You think you know Sarah Palin and John McCain? Think again.

SARAH PALIN

Palin appointed friends and donors to key posts in Alaska, records show

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinrecords24-2008oct24,0,6683728.story

Sarah Palin Linked to Second WITCH HUNTER

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/sarah-palin-linked-to-sec_b_137532.html

Palin faces new ethics complaint over kids travel

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_el_ge/palin_ethics_complaint_5;_ylt=AiD7P6Fxkk.LKh67DdqdA1Bh24cA

Palins un-American activities

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/index.html

Palin And The Alaska Independence Party

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_alaska_independence_party.php

Alaskan Independence Party chairwoman Lynette Clark talks about why she doesnt identify herself as an American, and about her kindred spirit Sarah Palin.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/10/alaska_secession/index.html

The pastor who clashed with Palin

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index.html

Troopergate Report Concludes Palin Abused Power, Full 263 Page report here

http://download2.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNLOAD.pdf

Mad Dog Palin: The full Story

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23318320/mad_dog_palin

JOHN MCCAIN

Make-Believe Maverick

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

The Dark Side of John McCain

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/22/johnmccain.uselections2008

The funniest part of all of this to me is that Palin will return to Alaska with her tail between her legs.  She might try for a run in 2012, but Guiliani and Romney and whomever else vies for the Republican nomination will absolutely tear her apart.  I cannot wait to see it.

How to bring down a democracy: the steps toward totalitarian rule, in the order followed by Hitler and the Nazi Party; SEE IF THEY SOUND FAMILIAR.

1. Improvise an attack (or take advantage of an attack) on the country

2. Declare the country under attack by an enemy; real or improvised

3. Force legislation that limits civil liberties and gathers broad powers unto government

4. Brand dissenters and peacemakers as unpatriotic and browbeat them into submission

5. Keep the fear factor high to make the public easier to manage

6. Institute massive propaganda campaigns using state-controlled no-longer-free media and fear of government retribution

7. Law enforcement and government personnel and ordinary citizens are used to spy on, control and break dissent.

8. Institute the equivalent of a national homeland security department, overseen by one person with unlimited powers

9. Confiscate all firearms from the citizenry

10. Institute the mass murder and imprisonment of any who resist the new ideology.

11. Launch pre-emptive strikes into other countries in an attempt to spread the new ideology

Sound familiar? It should, its not only the direct path of Hitlers rise to power, but also parallels the events starting with and following 9/11. President Bush was very familiar with the game plan, as his Grandfather and his Grandfathers father-in-law were supporters of Hitler and Nazism, both before and after the war. (See George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush and the Union Banking Corporation)

Of course, the Bush Administration has skipped a couple of the items on the list, but theyll get to them if their party is allowed to remain in power; it will be the only way for them to retain control over the citizenry.

The Reichstag Fire: the funeral pyre of German democracy

http://www.essortment.com/all/nazireichstag_rghx.htm

THE BEST REASON TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA THIS ELECTION YEAR

Sorry to puncture your thesis, heckertr, but John Kerry and Al Gore are taller than W. (6'3" and 6' 1/2" respectively to 5'11").

Lyndon Johnson became President because of an assassination, and he was chosen as Vice President because he brought the South with him. Richard Nixon ran against the only man who was homelier than he was: Hubert Humphrey. The only way he could beat George McGovern was with illegal tactics. Presidents, for the most part, have not been attractive men. JFK was an exception to the rule. The Presidential debates, which were televised for the first time in 1960, elevated Kennedy as much for his poise and intelligence as his looks. There was depth there. Does anybody here think that JFK would have ever given the kind of interview performance that Palin gave to Katie Couric? Then again, back in 1960, the electorate was better educated and less divided.

Interesting, but incomplete. Do you know how much time researchers in the fields of social psych, socioogy, poli sci and evolutionary bio spend on trying to break the magic matrix of social success when it comes to physical attractiveness? The crux of the matter involves trying to find those few reliable, or at least consistently intriguing, universal patterns and then testing them under different conditions. For example, it's been established that humans across cultures  recognize a beautiful face when they see one (symmetry, clear skin, full lips etc.) and in turn, they dole out more rewards and resources for that face. However, that kind of social uplift intersects with gender, class, racial perceptions and social context--all these are wildcards that affect the universal. Yes, beautiful women are often chosen over equally qualified candidates--but for lower-level, high-visibility jobs (receptionists etc.). When the stakes are higher, people look at that resume much more closely, and then there is such a thing is being "too good looking" and you have to prove yourself much more to advance.  Also--- style, humor and likability can make a plainer candidate much more appealing than a merely pleasent and inoffensive attractive person.

Think about it.  If Sarah Palin were a man, would (he) be on the ticket with McCain.  The answer is no way.   Would MCcain have picked her (him) based on their experience?    NO

I just listened to her interview with NBC yesterday.  It was just an audio with  no visuals , and it was shocking.  She made not sense at all.  She never completes a thought or sentence.  She sidesteps questions with wild rides to nowhere.    I knew it was bad, but try listening to her talk sometime without the visual aids.    It's crazy bad.

So how do we explain Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon?

Oh - and a second observation. Previous research has shown that the taller candidate always wins. Note: in 2000 Gore - the taller candidate - won the popular vote. Bush won the Supreme Court, not the vote.

There's a small problem here - it's called "samples of convenience" or maybe "external validity." That is, how like the population in general are college students? For that matter, how about the iea that different age groups have different ways of choosing?  You have to prove that the findings generalize. I'm a boomer who's back at school, and I note that there's a real difference in outlooks between the undergrads I meet and those of us who are older.

And remember, there are a lot more boomers - and we vote. Maybe they should try a more representative sample to investigate before they rush to publish.

I don't know if I'm more bothered by the results of the research or the fact that I'm not at all surprised at the results.