It seems to me that we should do a lot less listening to these kind of things, and a lot more looking at records and other evidence of what a candidate really stands for.

I’m gonna go beat up some puppies now, it’s what we conservatives do…

“In those Katie Couric interviews, I did fill [I think she meant "feel"] that there were a lot of things that she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a VP candidate stands for, what the values are represented in our ticket. I wanted to talk about Barack Obama increasing taxes, which will lead to killing jobs, I wanted to talk about his proposal to increase government spending by another trillion dollars, some of the comments he’s made about the war….”

So she really wished Katie Couric would have let her talk about what a VP candidate stands for, and what her ticket’s values are. For example? Well, here’s a list of things that are wrong with Barack Obama.

Sarah, telling us what’s wrong with the other guy is NOT the same thing as telling us what you stand for and what your ticket’s values are. It’s good to do some of both, but please don’t pretend they’re the same thing.

I’m sufficiently humbled.

Kind of the way the term “liberal” now means a belief that government should intervene to whatever degree is necessary to make sure that everyone is doing OK every day, when it used to mean kind of the same thing that “libertarian” means today. Srange that the terms “liberal” and “libertarian” could mean almost the opposite thing, but there you go.

(I realize I’ve just completely nerdified myself in this forum.)

But really!! Come on people! Federalist–for federal government. You don’t have to be a historian to make that leap!