scores of conservative commentators broke ranks with the "liberal media" brigade and decided Palin's political problems were of her own making.
No, ma, those are commie, pinko, traitor, usurper loving, Constitution hatin', gay lovin', Jesus hatin' liberal commentators simply "playing" the part of conservative commentator. They are librul plants to make Palin look bad, dammit.
DeLL, 
Did you catch this one?
With video: Fox News Contributor Rips Into Palin ...
Liz Trotta went off-message.
Frankly, "the woman is inarticulate, undereducated," Trotta said, arguing that for once liberal criticism was "well-deserved."
"I think all the liberal stylists ... really have a case. She just begs for adjectives like flaky and wacky." When pressed, she added, "We're talking about somebody who, right from the get-go, has been a flashy person who gets into a lot of trouble and really has no credentials for any job."
No I didn't. I'll have to watch the video when I get home from work. It's good to see something resembling sense coming from Fox News, it's so few and far between. I can't wait until she fades into obscurity, where she belongs. If I were Republican I'd be ashamed to have be a spokesperson for the party.
Oh, crap I forgot, Randi Rhodes mentioned on her show today that only like 20% of Americas identify themselves as Republican, which is funny because that means the 70% that would vote for Palin for President in 2012 is in reality like 10 people. The GOP is in the shitter, right where they belong.
Oh, and here is the real reason she resigned, according to the estranged teenage stud:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – The former fiance of Gov. Sarah Palin's 18-year-old daughter says he thinks he knows why the Alaska governor is resigning — concerns over money.
Levi Johnston, 19, whose wedding to Bristol Palin was called off earlier this year, says he believes the governor is resigning over personal finances.
Johnston says he lived with the Palin family from early December to the second week in January. He claims he heard the governor several times say how nice it would be to take advantage of the lucrative deals that were being offered, including a reality show and a book.
"I think the big deal was the book. That was millions of dollars," said Johnston, who has had a strained relationship with the family but now says things have improved.
Palin has a book deal, but compensation details haven't been disclosed. The governor has said she is facing more than $500,000 in legal fees.
Palin representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Johnston made his comments at a news conference Thursday at the office of his attorney, Rex Butler.
Johnston came forward, Butler said, because Alaskans want to know why Palin has decided to resign. She made the announcement last Friday.
Johnston also is pursuing his own book deal. He is working as a carpenter while also pursuing a movie deal.
You know, Levi is so much like Palin, maybe that's her ultimate punishment. Every time she does something wacky, the press can now to go the teenager to get his take on it. And in this case, what he's saying actually makes more sense than what anyone else (including Palin) is saying might be the reason.
Have you heard that the GOP has decided to make their star witness against Sotomayer that firefighter in the appeals case?
Yes, they want to stall the progress of race relations in this country as their last gasp before the voters pull the plug on their party entirely.
Were the Whigs this stupid?
It sounds like the want another Clarence Thomas hearing but may end up with a Terri Schivao moment. Don't these racist conservatives ever give up? They would rather alienate all people of color over a nomination that will pass no matter what kind of publicity stunt they pull?
Perhaps Faux News will hire Palin as their legal expert?
Here's the thing with that SCOTUS decision on those firefighters. The SCOTUS broke prior precedent and case law with the ruling they gave and Sotomayor didn't. I don't understand how in the sam hell this has become an issue. Sotomayor ruled on prior precedent and case law the SCOTUS didn't, so who is exactly wrong here?
The Republicans has made the high court a political arm of the Rove dirty tricks operation. They installed stealth officials throughout the government under the Bushies. Their first hit was Bush vs. Gore.
May all these corrupt political agents on the Court die before their time so we can replace them...just like we are doing in the other branches of the government. We will root out the corruption.
Greenwald:
Anyone who is objecting now to Sotomayor's alleged "empathy" problem but who supported Sam Alito and never objected to this sort of thing ought to have their motives questioned (and the same is true for someone who claims that a person who overcame great odds to graduate at the top of their class at Princeton, graduate Yale Law School, and then spent time as a prosecutor, corporate lawyer, district court judge and appellate court judge must have been chosen due to "identity politics"). And the idea that her decision in Ricci demonstrates some sort of radicalism -- when she was simply affirming the decision of a federal district judge, was part of a unanimous circuit panel in doing so, was supported by a majority of her fellow Circuit judges who refused to re-hear the case, and will, by all accounts, have at least several current Supreme Court Justices side with her -- is frivolous on its face.
The other thing about the SCOTUS decision on Ricci is that it was a 5-4 decision, so Sotomayor, had she been on the court, would have been in the minority but hardly out of the mainstream (in fact, Souter was one of the four so there would have been absolutely no difference at all.)
What are they worried about anyway? That the split decision on Ricci might be overturned someday (though Sotomayor would need some additional help to do it?)
But wait a moment, hasn't overturning Roe v. Wade been the entire reason why the right has cared about the Supreme Court for years? Every time a Republican nominates a justice aren't they always trying to check and make sure they agree with the right on abortion (part of why Harriet Miers didn't get their blessing-- not that she was necessarily pro-choice, she just didn't have a record to where they could be sure she was pro-life.)
Oh, but I get it-- we aren't supposed to question their motives, but they can question ours. Only decisions they don't like should be overturned, the rest of them we should accept as 'case law.'
Commenting by HaloScan
