, we must first make sure our house is in order before following ambition. Paul admonishes elders to do so, and I don’t think this encouragement should be restricted to elders.

    I don’t recall the same being the case with other presidential elections, but I was not making a comparative statement, so it is really irrelevant. To my knowledge, the problems within past presidential families took place after they were elected.

    This comment was also separate from the clarification on Deborah. Unfortunately, Deborah seems to be tossed around often these days out of the context of Judges. The story line of Judges is really quite simple: Israel is backwards in every way and needs a king (David and ultimately, Jesus) to curb their evil. Everything is upside-down. The one lesson we should learn from Deborah is that God has called men to lead, and in the absence of male leadership, God can use a woman, but this does not make it the ideal situation. Deborah constantly calls on Barak (ironic, huh?) to lead. When he refuses, she tells him that God will shame him by giving his enemy into the hands of a woman. So it’s not a legitimate application of the Deborah story to say that women can and should be political or religious leaders. The model of Deborah to be followed is a constant deference to male leadership.

    While America may not be a theocracy, Christian voters should be more discerning in their endorsement of candidates, not assuming that a Christian candidate is always the right one solely by virtue of being Christian. I find it troubling that Christians often so strongly endorse Palin as a Christian candidate, while ignoring actions that have been detrimental to her family.

  • DennyReader

    As a Christian woman, Palin should have long ago withdrawn to tend to her family.

    I apologize if I misunderstood your intention. Your previous statement gave the impression that a Christian woman’s place is in the home.

    In any case, I would still disagree that she handled the situation poorly. I don’t know what you think she could have done that she has not done. As most parents would know, try as we might there is no guarantee that all our children will become saints and obedient to our teachings. It is only by the grace of God if they can avoid the clutch of the evil one. In this case I don’t think it was Palin’s teaching that her daughter would have sex out of wedlock. It seems apparent that Bristol is quite enamored with Levi and ultimately she is the only one that needs to take responsibility for her actions. I think she did quite well in supporting Bristol to not aborting the baby. Withdrawing to her home in private life and watching her 24/7 with an ankle bracelet might not be the best decision.

    In terms of other Presidents, I am thinking of Bush 43 his wife and daughters who are pro-abortion and Obamacare, I don’t see how that reflects Christian values or have his house in order. The great Reagan with his wife consulting an astrologer and have children who are radically left wing. I don’t think these views of their wives and children only existed after they became President. Shouldn’t a Christian man have better control over his family before he runs for President? Why would you think they are good leaders when he can’t even train his children and choose a spouse that reflects his godly values? Would you select a pastor whose wife and daughters are pro-abortion?

    But I don’t think the qualification for elders apply to government leaders. As a Christian I don’t think I should support anyone who claims to be a Christian, even when they claim Jesus Christ is his favorite philosopher. I support a candidate who reflects the most essentials of my Christian values and then their ability to protect and strengthen our country militarily, economically and ethically.

  • RD

    I have to echo the positive sentiments expressed for president Obama. I think, given the utter shambles the country was in when he took office, that he’s done a remarkable job. If you could hand pick anyone and set them down in the oval in place of Obama, I don’t think they could or would do any better.

    Sarah Palin scares me to death! What scares me MORE is that there are so many citizens who seem to completely idolize her and feel that she is the answer to all our nation’s problems. There’s a very interesting editorial in this week’s Newsweek about how John McCain is having to live with the shame of picking Palin as his running mate.

    I might be pilloried for saying this, but if Sarah Palin looked like Susan Boyle we wouldn’t even know who she is.

  • Derek

    Gotta love the Obama kool-aid drinkers, especially this line from Sally:
    First, she pillories Palin by saying:
    She is out to promote her brand, rake in cash, and stay in the limelight. – then she goes on to laud Obama – as if he doesn’t shamelessly promote his own brand, “rake in cash” well in excess of Pailin and do pretty much anything he can to stay in the limelight! Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

  • Nate

    “I have to echo the positive sentiments expressed for president Obama. I think, given the utter shambles the country was in when he took office, that he’s done a remarkable job.”

    Yeah, if you think tripling the deficit, passing socialized medicine, kowtowing to Mexico and practically any other leader he can bow to… That is Remarkable.

  • El Bryan Libre

    It’s interesting what people choose to focus on when they decide to criticize someone else. Sometimes they’re substantive and valid points or legitimate areas of disagreement based on real philosophical differences Other times they’re just irrelevant or even childish criticisms based more than anything on a general dislike of that person for any number of random reasons.

  • Nate

    Bryan, So what is your perspective on the points that Derek and I make? Your statement has no substantive thing to say other than that there could be real issues or childish ones. I named three substantive issues: The deficit, socialized medicine, and kowtowing. Derek added promoting himself above all others.

    Earlier you said he should have gone farther. What substantives things do you think Obama should have went further with?

  • Nate

    Sorry, no I got you and RD misplaced. However, based on your post #1, I would enjoy hearing what you feel he could have been more progressive with in his policy-making.

  • jerry bishop

    Thanks Denny for your response. I am with you completely.

    As to RD being “scared to death” over Palin voters. Others are just as scared over Obama voters. This is really the conflict that is rising in our country. I believe usually each one votes for the individual who seems to best support our own world view. What we are seeing is a clash of worldviews: one that is western (formerly known as judeo Christian) and one that is not.

  • RD


    When GWB came into office we had a budget surplus in this country for the first time in decades. After eight years the deficit was running rampant. Now, I understand that being at war on two fronts is costly and that a huge portion of the deficit can be attributed to the cost of the military. I won’t get into whether that has been money well spent. Prior to his leaving office, when the economy began to fall apart and the financial crisis paralyzed the banks and investment firms, GWB initiated massive govt spending (which then pres-elect Obama agreed with). GWB wasn’t afraid to commit us to huge govt deficits, believe me.

    Regarding healthcare, believe me, the reforms that were passed are not even remotely similar to socialized medicine.

  • El Bryan Libre

    Actually I was saying real liberal/progressives think he’s often been too conservative but I wasn’t really identifying myself as a real liberal/progressive. If you listen to those who are really liberal/progressive they are constantly criticisizing Obama. Heck just watch Rachel Maddow sometimes. However, I would identify as quite more liberal than conservative and I tend to be more sympathetic of the arguments made by those who are really liberal/conservative. I do think he could have gone further on some things though like a larger stimulus or healthcare (universal healthcare or at least a public option). There are other things too but I don’t want to get in a debate on each of those. Overall I would say I’m not displeased with him as president despite what Doug said and Denny agreed with.

  • RD


    Jon Meacham made a very similar point in an essay a few months back, about pres Obama really being much more of a centrist. He is far from a died-in-the-wool liberal.

  • El Bryan Libre

    Rachel Maddow has made the same point. In fact she was comparing him to Bill Clinton in how he’s governed (noting the similarities) and remarked how she often jokes the Clinton was the best Republican president we’ve ever had! : 0

    Obama actually gets lots of rocks thrown at him from both sides.

  • John

    Yes, Palin is vapid. No thinking person has been huckstered by her bumper-sticker cheerleader routine. On the other hand, all the fascination with Obama and Bush from both camps is disturbing, primarily because it displays ignorance of the separation of powers built into our government structure. Bush did not put us into debt by going to war. Congress did by voting to allow Bush to use police force in Iraq. Obama is not bankrupting this country by enacting silly laws that have no funding (especially healthcare), Congress is. Congress has always been where the power lies. Given the perspectives of post-modern sociology and balance of power, I am disappointed by the number of “progressives” who would like to give Obama more power. The last thing we need is to empower the office of President. He leads the world’s largest army.

  • DennyReader

    I think, given the utter shambles the country was in when he took office,

    Explain to me RD what exactly was the shambles that the country was in when Obama took office?

    Obama really being much more of a centrist

    If you really believe that he is a centrist then you can’t see the Titanic that is in your eyes.

  • Nate

    RD, I have argued that Bush was a liberal spender time and again, however, Obama has made Bush look like a penny-pincher. And, just because Bush was a poor president doesn’t mean Obama gets a free pass and no critique. The recent bank reforms with no effort to reign in Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac also point to Obama’s desire to have government own all, while placing burdens on free citizens.

    As far as health-care, I’m assuming you read all 2,000 pages for you to be able to make your assertion? Or you are just believing those you want to believe. Just last week the announcement came that the government wants to track the weight of individual citizens. Also, there are more people going on the government health-care plan due to this bill passing. Step-by-step is the way to gain control.

    Originally, Social Security was only going to take 1% of the first 3,000 dollars (1937-1949). It has gone up incrementally since then to the current 6.02% or 106,800 dollars. And we are told Social Security is bankrupt.

    Obama makes no apologies for desiring his agenda (excuse me; Progressive).

  • Andrew

    Centrists don’t support socialized medicine, gay “rights”, and abortion at every turn. Obama even used his Mother’s/Father’s Day speeches as propaganda for the gay agenda. If that’s your definition of a centrist, we’re in deep trouble.

  • RD

    A few points from Jon Meacham: “Obama is essentially a centrist. His world view cannot be easily consigned to the familiar categories of left and right. In fact, those categories have been obsolescent since George W. Bush effectively nationalized the banks and Obama won the nomination on a center-right cultural platform.

    “Yes, the deficit is too great, our debt is too deep, unemployment is too high, and the health-care debate has been confusing and counterproductive. And yes, the stimulus bill added to that deficit—but a great deal of the package cut taxes, and even conservative economists agree it has helped

    A few counterintuitive points: Obama was not about to socialize American medicine. The president’s health-care plan was to the right of where Richard Nixon was on the issue more than 35 years ago. The bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit automakers either began under the previous administration or seemed essential to averting greater economic calamity. (A tough sell, these preventive wars. “It’s always hard in politics to make the case that things would have been worse if this or that had not happened,” Obama counselor David Axelrod told me last week.) On taxes and discretionary spending, the president has been to the right of center. He wants to end the Bush tax cuts in order to return rates to Reagan-era levels. And he has been more successful at trimming discretionary spending than George W. Bush was late in his reign. Unemployment is grim, but presidents have historically proved unable to do much about joblessness in the short run unless they go even further than Obama went in the stimulus—which, given Republican opposition, hardly seems practical even if it were desirable.”

    “One thing Obama could do without much pain would be to learn from the rhetorical clarity and practical flexibility of a president whose example he has often considered: Ronald Reagan. In legend, Reagan was a model of consistency, a leader who campaigned against government and the Soviet Union, stuck to his principles, carried the day at home and abroad, and became a rightly revered figure.

    There is much truth in this view, but a careful look back reveals, unsurprisingly, a more complex and contradictory story. Reagan genuinely believed that less government and lower taxes would make the country a better place. And so, in the summer of 1981, on a small outdoor table at his ranch in the mountains near Santa Barbara, Reagan signed the Kemp-Roth tax bill that lowered marginal income-tax rates. He was so happy that he kicked his leg in the air.

    That Reagan then raised taxes in three successive years is the kind of complicating detail that a man like Obama knows, and from which he might draw some guidance, or at least reassurance. The lesson of Reagan’s record on taxes and spending is not that he was a hypocrite but that he was a pragmatist. He knew the world is a complicated place, things never quite work out the way you want them to, and you should do what you can when you can.” -http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/21/the-trouble-with-barack.html

  • Nate

    RD, Now you are drinking the kool-aid if you believe Newsweek and their claim that Bush signed all the documents and Obama has been forced to live with what he inherited.

  • MRS

    One point – Sarah Palin must, must learn to read and read deeply. I remain convinced that if you want to be the Republican candidate for anything of substance you must read often. If she’s not reading National Review, Weekly Standard, Commentary, American Spectator, etc. cover to cover each issue, she’s missing out. I’d bet good money she’s not doing that, by the way.

  • RD


    What do I mean when I say that Obama inherited a country that was in shambles? Well, according to Wikipedia: “The total surplus in FY 2001 was $128 billion. A combination of tax cuts and spending initiatives has added almost $1.7 trillion—through budget deficits—to the national debt since then (October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2007).”

    In addition, September 2008 found the country on fiscal life-support. Lehman Brothers filed the largest bankruptcy in the nation’s history. The worst recession since the Great Depression began in 2007. We had been at war on two fronts for years and the cost for just 2007 alone was $170 billion; 2008 cost us $185 billion. To date it has cost us $1.05 TRILLION (and that’s before the cost of the Afghanistan surge) – http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home.

    So I’d say things were pretty much in shambles when he took office in January 2009.

  • RD


    I don’t think that pres Bush signed all the docs and that Obama has no responsibility. However, the fact remains that the economic debacle began to unravel in 2007 (two years prior to the Obama inauguration). As for who signed what:

    The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, signed by G.W. Bush: total cost of this bill was projected at $152 billion for 2008.

    Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, signed by G.W. Bush: authorized U.S. Treasury to spend up to $700 billion on the purchase of distressed assets (mostly homes).

    Obama is not perfect. I don’t agree with everything he has tried to do, nor do I agree with all of his policies. But the man walked into an economy that was going under for the last time. Bush took necessary steps to stop the financial bleeding and set us on the path toward huge budget deficits. Obama has followed his lead, though without the stimulus I shudder to think what would have happened. I have owned my own business since 1994. I make my living selling industrial equipment. The bulk of the U.S. economy is built and maintained on robust consumer spending. We make very little here anymore. If U.S. consumers don’t spend money that only leaves the government. Not the best scenario, I grant you, but it is what it is.

  • DennyReader

    A combination of tax cuts and spending initiatives has added almost $1.7 trillion—through budget deficits—to the national debt

    Yes and the figure is probably closer to $2T which is why most fiscal conservatives are so disappointed with Bush for not using his veto pen more often. However, what Bush did in 8 yrs According to current gov’t estimates Obama will surpass Bush with $3T of deficit in less than 2 yrs. If the Bush administration was a shamble then Obama has just jumped off the cliff.

    In addition, September 2008 found the country on fiscal life-support. Lehman Brothers filed the largest bankruptcy in the nation’s history. The worst recession since the Great Depression began in 2007.

    The fact to the matter is that according to BLS Bush added about 8.5 million jobs to the employed and 5 million to the unemployed while Obama lost 5.5 million from the employed and 14 million to the unemployed. During Bush’s best years he added 4 million jobs. He did all this in the face of an internet bubble, post Y2K surge and 9/11 all thanks to Clinton. Did Bush run around like crybaby Obama blaming everything on the previous administration?

    And as far as the financial meltdown which was basically created by Democrats with Obama leading the charge to create unsustainable mortgages through Fannie, Freddie and intimidation of banks. The financial markets were bleak but it was as much a crisis of confidence as it was a financial collapse. Bush was the one the saved us from the abyss of a great depression not Obama. Bush was the one who created the TARP to rescue the banks of which over 80% of it has been paid back with interest. Obama was the one who sees the TARP as a personal slush fund to payoff the unions and politicians who supported him in the election.

    We had been at war on two fronts for years and the cost for just 2007 alone was $170 billion; 2008 cost us $185 billion. To date it has cost us $1.05 TRILLION (and that’s before the cost of the Afghanistan surge)

    This is pure left-wing propaganda. Where does this show up in our deficit? Even if this was true it would only show what a great job Bush did with the economy, because without going to war to protect the liberals in this country, Bush would have a virtually balanced budget.

  • El Bryan Libre

    “Did Bush run around like crybaby Obama…”

    That’s the kind of statement that seems like the rest of what is said is based more on a dislike of Obama than anything else.

  • Darius T

    I would warn anyone who is a Christian on here to consider that we don’t know a person’s heart or their motives. So keep that in mind in your comments, please. Calling her “vapid” is toeing the line of Christian indecency, claiming to know her motives as being merely out to “rake in cash” is way over the line.

  • DennyReader

    That’s the kind of statement that seems like the rest of what is said is based more on a dislike of Obama than anything else.

    This is the kind of statement that shows you are against my statement based on your dislike of me more than anything else. As to my dislike of Obama, it is totally based on his values and actions as I have elaborated in comments 11, 12, & 38, which is a lot more than what you have done.

  • El Bryan Libre

    I didn’t call you any names and I would hardly consider my statement an insult towards you. If you took it that way I’m sorry but I don’t know you at all so it would be weird for me to dislike a complete stranger on the internet who I’ve never seen or talked to before.

    I think it would probably be best if I refrain from further discussion with you on this as I don’t really want to turn this into a personal issue between us where we end up going back and forth (as it seems might end up happening).

  • DennyReader

    I don’t know you at all so it would be weird for me to dislike a complete stranger on the internet who I’ve never seen or talked to before.

    And this is true for me as well in regards to Obama. I called him a crybaby because he’s been blaming Bush for 18mos since he has been in office with a super majority in Congress for almost as long. He blames Bush for the stagnant economy, unemployment, racial divide, even the gulf oil spill. I have no idea how you could call this a personal insult when it is clearly based on his values and politics. I guess this is nothing new, like the left, if someone disagrees with you it must be because of blind personal prejudice and racism. So go ahead through those mischaracterizations at the drop of a hat, the tragedy is that it diminishes real prejudices and racism.

  • paul

    “This is pure left-wing propaganda. Where does this show up in our deficit? Even if this was true it would only show what a great job Bush did with the economy, because without going to war to protect the liberals in this country, Bush would have a virtually balanced budget.”

    Problems with this statement…

    1) Only liberals in this country have been protected in the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? If this is true, does this prove that the hillbilly riviera is so worthless that even Al Quada doesn’t want it?

    2) where do these numbers show up in our deficit? Likely in the bottom line, Einstein.

    Some people, on both sides of the aisle, are going to complain about someone to no end no matter the job they do. Face it, Obama could have been sworn in, run into a phone booth, put on a Superman costume and then fixed all of the country’s problems. Still, someone on the right would claim some huge problem with it, because he’s a “socialist.” Bush could have done the same thing, and plenty from The Huffington Post would have still called for his head.

    Quit being an embarrassment to Christians everywhere with the constant polarizing “liberals do ‘x’ talk” Denny reader. You do no favors to ANY Christian when you keep it up.

  • Denny Burk

    Hello, Paul. You didn’t get moderated. Your comment was in my SPAM folder. Don’t know why that happened. But I released it, and now it has spread its wings to fly again. Thanks!

  • Nate

    Denny, I just got moderated, but I was explaining to you how I think it happened. You can read it, but you don’t need to release it. But the key word that is causing the posts to be moderated is “soc ial list”

  • Nathan

    I wonder if we all have the same understanding of the meaning of vapid. I’m not sure what Wilson & Burk intended, but I think that word is commonly thought to mean airhead. Technically, it does NOT mean airhead, ditzy, stupid, foolish, etc.

    Whatever the definition, using the word to critique someone vying to be a national leader has nothing to do with Christian ethics.

    If you describe the delivery of her testimony as vapid, then I think you would be crossing the line…

  • Darius

    Exactly Nathan, which is why I commented that calling her vapid was on the line but not crossing it, while commenters who claimed to know her intentions and motives WERE crossing the line.

  • Derek

    Leaked emails from “Journolist” are proving that there was an actual conspiracy to frame Palin in the most unflattering light possible (check out “The Daily Caller” for more details). If Politico, Bloomberg News, PBS, Washington Post and dozens of other newsmedia outlets shared notes on how to discredit an individual, is it possible that this coordination might affect even our own opinion of that person? If there were a coordinated effort by the media to say that Denny Burk is a jerk, it might actually stick, even though it isn’t true, right?

    I still hold the opinion that Palin is not presidential material and that she needs to talk a lot less and learn a lot more. But these leaked emails definitely make me sympathetic to the idea that Palin’s flaws were and are exaggerated by a “fifth column” in the media. As evidenced by some of the vitriol aimed at her direction right here.

  • El Bryan Libre

    You know the problem I have with wanting Palin to read and learn more to become a viable candidate is why not just pick a candidate that already reads a lot and knows a lot? She’s 46. If by now she hasn’t developed a love for reading and learning on issues that are important to know if you want to be in politics and especially if you want to be president then I don’t think she’s gonna start now. I want my president to be genuinely interested in those things and be able to think critically about them. I want my president to be able to sift through all the advice given to them to make their own decision rather than just doing what they’re told because they’re not really well informed.

    If Sarah Palin is not that knowledgeable about the issues that a president needs to know then why do you want her? If it’s her celebrity status and that’s the route you want to go (picking a celebrity to rn for president) wouldn’t it be better to pick another celebrity who more than half the country hasn’t already formed a negative opinion about and get them to learn what needs to be learned? At least people won’t already have the negative impressions of that celebrity that people already have of Palin and that will be hard to get rid of.

    So if you had to pick a celebrity to learn what needs to be learned and run for president who would it be? Who would have a real chance?

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.