On Barack Obama’s “Cojones,” Sarah Palin’s Aim Is a Little Off

David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog ^ | Calvin Freiburger

[Michael van der Galien]

Governor Sarah Palin ignited another media frenzy by accusing President Barack Obama of, er, not being man enough to stand against illegal immigration. The other night, Palin appeared on “Hannity” to defend her remarks in an interview that David Neiwert at Crooks & Liars objects to as glaringly inconsistent.

And for once, he’s got a point.

Palin first says that Obama’s not securing the border because he’s inexperienced and “in over his head.” But later, at Sean Hannity’s suggestion, the governor agrees that he’s doing it out of ideology and a desire to “fundamentally transform” America:

So wait, which is it? Is Barack Obama a lousy president because he’s a wishy-washy leader who doesn’t really know which way to go? Or is it because he’s a hardcore radical ideologue who refuses to budge or compromise or try to work with Republicans?

These nabobs seize on any straw in a windstorm to bash Obama. It’s pretty pathetic, really — except, of course, that one of them is about 90 percent likely to be a major Republican candidate for the presidency in 2012.

Ideology and incompetence aren’t completely mutually exclusive, but it’s true that in this case, the president isn’t simultaneously acting out of cowardice that keeps him from one goal and dogged determination to enact another. Failing to stick to a coherent message makes conservatives look like we’re simply out to throw anything we can find at our opponents and see what sticks, rather than serious observers who believe what we say.

In this case, I think Palin was wrong to suggest cowardice as playing any role in Obama’s decisions. Doing so implies that Obama wants to end illegal immigration, but is simply scared of offending the wrong people (be it Hispanic voters or the hardliners in his party).

[ansel12]

The guy sounds like an idiot.

[anniegetyourgun]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/slick_talk_aside_just_not_up_to_fphLDlAYpre5K2UxSEZNyK/0

[toddausauras]

Palin 2012.

[Slings and Arrows]

There is not necessarily an inconsistency here - like the coward who becomes a pacifist because he’s afraid to fight, it’s possible that Zer0’s border stance is informed by his fear of a fierce political battle. (Laziness and apathy are probably also in there somewhere.)

[Vaduz]

Clueless hardcore radical ideologue,he got that part right.

[PghBaldy]

Yeah, it is inconsistent. I question the need though for him to write this. When there are so many things to write about now, why (lightly) criticize Palin? Upon reflection, it makes no sense to say he lacks “cojones” in reference to securing the borders. He does not want to, just as the previous Prez did not want to. It’s ideology in both cases.

[nathanbedford]

I agree with the author, Sarah misspoke but the significance of her mischaracterizing Obama's motive is certainly not very large.

For the reasons expressed in this reply of August 1, I think that Obama is purely cynical and demagogic in his whole handling of the immigration issue:

FOR THE RECORD

We know that Free Republic is not only an echo chamber for like-minded conservatives but a forum for the expression conservative policies. Here they are expressed and here they are tested. We know that lurkers of all stripes can be found-or not found-embedded in virtually every thread. I think some of us should set down our position with respect to Obama and his shameful demagoguery over immigration and his opportunistic and reckless abandonment of his obligation to protect the borders in plain view for those independents and Democrats of good will to see and judge.

First, it is Obama himself and no conservative Republican who is the demagogue on the issue of immigration. It is Obama who has the motive to cynically capitalize on an influx of Latinos whom Obama can predict with confidence will vote Democrat.

Second, it is Obama who needs to gin up his poll numbers by throwing red meat to his base. There can be no doubt that the action of the NAACP and other left-wing organizations have been coordinated probably through the office of the Chief of Staff of the president of the United States. These actions have been designed to set one race against another. They come coordinate it with the lawsuit against Arizona. These actions have been designed to play the race card. It is cynical and it is racist and it is ignobly motivated for crass electoral advantage. It is the worst and cheapest kind of demagoguery which sells out the soul of the nation on its most sensitive issue over its whole history for partisan advantage at the polls. Obama clearly has motive and his office has given him the opportunity. He has shamefully abused his office.

Third, Obama has opportunity not only to exploit the situation by playing the race card, but, as president of the United States whose party controls Congress, he has the undisputed power to put assets in place along the border to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants. He will not. In fact, his administration has sent every signal imaginable not excluding his lawsuit against Arizona, to encourage the inflow of illegal immigrants and to hold out to them the hope of total amnesty. Despite murders along the border, despite huge jobless numbers for American citizens, despite hundreds of billions of dollars of costs to educate and medically treat illegal aliens, despite a tsunami of illegal drugs, Obama will not lift a finger to stop the flood. To the contrary, he tacitly encourages it.

Obama has the power and the opportunity to do good but he chooses to do evil.

Fourth, as a committed Marxist and leftist, Obama sees America not as the Shining City on the Hill which stands between the civilized world and the barbarians approaching the gate, but as the focus of evil which has retarded the global march of socialism. A basic tenet of Marxist/socialism is the destruction of the nationstate. By definition, a nation is not a nation which cannot control its borders. To the degree that America under Obama has countenanced uncontrolled borders, America loses sovereignty. Obama wants America ultimately to shed its role as protector of the weak and innocent and abandon any responsibility coming out of American exceptionalism. If America is a bulwark against socialism, Obama is content to let America die.

Fifth, to the degree that Obama can justify his refusal to see that the laws on immigration are faithfully executed by resort to identity politics-reverse racism-he undermines the rule of law and substitutes another kind of doctrine, a race based doctrine which is hateful and destructive of the American experience. But that process of destruction advances the cause of a committed Marxist as it undermines the Constitution and disparages the whole rule of law. We all are to be governed by executive whim and by identity politics.

These are the conclusions which I come to without much time to reflect. I'm sure more will come later and I am even more certain that other Freepers will have much to add. If you are a lurker, an independent, or a questioning Democrat, and you come across this thread why not come on board and say your piece? Maybe you agree with some of these conclusions, maybe you can change my mind.

[MNJohnnie]

It is possible for Obama to be a committed ideologue and in over his head at the same time.

It is because he is in over his head that he clings so desperately to his ideology. A comfortable, mature leader would know when to discard a failed policy and adopt a new approach. An untested, under qualified person will cling to what they know in a desperate attempt to keep their head above water. That is what Obama is doing. Clinging to the dogmas he learned from his radical mentors rather then moving even 1 inch outside his ideological comfort zone on any issue.

Obama lacks both the maturity, and the intellectual ability, to be an actual leader. What appears to us as malevolent intent on Obama's part is actually just his grotesque incompetence in action.

He is our 1st Affirmative Action President. Not really up to the job, but he did fill a quota slot.

[Venturer]

Blacks are being sold out by Obama in favor of the Hispanics.

When Blacks figure out that democrats are helping them commit Genocide by abortion and replacing them in the labor market with Hispanics, they will want to hang Obama themselves.

Problem is just like in our schools where they continue to lag behind, they are way behind on awakening to the big sell out.

[sirchtruth]

Is Barack Obama a lousy president because he’s a wishy-washy leader who doesn’t really know which way to go? Or is it because he’s a hardcore radical ideologue who refuses to budge or compromise or try to work with Republicans?

What's so hard to understand about this? Obama is both, which is dangerous as all get out! A clueless idiot.

These nabobs seize on any straw in a windstorm to bash Obama.

The guy is anti-American. No ones is grasping at any straws to point out the obvious.

Calvin, do strong women bother you?

[9YearLurker]

I’m a Palin supporter and yet I actually agree with this.

Inexperience and incompetence are dead-end attacks in this situation, I believe. By 2012 he’ll have been president for 4 years and nobody will consider him to have less governing experience than Palin.

Incompetence is a hard one too, because it suggests that he doesn’t mean to be doing to the country so much of what he is doing very intentionally. By using this argument Palin is undoing the strongest argument that she has, which is ideology.

The majority of the country agrees that his ideology is disastrous for the economy, so their motivation to vote against it, and him, is the biggest club she has—and that’s what she should be using.

Nobody believes that Obama wants to secure the borders an stop new Democrat voters from pouring into the country, so incompetence really doesn’t resonate on this issue at all.

I think Palin is understandably still miffed that she got painted as too inexperienced for the VP slot at the very same time that Obama was voted in at the top, but she has to let that go and focus on the winning argument for 2012.

[nathanbedford]

I would be among the last to underestimate the power of the human psyche to rationalize evil and especially is this tendency in modern times to be found prevalent among liberal fascists.

So I don't know whether Barack Obama does not know more or simply does not want to know more than his ideology has shown him. Nor do I know whether, knowing that he is doing evil, Obama rationalizes the doing as necessary for the greater good with the coming of social and racial justice.

I do know, or at least I have concluded from all the evidence to which we have been exposed here on Free Republic, that Obama is possessed of an ideology impervious to adverse experience or logic which he will maintain to the last circumstance. The only possible exception to this assessment are his actions in Afghanistan which were themselves delayed, halfhearted, handcuffed by a withdrawal date, and virtually forced on him by his campaign posture. But I can think of no other area in which Obama has not acted as a drone in the service of his ideology.

I am not inclined to see Obama with an empty head and a white heart, rather, I see him as a calculating Marxist who believes that the ends justify the means.

[raybbr]

I think Palin is understandably still miffed that she got painted as too inexperienced for the VP slot at the very same time that Obama was voted in at the top, but she has to let that go and focus on the winning argument for 2012.

I don't think it's that as much as Palin's desire to make everything stick. She talks mostly in soundbites and throws these one liners out there hoping the press will pick up on it. In the kerfluffle of throwing sometimes she's bound to contradict herself.

[dforest]

If Obama was a conservative, he would be incompetent. He is a far, far leftist and is competently doing what he is doing because that is his agenda.

It is an agenda that people aren’t liking, but so far he has been very successful because he has done great damage to America.

He doesn’t want the borders closed. That is the message we need to keep the emphasis on.

The person that wrote this piece is merely saying that we need to have a cohesive message rather than a mixed message.

[MNJohnnie]

Only problem for your thesis, she did not contradict herself.

It is not only possible, but highly probable Obama is both. The very fact that he is so blinded by his ideological outlook is what makes him so inflexible and incompetent as a leader.

[9YearLurker]

That may be—I really have no idea what her thoughts are on her ‘08 experience. But no matter the motivation, she needs to focus on a message that resonates with the majority of voters. Also, I think a number of moderate and conservative Democrat voters supported Obama because they liked the idea of voting for the nice, competent black man and they’re likely to be more squeamish about the incompetence argument than about one focused more on policy, pragmatism and ideology. They’d rather think of themselves as voting for the issues than against the man.

[MNJohnnie]

Your mistake here is you are thinking only in terms of political tactics, Palin is simply speaking truth.

I doubt Palin will run in 2012. I think what she is doing is being the lightning rod to drawn the Democrat Media attack machine away from the other 2012 candidates. At the same time she is performing a highly valuable service by knocking all cult of personality gloss she can off 0.

[MNJohnnie]

You don't fight a cult of personality like the one created around 0 by reason and rational argument. You do it with mocking and scorn.

Knocking the glitz off the media image of 0 is the key to defeating him.

When the McCain camp went for the mocking ads in Aug 2008, laughing at him as "the one" they shot into the lead in every poll. When they abandoned that attack track and to try reason with the voters, they got buried.

To defeat a media created cult of personality, you use scorn, not reason.

[nathanbedford]

Please permit me to add a couple of thoughts belatedly. First, I fully agree that Obama has been advanced well beyond his competence through a national spasm of affirmative action. His Marxism has been consciously hidden by the media as we have now had confirmed by the e-mails of the journolists.

Second, playing the race card is a truly heinous act. When it is done for electoral advantage it is more reprehensible because it tends to break up the electoral process and hence the whole Republic. In other words it is more than a simple act of personal effrontery. When done by a president of the United States, when the act is so obviously calculated, it is repugnant to the entire spirit of the American experience.

This is an evil act that Obama is doing in Arizona and elsewhere and it is almost impossible for me to accept that he knows not what he is doing.

Personal regards.

[Americanexpat]

Nabobs huh? Criticize Zero and your a Nabob, racist or hard core conservative nut job. These Jerks cannot look at Zero's policies, contempt for America and Americans, race baiting comments, disdain from our enemies and allies. The contempt of our enemies and friends alike for him personally. Oh yeah, and one of the reasons they hold him in contempt is they think he is a coward (no cojones).

[9YearLurker]

The glitz is off for a good share of Obama’s coalition—and the share that could likely vote against him the second time around. I agree that Obama shouldn’t be treated with reverence or too much respect, but we simply disagree on this particular performance and its content on Palin’s part. I think she’d have done better if she’d have just focused on the more substantial half of her arguments given.

Also, I think she is running in ‘12 and influencing voters in ‘10 and ‘12 is correctly what she is all about.

[raybbr]

Only problem for your thesis, she did not contradict herself.

While I agree that her statements aren't contradictory I still maintain that she doesn't talk as much as she likes to throw out one liners and sound bites that she hopes will stick.

Palin does not, in any way, come across as a deep thinker. She is reactive. I don't disagree with her positions on just about everything but she, if she is going to run, must cultivate the idea that she is delving into these issues and speaking from an informed position. Instead, she now appears to shoot from the hip more often than not.

[RoadTest]

“So wait, which is it? Is Barack Obama a lousy president because he’s a wishy-washy leader who doesn’t really know which way to go? Or is it because he’s a hardcore radical ideologue who refuses to budge or compromise or try to work with Republicans?”

Yes.

[RoadTest]

He’s a wishy-washy, radical ideologue.

[nathanbedford]

You don't fight a cult of personality like the one created around 0 by reason and rational argument. You do it with mocking and scorn.

You ought to write the anti-Saul Alinsky Rules for Patriots because better advice does not exist.

[sport]

You can say what you want about obama being stupid, ignorant, or incompent. But the fact of the matter he has done more to destroy the United States than any other President, including Carter. But that was what he was put in office to accomplish. His mission was to finish what Bill Clinton started and Hillary was deemed unable to accomplish.

Was he, under the Constitutional requirements, qualified to hold the office? In my opinion and others,no. The king makers of both parties, Republican and Democrat, along with the alphabet “news” organizations are aware of his background. Therefore, again in my opinion, the birth certificate issue is a dead horse.Everyone with the ability and authority to rectiy the situation prefers to ignore it.

Since assuming power, obama and his band of merry thugs have among other things: 1. Taken control of the financial industry. 2. Control of the health care industry. 3. Taken over 2 of the 3 American auto builders.

obama himself has nominated two members to the Supreme Court. Whth the help of the Republican Party, noteably the pride of South Carloina,Lindsey Graham, both are now seated on the Court. Their role in completing the destruction of the United States will be manifested at a later date and time.

[Carley]

Sarah gets Horowitz’ knickers in a twist.

Pathetic, isn’t it!!!

[tioga]

O lacks the cajones to secure the borders and lose those illegal votes......this is about votes and power and the left perceive themselves as winning with this strategy. If the illegals were voting republican you can bet they would reverse course and close the borders.

[tioga]

I have thought this for awhile now.....you put the same thoughts I have had into an effective message. Mock and ridicule theOne into defeat. It is a good plan. Make O the poster boy of the left’s worse ideas. MO and her expensive trips are easy to mock as well. I see it working all around me.

[Forty-Niner]

“In the kerfluffle of throwing sometimes she’s bound to contradict herself.”

A one or two line quote without an accompaning context often leads to misunderstandings of what a person is saying. It happens to all of us, and Palin, being a highly watched political personality/ potential 2012 candidate, will suffer under this more than is usual.

It is part of a public figure’s life to have to deal with this in a constructive way, and by doing so successfully helps the cause in convincing others of your value as a leader.

No one is perfect. Effectiveness is judged by the ability to get people to understand and accept your view.

[Forty-Niner]

“Palin does not, in any way, come across as a deep thinker.”

Palin’s audiance, the American public, are not great listeners.

Most politicans, talk above their audiance expecting a supportive media to explain it to the masses. Given a hostile press Palin has chosen to go directly to her audiance in Reaganesque fashion.

Palin’s expressions of simple reason over “nuanced” bable should not lead one to believe that she posses a medicore mind.

[CynicalBear]

Keep in mind that there are two types of understanding of Obama. Those of us who know that he actually does have an agenda to destroy the constitution and turn America into a socialistic society see the things he does one way. Those who refuse, or are too uneducated, to understand what he really wants are looking through another veiwpoint and naively think that all understand what America was founded on. So her comments reach different audiences.

[dforest]

Davis Horowitz did not write this piece. He does however believe in freedom of opinion. This opinion is a good one.

[bvw]

Self-Reliance is an essay written by American Transcendentalist philosopher and essayist, Ralph Waldo Emerson. It contains the most thorough statement of one of Emerson's repeating themes, the need for each individual to avoid conformity and false consistency, and follow his or her own instincts and ideas. It is the source of one of Emerson's most famous quotes,

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Sarah Palin, her parents, her husband, and most folks close to her are all self-reliant people. That is clear by any study of her biography.

Yet today we are found in blanket smoothered molly-coddled culture in which the virtue of self-reliance is ignored, forgotten and worse. In this era that Sarah Palin is an epitome of self-reliance is not at all understood by the 'elite', or those whose minds have been impaired by the insanities of our modern times where fear of being held to account in any way rules.

Sarah was right in her words -- Obama is both wholly incompetent as an executive and at the same time a man who is wholly committed to a set of ideals common to our elite -- those destructive 'ideals' of permanent victim-hood, secularism, Marxism, black liberation theology and a mix of pro-Islamic sentiment. Whatever is destructive to the founding ideals of America he is against.

---

Sarah Palin is transcendental. Much more than was Reagan. Reagan transcended his early Hollywood-socialist ideals and came to embrace the foundational principles. Reagan worked hard, and was committed to the cause of getting America back. Reagan, by hard word and effort, was indeed transcendental.

But Sarah? It seems she was born to be!

[Brices Crossroads]

“In this case, I think Palin was wrong to suggest cowardice as playing any role in Obama’s decisions.”

Obamna’s actions suggest indecisiveness, or political cowardice. (e.g. sending 1200 National Guardsman to the border rather than the 6500 or more that would do the job) in order to cover your true ideological agenda. You are thus an ideologue (albeit one trying to give oneself political cover) but an incompetent one inasmuch as 1200 National Guardsman will not secure the border. Moreover, the stultified nature of the response is further magnified by the lawsuit against SB 1090, which will have a chilling effect on Immigration enforcement by the state. It would be more courageous on one level(also more ideologically pure)for him to announce that he favors open borders and to withdraw the Border Patrol from the Border. He is too timid to face the political consequences of such an approach.

But this would still not relieve him of the charge of cowardice, because the act itself is so central to his first duty to the American people in virtue of the high EXECUTIVE office he holds.

On Immigration, Obama is at once incompetent, ideological and indecisive (or, if you prefer, cowardly). His indecisiveness morphs into cowardliness in the immigration context, and not in other contexts, because a President’s first duty is to defend the United States from foreign invasion. Anyone in the military who shirks such a duty FOR ANY REASON is a COWARD. It is not strictly necessary to divine his motivations to convict him of cowardice.

The President is the Commander in Chief. He has failed to do his duty in protecting the United States. The motivations are secondary and perhaps indecipherable. The Act itself (failing to secure the borders) is, by definition, a cowardly act. As you suggest, he may be hiding behind the high office he holds to damage us deliberately. Such a stratagem would be no less cowardly, as it was in the case of Benedict Arnold trying to sell West Point to the British while he remained an American general officer.

Taking the positions that Obama takes on Immigration are ideological and contradictory. They are thus incompetent. Neither fish nor fowl. But that does not make them cowardly (or lacking cojones). A senator or congressman could take the exact same positions and escape the charge of cowardice, because he does not have executive responsibilities. The positions are cowardly in the context of Obama BECAUSE OF THE OFFICE HE HOLDS AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES THAT GO WITH IT.

For the same reasons, the contrary position taken by the other executive protagonist here, Jan Brewer, is courageous.

Palin understood this, and that is why she spoke as she did. She spoke of both Obama and Brewer in context, executive context, and she nailed the difference in her own ineffable way.

[b9]

Palin understood this, and that is why she spoke as she did. She spoke of both Obama and Brewer in context, executive context, and she nailed the difference in her own ineffable way.

Gracias, BC !

VIVA COJONES!!!

[FreeReign]

Palin first says that Obama’s not securing the border because he’s inexperienced and “in over his head.” But later, at Sean Hannity’s suggestion, the governor agrees that he’s doing it out of ideology and a desire to “fundamentally transform” America:

The President doesn't seal the border because of his ideology and a desire to fundamentally transform America.

If one is going to make a bold splashing remark about the problems at the border, it's best to make it about that point.

[Brices Crossroads]

Bump!!

[FreeReign]

Incompetence is a hard one too, because it suggests that he doesn’t mean to be doing to the country so much of what he is doing very intentionally. By using this argument Palin is undoing the strongest argument that she has, which is ideolog

Exactly.

[Mr. Jeeves]

So wait, which is it? Is Barack Obama a lousy president because he’s a wishy-washy leader who doesn’t really know which way to go? Or is it because he’s a hardcore radical ideologue who refuses to budge or compromise or try to work with Republicans?

Neither one - he's a figurehead for certain powerful interests - like every President since Reagan accidentally slipped in.

[Brices Crossroads]

“You don’t fight a cult of personality like the one created around 0 by reason and rational argument. You do it with mocking and scorn.”

I think that is part of it. But in the context in which she was speaking, which involves EXECUTIVE leadership, between Obama and Brewer, as I point out in post 36, she was 100% accurate. He is both an ideologue, an incompetent and a coward....all at the same time.

[Brices Crossroads]

“Incompetence is a hard one too, because it suggests that he doesn’t mean to be doing to the country so much of what he is doing very intentionally. By using this argument Palin is undoing the strongest argument that she has, which is ideolog”

Not exactly. A true ideologue would send no troops to the border. An incompetent would waste 1200 there and sue the state. Stultified response

On Health Care, a true ideologue would have raised the income tax and passed a public option, which would have passed constitutional muster. An incompetent would put together a mosaic using the commerce clause to force people to by a private product and then shift gears and try to justify the individual mandate as a tax, even thought he wrote it as a penalty. A scheme doomed to fail in the Courts. So Obama tried to take over health care, like an ideologue. But he did it so incompetently that it will not succeed. And the political consequences will blow first his party, and them him, out of the water.

He is an ideologue. He is also incompetent. As Commander in Chief and the Chief Executive of the United States, in the context of Immigration, which requires the President to secure the borders, he is a coward, or lacks cojones. He is all three. Palin is quite correct.

This forgettable article was written by a student at Hillsdale College. He needs to brush up on his Constitution (specifically Article 2) and spend less time blogging about that which he does not have enough experience to understand. What chutzpah!!

http://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649

[houeto]

When Blacks figure out that democrats are helping them commit Genocide by abortion and replacing them in the labor market with Hispanics, they will want to hang Obama themselves.

Um, let me be perfectly clear, I, um, uh, the previous administration left these doors open and I, er, I mean Obama has a monumental task ahead to get them closed. Nevertheless, what you just said Venturer, I have been saying since day one and, uh, I, uh, I mean I will not rest until what you just said is accomplished.

[9YearLurker]

Those are only steps an ideologue would do in a dictatorship. Obama isn’t stupid.

[Brices Crossroads]

“Those are only steps an ideologue would do in a dictatorship.”

I have no idea what you are talking about.

“Obama isn’t stupid.”

I don’t underestimate my foes. That is folly. I don’t overestimate them either. That paralyzes one.

And I don’t take the MSM’s word for it that Obama is brilliant. I have listened to Obama, and I am singularly unimpressed. He is clueless.

Why don’t you let us all know the basis for your conclusion that he is “not stupid.”

[9YearLurker]

Obama isn’t (supposedly and slowly) sending troops to the border to actually stop illegal immigration—it is a political move that is meant to be inconsequential.

He couldn’t get the public option and an increase in the income tax through Congress, so he got what he could. (He is not a dictator, so he had to have Congressional approval.) And even if the courts strike down sections of it, he got a lot of poison into the political system with the parts that would stick.

He’s no genius, but he isn’t stupid. He is a single-minded ideologue who got himself into the presidency and has already done quite a bit of damage. Fortunately, the electorate seems to be on to him and may well not give him a second term.

[9YearLurker]

Oh, and I’m not responding to you again. You do Palin no favors by defending her with rank snarkiness.

[reasonisfaith]

This guy is dealing with two different concepts while thinking he’s only dealing with one.

The bully, or sociopath, can be seen as having cojones when he’s in his game. But that’s only when he has the physical advantage, as Obama does now. The sociopath becomes a coward when he loses his advantage.

The kind of cojones Palin is talking about, I believe, is the classical kind. Cojones that come with moral courage—the willingness to do what’s right no matter how difficult or what personal consequences might result.

Obama’s hutzpah is quite the opposite. Obama has the same kind of courage—the immoral kind—that can be found in a jihadist.

[wtc911]

Palin and Hannity are peas in a pod...she’s just a bit smarter.