Bobert, life has to be easy for you. Just take out your broad brush and paint everything under the banner black or white and dismiss or praise it. It's a great substitute for analysis and actual thought!

I personally have no problem with anybody of either party being armed at anytime. In my opinion that IS the supreme law of the land. The moronic idiot(s) that would try to use (read: missuse)that right to threaten or intimidate would find himself vastly outnumbered. And as for the handful of nutcases who actually do use a weapon, well, they haven't been stopped yet.

Wait! Wait! I hear you screaming! Yes, it is problematic at a huge gathering and where our public leadership would be at risk in these times marked by terrible violent acts. Gun checks, go-nogo can all be in play. A policy of "not here-not now" would render gatherings pretty much as things exist right now. In a free society these things will always be problematic. However when freedom ceases to be, no more such problems, for the governing class at any rate.

Strings, the reason I wouldn't support Sarah Palin is found in her book. Instead of demonstrating leadership quality and confronting John McCain personally when she disaggreed with her handlers, she continued to act the part of a team player. If she was to ever aspire to a higher office, she needed to confront and if neccessary, leave the ticket in support of her own convictions.

As for O'Donnel her political usefullness was exhausted by winning the primary. Her's was not a YES vote for O'Donnel but a NO vote for the Republican status quo. That's all. She demonstrated her immaturity and inexperience NOT by backing out of the Chris Wallace interview (that was bad enough) but by not contacting Wallace and company beforehand with a credible explanation. Rather, it has been her "handlers" spinning excuses after the fact. Does anyone really need this person representing them?

See Bobert, that's how you shoot someone down in the political arena, by facts and sound arguemnt.