And, no apostrophe in ‘kids’, but put one in ‘lets’. ‘Let’s’ is a contraction for ‘let us.’ ‘Lets’ is a verb meaning ‘allows’ or ‘permits’.
Add an ‘e’ to millionaire.

And no apostrophe in ‘legs’, unless one of your legs possesses something to which Palin caused that tingling feeling, instead of the leg itself. The apostrophe makes it the singular possessive or a contraction.

Other than that, you make some good points.

I’d recommend Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynn Truss as a good read for you.

I agree there is a certain appeal about Greta, but I would say it goes beyond wholesomeness to her personality: she’s not mean, she just asks straightfoward, piercing questions, with no hidden agenda or “gotcha” motives. To me, she comes across as someone who is happy inside, and not as someone harboring bitterness because not everyone agrees with her.

You’re also right on liberal grotesque-ness. I would add Chris Matthews, Keith-constantly-bragging-about-his-Cornell-AgSchool-degree-Olbermann, Rachel-”no-preamble-in-the-Constitution”-Maddow, anything-but-Joy Behar, et al.

And since you mention Edwards, the epitome of grotesque has to be cheating on your cancer-stricken wife, getting busted on it by the Enquirer, denying it, and then having to sheepishly admit it later. You know you’ve reached the lowest of the low when the Enquirer busts you and they turn out to be right. No defamation lawsuit there, Johnny.

An attractive candidate is not a metaphor. It is literal. No ugly chicks or dudes, anymore… at least not for President. You don’t have to be a beauty queen, but you do have to be presentable. Think Edwards’ $400 haircuts, and Romney blow-dryed hair. (Romney also looks like he does botox. Ugh!)

As for Palin’s looks, yes she is attractive, but the real beauty is her positivity and decency showing through; her wholesomeness. You see this in Conservatives. Not so much in Liberals.

Over time, the Liberal men and women look like grotesques. Their inner unwholesomeness begins to shows through to their exteriors. It distorts them. They become little… trolls; or evil little gnomes. Look at Larry King, or Barbara Streisand. How about Baba Wawa or Whoopi Goldberg? Wawa’s bitterness is evident in every line of her body. Whoopi sits there like a slug. Alan Colmes is starting to evince his bitterness. See how UGLY they have all become. It’s their inner ugliness radiating out. Their hate and bitterness are evident. Unwholesome!

The beauty we Conservatives seek is not raw beauty, but wholesome beauty. Look at Greta van Susteren. Highly-rated show for years… with some kinda hairlip or something. She’s a Democrat, and thinks she’s liberal, but she shows she’s a conservative Dem in many ways. Thus, despite her facial flaw and no body to speak of, she’s pretty. She’s wholesome. That’s what we seek.

“Chuck
Your fantasy is based on the premise that the voters are as reactionary, foolish and dimwitted as you are. Maybe so?
PS: Polls are pretty accurate, +-2%, way better than any of the regular midgets here.”

The voters elected Obama, a charismatic dunce (57 States, Cambridge cop “acted stupidly”, can’t speak w/o teleprompter, “look at the Post Office – FedEx doesn’t have any problem competing”, let’s not rush to judgment re: Ft. Hood, etc.). In that sense, the voters ARE reactionary, foolish & dimwitted. “Dimwitted” & “dimwits” seem to be common themes throughout your posts, perhaps because your own brain, due to misfiring neurons & synapses, combined with a shortage of neurotransmitters, is responsible for your lack of a vocabulary and misguided ideas. I understand, though: it’s not your fault; take your meds, think of a happy place, and you’ll be fine.

Now, #32 JDS: You must be joking. As superficial and obsessed with appearance as America is when it comes to women, there are two chances a 70yo woman will be elected President: slim and none. I’ll concede age may not be important, but appearance (especially that of women) is paramount. That’s not to say I agree with it or that Hillary isn’t attractive, but she’ll nonetheless be 70 in 2016. Dems (Hey Javelin: Dims?) already rejected her once at 63. Not gonna happen.

Take this to the bank:
1. Obama will be a one-termer.
2. Of the other candidates, our next President will have the best hair.

That’s a completely fabricated number, much like the “45,000 Americans die from lack of health insurance” bogus claim. It’s very revealing of your lack of intelligence that you just blindly repeat it.

“Hey, I’m just wondering if you think it’d be OK if somebody showed up to a Pain book signing with a .45 strapped to their thigh? That be OK? How about an AK47 slung over their shouder?”

Actually, yes, it would be cool. But if it was a white man, would MSNBC re-cut the video and lie that it was a black man, and play up imaginary ‘racial angles’?

Why are you here again? Do you just enjoy looking stupid?

“She is going on about the ‘In God We Trust’ on coins conspiracy nonsense”

Ah, the endless stupidity of the HuffPo reader. Palin actually was making a point about ‘moving God to the side’ in our lives, and used the coin change to illustrate that point. HuffPo links to a Politico article in which the author of the article – not Palin – insists that this is a charge against Obama/Democrats. But facts have never stopped you PDS people before.

“There are no death panels in the bill and there never were”

Right, that’s why the President was opining about how it might be ‘better’ to just ‘let grandma die’. And that’s why there are death panels in Canada and Europe, where bureaucratic panels decide who receives life-saving treatment and who does not.

There’s a reason you’re losing: because you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.