I don't think you should be questioning people's intelligence when you keep swinging and missing at this. STOP associating the amount of people who share the idea with its relationship to extremism. You started to inch closer at the end there when you provided your 5th, and most accurate attempt. Which by the way looks like it came straight from the link I posted. Remember that link? The one that started you on this painstaking journey to accuracy?

Anyhoo, this thread isn't about you and your bungling of definitions, this is about Palin alienating voters and politicians alike everyday. It's also about how extremist beliefs typically prevent people from being capable of processing criticism of said belief. For instance, Joe laid out what seemed like some logical points in his article, but instead of addressing or even reFudiating his ideas, most supporters took to the board to talk about Obama's 57 states gaffe.

You're right, you didn't say Ohio was a slam dunk. It was your assertion that she carry every state Mccain did that was dead wrong. I'll be more careful next time pointing out why what you call a "slam dunk," is a pipedream.

Yes, Palin's unfavorable numbers are at an all time high. - http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/12/palins-unfa...

And the reason you're starting to see more and more level headed conservative columnists point out the fact that supporting Palin in 2012 is a losing strategy is because of her sliding numbers with independents. Moderates, most of them. That small number of voters who decide elections. Since there's a small number of them would that make them extreme, Pilgrim? Extreme Moderates - that's good!

Wow! I should thank you for the morning laugh, but it's more sad than funny.

Apparently you have a definition game where you like to take words and then attach your own meaning on them. Forgive me if I didn't know the rules and thought that we use word's literal definitions, not the ones we pull out of our ass. There's a few serious problems however with your extremism definition. This morning's definition of "extremism," seems to be that if only a small number of people "share" the view, than it is "extreme." Interesting. What percentage of Germany do you think were NAZI in 1940. Or how many people in China do you think consider themselves communists? At what point is the number of progessives small enough to be considered "extreme?" Is it 100? Is it 1,000,000?

Now that I think about it, maybe I'll take a crack at your game. An "asshole" is someone who goes around making their own definitions of words in an attempt to say that because a lot of people feel the same way they do, that they're not an "extremist."

Extremist: - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extremist
Sarah Palin:
*attempted to have books banned at library in Wasilla
•supports teaching Creationism in public schools
•opposes stem cell research
Now I know these are middle of the road examples for you that there's no doubt assume you support wholeheartedly. And some of the policies she proposed in Alaska environmental wise would easily be characterized as extreme, though I can connect the dots where you stand on that.
The fact is the extremism that has become mainstream in conservative dialogue currently. That's common after losing several elections and then rebounding back in to relevance. The movement finds its identity within its core principles. The major problem with this, when extremism becomes the norm, is blinders go up and you lose the ability to process criticism. The core issues become too far out there to gain the support of voters needed to win Presendential elections. This is one of the reasons it's taken so long for folks to realize Palin is a joke.
"Extremism" is looking passed the fact that someone is a quitter and supporting their presendential canidacy because you like how much liberals hate her. You can exhale now.

Do you seriously think Ohio and Florida are a "slam dunk" for Palin? Just so you know, right now that's about as statistically unlikely as Sarah Palin actually slam dunking. Her numbers with moderates are abysmal. Voters who strongly oppose Obama (and there's millions of us), are literally dwarfed by Palins. More telling is that this gap is widening each week. The only people standing by her right now are the head in the sand loyalists who are INCAPABLE of processing anything critical about Palin. Like the commenters here for instance:

Joe: Sarah Palin is bad for conservatives because a, b, c, d, and e.

Commenters: 57 States, Joe is gay, Joe's a RINO, Palin may have 45% of voters strongly dislike her, but she's a slam dunk in both major swing states.

Wake up, folks.

Weird...responding to Joe's article by calling him gay followed by this well thought out counter-point. It's a good thing you come to this board and bring such depth. Do you have any thoughts on how to win an election without swing voters?

Moderates are so gay, huh?

Seriously I thought you WERE talking about Palin at first. Like when she pouts on Facebook or Twitter when she makes up words or swings and misses at softballs from Glenn. Yet, here we are again - someone who prefers Palin's tantrum rather than a repudiation of the any number of genuine concerns brought up my Joe, Peggy Noonan, or Mona Cherin.

That's so much better than actually addressing or arguing any of the 10+ serious problems Palin continues to bring to the conservative movement.

You love the way she fights back? She brings up underhanded left wing talking points like Reagan's work as a clown when questioned about her reality show. She makes a North Korea gaffe and then takes to Facebook like a girl who stormed out of the homecoming dance to list 300 words of Obama gaffes (it wasn't Obama that said anything about her). Her attempt to expose a double standard isn't helped by her daughter's abstinence commercials on tv, and her spread in People with her product of teen pregnancy, out of wedlock.

It's just getting old that every time someone brings legtimate criticism regarding Palin, they're immediately characterized as RINO's. It's getting ridiculous.

If you think the liberals are predictable, you should see how many of these posts reference Obama 57 state gaffe as opposed to addressing the number of legitimate issues he brings up in his article. Although the percentage of people posting here that actually read the article is less than 5%. It could be lower because smart conservative voters will have enough intellectual curiosity to understand that Palin referencing Reagan's work as a clown was an attempt by the left to diminish his achievements in that industry.

This is the type of ignorance that is really starting to worry people who can tell the difference between Reagan cleaning up the labor unions and Palin fishing with her family on TV once a week. Or taking jabs at a man who spent his post college years flying dangerous missions as opposed to entering beauty contests.

Instead of claiming anyone who disagree with you that this quitter, Palin, cannot be taken seriously as a presidential candidate is a RINO or not a conservative, why don't you refute Peggy Noonan's points. Instead of calling Mona Cherin a closet liberal, try and explain why she's wrong.