Whatever they may say about Sarah Palin, she would have been a refreshing change in the White House. She had one thing as rare as diamonds: integrity.

When she got to the Alaska Statehouse, she didn't start to fit in with the old-time pols -- the currupt, greedy, complacent tin-horn tyrants that infest our public life. She wasn't intimidated by Stevens and Young, those two drooling retards in the Senate. She killed the Bridge to Nowhere, which Stevens had thrown a temper tantrum about on the floor of the senate. (Neanderthals like Stevens think they're entitled to get whatever they demand, you see. It's all about what want -- not the people who elected them.)

She fought the oil companies to a standstill, and got a better royalty deal for the people of the state.
She supported drilling for oil in ANWR.
She endorsed Young's opponent, and asked Stevens to come clean about the criminal accusations against him.
She sold the luxury jet her predecessor had purchased.

She didn't "go along to get along," which is how the old-boy political network is supposed to work.

You know how it is -- no matter how solid and conservative a guy is when he first goes to Washington, he soon "goes native." He gets all squishy like John McCain, and ends up sponsoring things like the McCain-Feingold Act, to limit political speech and what ordinary citizens can do with their own money.

It would have been nice to have ONE ruler in Washington who wouldn't go along to get along. But no, the cretinous left had to make up lurid tales about Palin's child not being her child, etc. The subhuman Yahoos had their way once again.

I thought the Iraq War (but not Afghanistan) was foolish. I wasn't mad at Saddam Hussein, and I didn't see the connection between him and the 9/11 attack.

It was stupid to sign the budget-bloating prescription-drug entitlement. The same goes for the farm bill he signed. Our incontinent federal government is squirting money like a dysentery victim squirting diarrhea.

The McCain-Feingold Free-Speech Limitation Act -- if Bush thought it was unconstitutional, why did he sign it?

 But, deciding on the Surge was his finest hour. Think back on the situation: Iraq truly looked like a quagmire. Shi'ites were fighting Sunnis, and Iraq threatened to degenerate into civil war. Suicide bombers and IED's were taking a deadly toll. So the question was, Do you "double down," go for more troops and different tactics, and a new general? Or do you cut your losses while you can?

Bush's decision to go for the surge took firm resoluteness. It took someone who had the power to decide, who would be responsible for the results,  and who wouldn't dither. It took guts. And Bush made the decision.

I think that decision will rank with Eisenhower's decision to launch the Normandy D-Day attack. Thinkquest (http://library.thinkquest.org/) relates that story:

The Allies were going to launch their attack on June 5, 1944 at 4 a.m., but the weather was extremely bad. The waves were great, and the landing crafts might sink. There would also be no air support, and naval fire wouldn't be that great. Eisenhower sat stunned, and had to decide. His decision was a 24 hour delay. Eisenhower's decision was wise, because on June 5, at the time of the expected invasion, the waves almost reached hurricane proportions. Eisenhower once again studied the weather on June 6. It was supposed to be better; not far better, but better.

Eisenhower sat there for a moment. He thought of what would happen, what could happen, and how it would happen. Eisenhower even wrote two versions of a speech for D-Day just in case it wasn't a success. It would be a hard decision for Eisenhower. But, after a few moments, Eisenhower stated,  "Well, we'll go!"

Someone has to make the decision. Someone has to say "we'll go" or "we won't go"  -- someone who can't hide, who will be blamed or praised according to the results. Bush made a decision, and proved he was worthy to be commander-in-chief. All the carpers, protesters, nuisances and cheap second-guessers overlook that fact.

Did you ever wonder, How could the German people, an educated, religious, civilized people, get taken in by a guttersnipe like Hitler? I think I'm getting an inkling, watching the hysteria and mindless euphoria surrounding Obama -- an unknown quantity, a beginner with no objective qualifications for being President, except being black

Here are some excerpts from a series of articles now on NewsBusters:

Lisa Gladden (D), a Maryland state senator, made the following asinine statement last week : "It doesn’t matter if the state of Maryland is broke as long as Barack Obama is President of the United States – this is great!"

 

Reporter Robin McKie carries Hansen's latest "we'd better act or else" warning at the UK Guardian.

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

    Sadly, however, Verizon did something yesterday that I think is far worse: it left a rambling, pre-recorded message on my home answering machine imploring me to watch his “historic” inaugural, using a tone that assumed we are all liberal Democrats and Obamists.

“I'm so happy my children have a real hero to look up to” in “a  truly scholarly man” who will make an “intelligent, constitutionally brilliant President” at a time when “people are so ready to rejoice and celebrate what is hopefully the return of the foundation of the United States” so “my eyes well up just thinking about” Barack Obama being sworn in since “I'm calm for the first time in eight years,” knowing “somebody is in charge that has such intelligence and grace and is so thoughtful.”

That's some of the giddy excitement expressed by a few of the many celebrities swarming to Washington, DC this weekend for Obama's inauguration which were collected by USA Today for articles in Thursday's and Friday's “Life” section:

Actress Gloria Reuben (IMDb page), now in TNT's Raising the Bar and formerly on NBC's ER, will be on hand Tuesday “to watch the magic moment happen” since she yearns for an end to the “hell” of the Bush years.

    It's a once-in-a-lifetime situation. The last eight years have been such hell. We're all so excited about the hope of things to come. I really think that's part of it. People are so ready to rejoice and celebrate what is hopefully the return of the foundation of the United States.

 A few minutes after 2 pm Eastern time, anchorman Wolf Blitzer recalled "Soledad [O’Brien] and I were talking about this earlier and she was saying metaphorically in some ways, the pilot of that airplane is very much like Barack Obama -- that he got the plane down safely, but everybody else had to join together to get out of the plane and pull together to get through that adversity. I thought that was an interesting metaphor.

Sieg Heil!

One day two swindlers came to this city; they made people believe that they were weavers, and declared they could manufacture the finest cloth to be imagined. Their colours and patterns, they said, were not only exceptionally beautiful, but the clothes made of their material possessed the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who was unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid.

“That must be wonderful cloth,” thought the emperor. “If I were to be dressed in a suit made of this cloth I should be able to find out which men in my empire were unfit for their places, and I could distinguish the clever from the stupid. I must have this cloth woven for me without delay.” And he gave a large sum of money to the swindlers, in advance, that they should set to work without any loss of time.

One day two swindlers came to this commonwealth; they made people believe they were the makers of a new order, and that they could make the finest changes this country could imagine. Their changes were not only beautiful, but full of hope. But this hopey changey new world order would only be invisible to anyone who was unfit, stupid, racist or bigoted.

The two swindlers made sure to repeat the message over and over, saying, "The only reason you wouldn't buy our new order, is you're stupid, racist, and bigoted against people not like you." When no one attacked them or criticized their merchandise, they were reduced to making mock attacks on themselves. They imitated how those stupid, racist, bigoted opponents would attack them if they did attack them: "Oh, and have you heard? Their changes and hopes are invisible!"

So huge crowds shouted back, "We're not like those stupid bigoted ones! We see your beautiful new hopey changes!" The whole populace, in order to prove they were not stupid, racist and bigoted, ran headlong to grant acceptance to the swindlers' merchandise. And they gave a huge beneficent gift to the swindlers, in advance, that they should set to work without any loss of time.

This isn't Aesop, it's Hans Christian Andersen. But here's the moral anyway: people will fall for any kind of stupid crap, and people make themselves believe anything, if you first convince them that believing the given line of crap is a sign of great inner moral worth and goodness. That's the whole key to understanding liberals.

The liberals once again are grasping at any straw in order to keep Israel from defending herself.

They can't exactly say, "You shouldn't defend yourself from rocket fire; just sit there and take it." So they invent the concept of proportionality. This is a child's or an idiot's idea of warfare. It says, "You're only entitled by the rules to kill as many of them, as they killed of you. Then the whistle blows, the game ends, time out, go back to home base."

So by liberal rules, after Pearl harbor we would have been entitled by the rules to kill a few thousand Japanese, and then the war would have ended. That's not war as carried on by grown-ups.

As Rachel Maddow says,

First of all, there's the question of proportionality as to how many people those rockets have killed versus how many people the Israeli bombing has now killed.

No, the question for liberals is really, how to get the country liberals hate, Israel, from retaliating against the country or population liberals love -- the vermin attacking Israel. Liberals love vermin like the Palestinians, who have managed to portray themselves as oppressed victims in an "occupied" land. (All they ever had to do to be un-oppressed, was -- leave Israel alone. They're "occupied," or used to be, because they attacked Israel several times before, when they were unoccupied. In much the same way, you can still buy old porcelains marked on the bottom, "Made In Occupied Japan." Why did we occupy Japan, hmmm?)

Liberals like Maddow busy themselves inventing sophistries, double-talk, and bullshht to support their bigotries. Israel is our ally;  therefore liberals oppose every action Israel takes in her own behalf. Israel shares our Judeo-Christian heritage, instead of medieval heathenism -- therefore the heathen liberals oppose Israel. And they lie, lie, lie. That's American liberal journalism today.