wrote:
JR wrote:
Sarah Palin finally took questions on Tuesday from her traveling
press corps on her campaign plane. Asked if she thought Senator
Obama was dishonest (about Ayers, apparently, but who knows?),

“I’m not saying he’s dishonest, but in terms of judgment, in
terms of being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two
different parts to this. The judgment and the truthfulness and
just being able to answer very candidly a simple question about
when did you know him, how did you know him, is there still — has
there been an association continued since ’02 or ’05, I know I’ve
read a couple different stories. I think it’s relevant.”

Um, OK. So what, in your opinion, is particularly amusing or wrong with
her answer?

The mangled syntax, the garbled, incoherent phrasing and the
inability to express a complete thought in a complete sentence
shows that she's a category 5 moron.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/image...icture_754.jpg

I don't vouch for its accuracy, but it makes sense to me.

--
Ken Fortenberry