Palin Failed to Criticize Paul on Civil Rights

Newsmax ^ | 01 Jun 2010 | Ronald Kessler

[Deb]

His comment on "civil rights" was that he was for them. His comments on the government over-shooting its authority when it comes to private property was, he's against it.

The headline is dishonest. The article is dishonest.

[Allegra]

Sarah Palin has failed to give any commentary on the Houston Astros' abysmal start to their season.

She has let us all down. She's a failure.

I don't need that tag, do I?

[SoCalPol]

Just took a look back at this writers articles.

Kessler is a Mitt Romney supporter.

This hack is pathetic. He knows Mitt doesn’t stand a chance so he thinks by bashing Sarah Palin he makes his guy look good. Kessler and Mitt are Looooozers

[SoCalPol]

Kessler is a MittBot, his guy couldn’t win the primaries in 08 and has less of a chance in 2012

[SoCalPol]

Snark article
Just to be aware of some of the NewsMax writers who
snark at Sarah and their agenda.
Kessler writes pro Mitt articles

[manc]

so true, she can’t win it;s a catch 22 for her.

Still the far left like it that way, rule for them and a rule for others in the meantime they like to shout how smart they are when clearly they’re dumb.

You ever noticed that with the far left?

[Dr. Sivana]

Kessler is a MittBot, his guy couldn’t win the primaries in 08 and has less of a chance in 2012

Indeed. As to the author's assertion that Palin is a typical politician . . . no, Romney and Huckabee are typical. No one is writing columns about what they think about Rand Paul's interview.

A proper discussion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would take at LEAST 45 minutes. The context of Jim Crow in the South at the time, which in some cases ordered, and not merely tolerated, segregation in places of public accommodation, would have to be included. Whether the act is Constitutional or not is also a proper topic to discuss. There might be some wonderful laws that would not be Constitutional. Maybe this one ought to be permanently enshrined, at least in skeletal form, if it is one of those laws.

An endorsement of a candidate simply means, that all things considered, the endorsed candidate is more worthy of support than his opponent. If said candidate had to be "right" on every issue, there would be no endorsing whatsoever.

I am presently a Palin supporter. It is not set in stone, and I do not think her to be a goddess. But when so-called conservatives, especially those who are correspondents in D.C. cite their pals who are also power brokers in D.C. , of course, agree, though anonymously, that Palin is a typical politician who has no serious political future, I would get as defensive as any Palin acolyte, simply out of a sense of fair play and decency. I bet this clown was saying she would be irrelevant 10 months ago. If all she can do is draw crowds, and not be a serious contender, why is he wasting valuable electrons and Cisco IP packets on her? Why does he turn to his D.C. power broker pals who are in her sights for the authoritative word? Why are they too cowardly to come out if she is so irrelevant? They fear her in the same way that lefties fear her. Is it no wonder that many of us perceive the Kesslers of the world as being part of the problem?

[Republic]

I could not agree with you more. Sarah is ANYTHING buy typical.

And she will always be doing things that upset someone...somewhere...because that is how people who march to what is right do, just naturally.