Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to the Conservatives?

Just the fact that she has liberals scared and obsessing over her is an asset to us all. If you doubt it, just look to questions like this one that fill YA every night. That you are confused by her honesty, "Just today she was calling a fellow Republican a liar" is telling.

I understand why it is hard for you to grasp that her first loyalty is to the country and not the party. Very little criticism of liberals by other liberals is ever heard. Liberals will ferociously defend and even happily echo the lies of other liberals.

Liberal feminists will defend Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Liberals who pride themselves on being tolerant of other races will support Robert Byrd. Why?

Because even if they're wrong, they're still fellow liberals -- and that is more important that what is right or best for the country. What this leads to is an attitude that can be summed up like so: "The only things that a liberal can do wrong is to be insufficiently liberal, to question an important plank of the liberal agenda, or to do something politically that aids conservatives.

Palin speaks from the heart and sometimes that comes across as corny, tacky, unsophisticated, and un-calculated. I think she will be a great asset to the Republican party. Any candidate she has endorsed so far, has either won an election or has gained more support.

On the other hand, obama has become the kiss of death for some of the democrats seeking re-election or running for office.

It's not as much as Hutchinson or Romney has raised but Sarah Palin's political action committee -- SarahPAC -- raised $733,000 in the first half of the year and is set to push past $1 million in the wake of the recent attention she's gotten herself. I would call that "an asset.

All clues are pointing to the liability door. They fielded her initially for the female vote. Everybody knew that Hillary Clinton had a dedicated voter base.

Palin was the closest they were able to pull out of the Republican hat then. That move alone exposed a severe weakness in the republican party -what weakness is that? They did not develop the female section of their party.

Why not? Maybe they stuck to the familiar and the traditional male dominated formatting that served them all these years. Was the format- Outdated,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?

Extinct? Or Irrelevant? The dumocrats fielded a mixed race guy over the woman- Did that consolidate the theory that people /citizens were ready for a change and the dumocrats "read" this change and interpreted it to their advantage?

Did the voters still remain true to tradition because they chose the man over the woman? Are the voters finally ready for a female president? There are more questions than answers It is sufficient to say that the best answer is "YOU GOT TO DO BETTER THAN SARAH PALIN" agree?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.