Forum: pol
Page 3179
Subject: The Real Sarah Palin

  Posted by: Pancho Villa - [51546319] Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 10:45
Probably deserves it's own thread ahead of her speech tonight at the GOP convention.

While talk of her high school daughter's pregnancy has taken center stage, it seems doubtful that that would have any real effect on the election.

However, her association with the Alaska Independent Party appears to be the kind of ammunition Democrats can use in the same way Republicans have used the Rev. Wright association to question Palin's patriotic sincerity. After all, when the founder of the AIP, Joe Vogler, states:

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

how is that different than Wright's "God Damn America" quote?

It's different because Wright's quote is a soundbite and Vogler's is a party position, further evidence that McCain's vetting process was severly lacking. Does anyone really think McCain was aware of Sarah Palin's association(membership?) with an oranization that promotes Alaska's secession from the United States?
 
1Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 11:34 		She was never a member of that party.
 
2Perm Dude
      ID: 51854214
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 11:40 		I've heard that as well. Looks like many of the most alarming details of Palin are coming to be either not true at all or not really true.
 
3Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 11:46 		After all, when the founder of the AIP, Joe Vogler, states:

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

The founders of the Democratic party were slave holders who believed that dueling was a good way to settle grievences. Just as tha party has changed, I believe that the platform of the AIP has been modified to some degree.

Now that that quote from Volger has been trotted out three times on these boards for no real relevant reason other than to smear, maybe someone might want to get to real issues wih Palin, instead of copy/pasting slime from Daily Kos as infinitum

 
4biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 11:49 		She's not a member; I believe her husband is.

I agree with MBJ. There is plenty to attack her on, or just mock her lack of experience and make sure everyone with half a brain sees what a absurd and unserious pick she was.

Unfortunately, half the country has less than half a brain, but you do what you can if you are dedicated to a campaign which takes the high road.
 
5Perm Dude
      ID: 51854214
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 11:57 		for no real relevant reason other than to smear...

A Vice Presidential candidate who was a member of such a party would absolutely be a relevant reason. Until questions of whether she was a member or not would determined, such questions not only should be asked, they need to be. It is hardly a smear to ask these questions when something appears to be there but before the full truth has been released by McCain/Palin.

It is a smear to continue to make the same point after the truth has been revealed to be otherwise. But is isn't a smear before that point, particularly when signs are pointing to her family as to membership.

And the fact that a successionist group has changed their tactics (now, they present themselves as some kind of mainstream political group, only interested in getting the question of succession on the ballot) doesn't mean they aren't still what they are.

It might be moot if Palin isn't a member. But a group dedicated to putting to a vote whether their state remains in the Union is a group that we should know has her as a member.
 
6Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 12:01 		is a group that we should know has her as a member.

We've known - just like we we've known that Obama didn't go to Madrassa. This thread was started today.
 
7Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 12:01 		She made a video for their 2008 convention commending them.

Just as tha party has changed, I believe that the platform of the AIP has been modified to some degree.

Interesting that Obama's church wasn't given the same considerations, instead being labeled as America hating and racist. It doesn't matter where the Vogler quote came from, and if Rev. Wright is an issue, why isn't Joe Vogler. How is one slime and the other not?
 
8Perm Dude
      ID: 51854214
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 12:04 		#6: I wasn't talking about only today. I was talking about your reference to earlier mentions, during which we were supposedly to have looked into the future.

I do share your frustration about smears (and I think Obama himself is setting the right tone about it in general, and with family members in particular).
 
9Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 12:09 		Geez Pancho - She made a video welcoming a convention to town. If it'd been the DNC in town, would that have made her a Democrat?

Are you serious? - you equate this with sitting in pew in front of Wright for 20 years, naming your book after one of his sermons, etc. Give me a break.

How long 'till all the people who claimed that the anti -Obama vote was fueled by racsism alone, start hearing about how they're irration, factually-challenged smears on Palin come from their own misogyny. Brilliant.
 
10Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 12:11 		PD #8 - And I was referencing the fact that this question had been asked and answered and then asked again, as if were some new alarm. Next thing you know, we'll find out that her teenage daughter is pregnant.
 
11Perm Dude
      ID: 51854214
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 12:15 		Heh. Or that Palin is a woman.
 
12Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 12:38 		factually-challenged smears on Palin

What factually challenged smears? Is there and has there been an association between Sarah Palin and her husband and the AIP? How is asking about this association and looking into it a smear? Are you certain you have all the facts in order to claim what is and is not factually challenged?

Here husband was a member for 7 years. They both attended the 1994 convention. She welcomed and commended them at their convention this year. The AIP website currently states:

Although it is widely thought to be a secessionist movement, the Party makes great effort to emphasize that its primary goal is merely a vote on secession, something that Party advocates say Alaskans were denied during the founding of the state. link

Which of these facts are you challenging? And why is bringing up this issue a smear? If we have a vice president who advocates or sympathizes with states voting for secession, isn't that somewhat of a relevant issue?

You can bet it would be if Obama were praising the Hawaiian independent movement.
 
13Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 12:47 		PV was pretty specific. he never said she was a member. he said she was "associated" with the group.

her husband is a twice-registered member of AIP.

that very clearly, associates her with it.

Are you serious? - you equate this with sitting in pew in front of Wright for 20 years, naming your book after one of his sermons, etc. Give me a break.

sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it to.

if Obama is criticized for his association with a church, then Palin deserves the same scrutiny for this group.

Obama and Palin were both involved in organizations that said some ugly things. it didn't matter before that Wright had a handful of sermons over 20 years, and it doesn't matter now that Palin's group had similar such speech.

if Obama had never been criticized for his association with Wright, to me, this would be a non-issue. but the Right has shown so far an incredible level of hypocrisy involving Palin and anything left leaning, so her association with this group is absolutely fair game, *IF* you want to take that road.
 
14Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 12:51 		Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question. Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said. The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article.

Oh, that's great...
 
15Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 13:02 		you equate this with sitting in pew in front of Wright for 20 years, naming your book after one of his sermons, etc. Give me a break.

So, you're saying that every sermon Obama and his wife heard for twenty years centered on Wright's hatred for America, a claim that is based on emotional soundbites from a few selected sermons?

Yet you're completely discounting that Thad Palin was a member of the AIP for 7 years, an organization that is centered on Alaska's secession, and that his wife wasn't aware of this party's agenda?

From the LA Times:

Dexter Clark, an Alaskan Independence Party vice chairman, brought up Palin's ties to the group in videotaped remarks to the second North American Secessionist Convention in October in Chattanooga, Tenn.

"She was an AIP member before she got the job as the mayor of a small town," Clark told the group. "That was a nonpartisan job. But you get along to go along. She eventually joined the Republican Party."

McCain's campaign distributed Palin's voter registration records Tuesday to show that she had never been a member of the AIP.

The Alaska Division of Elections confirmed that Palin had been registered as a Republican since 1982.

McCain's campaign also slammed ABC News for posting a Web story saying that Palin had been a member of the party, calling the report a "smear."

link

Maybe Clark was mistaken that she was actually a member, and maybe ABC's report claiming she had been a member can be considered a "smear" or factually challenged, but when the vice chairman of the party claims she was a member almost a year ago, is it a smear to suggest that her association with the party was more than a casual welcoming to the city for their convention and that she might have some sympathies, if not support for their agenda, at least at some point in time?
I'm having a hard time understanding why these questions are off limits.
 
16Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 13:05 		What factually challenged smears? Is there and has there been an association between Sarah Palin and her husband and the AIP? How is asking about this association and looking into it a smear? Are you certain you have all the facts in order to claim what is and is not factually challenged?

I'm positive, if the Sec of State for the State of Alaska is to be believed. So if I start a thread questioning whether Obama is really American born and a Christian, it wouldn't be a smear, 'cause I was only asking a question, right? Nevermind, that there's already so much information answering the question already out there, that if I knew enough to ask the "question" then I already knew the answer....




if Obama is criticized for his association with a church, then Palin deserves the same scrutiny for this group.

Except that she's not associated with it; and the AIP, while you ma not like their political positions, isn't a hate group and hasn't espoused "ugly" things. I continue to be perplexed by the seeming need to make things up or retread old smears.
 
17Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 13:08 		PV - Yes, ABC's report was a smear, because they knew for a fact that she was not a member, yet they ran a report implying that she may have been, based not on the clear, uncontradicted record, but on one person's unsubstantiated statement. What would you call it?
 
18Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 13:11 		Yet you're completely discounting that Thad Palin was a member of the AIP for 7 years, an organization that is centered on Alaska's secession, and that his wife wasn't aware of this party's agenda?

I'm certain that she knew of it's agenda. I'm also certain that she chose not to become a member of that party or espouse it central tenents. In fact, in the statement she made welcoming their convention, she talks about their postions being "different"
 
19Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 13:43 		then Palin deserves the same scrutiny for this group.

Except that she's not associated with it;

her HUSBAND was a member of the group. that makes her associated with them.

and the AIP, while you ma not like their political positions, isn't a hate group and hasn't espoused "ugly" things. I continue to be perplexed by the seeming need to make things up or retread old smears.

AIP founder Joe Vogler, has said:

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

really, no different than some of the things Rev. Wright has said.
 
20Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 14:11 		Why don't you democratic bloggers just let her hang herself. Let her make a major gaffe. If she's so bad; why would you not want her on the ticket.

 
21Perm Dude
      ID: 51854214
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 14:14 		She will, she will.

Rep Wexler strikes me as a bit wacky, but I'm wondering if Palin has had her Rev Wright moment.

Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity.

I don't, for a moment, believe Palin is anti-Semetic. But politically it will be difficult for those who ascribe the views from the pulpit as being the candidates to back away from this one gracefully. Once you set yourself up as accepting that pulpit sermons are fair game, it's hard to put it back in the bottle.
 
22Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 14:23 		Dredging Rev Wright up definitly works in Obama's favor, I guess. I'm sure he's very exited that people supposedly supporting him are raising the issue and making the comparison.
 
23Perm Dude
      ID: 51854214
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 14:33 		Since Wright continues to be a focus for many on the Right, it isn't dredging, MBJ. And asking people to be consistent isn't an unfair thing. If Obama needed to answer for a minister's sermon at which he was not present then it would be fair to request Palin's take on a sermon in which she was. Or are you saying that she should not respond with her thoughts on Brinker, even though she was actually there?

I would hope that this is an opportunity for the Right to do the right thing and say that they were wrong to harp on about Rev Wright and Obama. I doubt that'll happen--Republicans don't have a lot of positives to run on, so they'll continue to hammer at perceived weaknesses in their opponents.
 
24Seward Norse
      ID: 297412913
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 14:38 		"they'll continue to hammer at perceived weaknesses in their opponents."

Isn't this exactly what the left is doing in this thread?? It's wrong when the left does it, just like it was wrong when the right did it.
 
25Perm Dude
      ID: 51854214
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 14:44 		First off, I was hoping you'd pop in her, SN. You have a unique perspective for Alaska so I'm pleased to see you post.

Yeah, in some ways there is a bit of flailing about by some on the Left (and even more by the media). This is partly as a result of so little information being given out by the McCain campaign, I think. But I don't think that asking questions about things which are unclear (even those that look possibly damaging) is the same as the Right's contiued efforts to get Rev Wright speak for Obama, for instance.

As MBJ and I discussed above, once a fact becomes known (though questions like those being raised), then it moves into the "smear" area.
 
26Seward Norse
      ID: 297412913
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 14:54 		Thanks PD. I'm by no means a Palin expert, but I do know that she's well liked(as I said earlier in a different thread). Of course, being well liked does not alone make someone VP material!

On a different note, you'll find a decent amount of support by Alaskans for independance because of the frustration with not being able to drill for oil. I think(I'm not sure) that if you look at the numbers you'll find a decent percent of Alaskans are involved with the AIP in some way or another, and so I'm sure there will be examples of her addressing that group in different ways. Most people that I know that associate with that group don't agree with most of what Vogler says.

I have to teach. I'll try and come back for more later.

 
27Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 16:48

"Young man, have you not heard of a condom? Do you have any idea the number of children I would owe support for if it were not for these wonderful devices? Kids these days!"
 
28Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 17:27 		First off, I was hoping you'd pop in her, SN

are you addressing SN, or Levi Johnston...nice typo there, PD.

"Young man, have you not heard of a condom?

well, crazy future mom-in-law is against them being mentioned in sex ed classes, so it's possible he hasn't.
 
29biliruben
      ID: 38751812
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 17:29 		"Condom?

I thought all you needed to do was wash real well after, and it was all good!

What are these condoms that you speak of?"
 
30Perm Dude
      ID: 51854214
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 17:35 		#28 Ouch. Bad keyboard!

I didn't realize that the McCain campaign released the information about the daughter's pregnancy (as opposed to Palin). I don't know if they just wanted to stay ahead of the story, but the team there needs to get on the same page and decide, once and for all, if this is a private matter or not.
 
31Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 17:40 		they released it to refute the reports that Palin was not the mother of her youngest kid, but rather, Bristol was.
 
32Tree
      ID: 2985318
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 19:06 		oops... Noonan, Murphy trash Palin on hot mike: 'It's over'
 
33biliruben
      ID: 38751812
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 19:34 		Ouch. I guess they don't wanna be rubes either.
 
34walk
      ID: 9857121
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 19:56 		I just read that, Tree. That is really something...when top conservative pundits blast the pick, you know it's a bad call.
 
35walk
      ID: 9857121
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 20:24 		Rage Plays

We temporarily postpone this Palin thread to mention how cool Zach and Tommy are for playing their songs acapella cos the bulls would not let RATM perform in St. Paul. Love the workaround.
 
36Baldwin
      ID: 24841319
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 20:59 		Yeah, in some ways there is a bit of flailing about by some on the Left - PD

I'm glad you recognized something was strange in this.

And that thing is that we have a clear example of a Borking going on.

Dems strategists are apoplectic that they have to face down an independent thinking, strong willed woman. It isn't supposed to be Republicans who break down the glass ceiling. They dare not cede what they perceive to be their 'high ground', just as they dared not let Clarence Thomas succeed, so an all out, never ending attack is under way the likes of which Geraldine Ferraro for example never had to deal with.

You know they are losing their minds over this when the libertine party comes out against unwed mothers and proposes the notion that a mother cannot do her job because she has kids.
 
37Perm Dude
      ID: 51854214
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 21:11 		I think the Clarence Thomas comparison is appropriate. Both are way over their head for their positions, and were picked for their gender or race in order to short circuit criticism by Dems.

I think, unless Palin literally falls on her face, the GOP will have a simultaneous orgasm in St. Paul after her speech since she is, after all, "one of them." But with a couple of months until the election, we'll see exactly how Palin stands up to the person-to-person scrutiny of the campaign trail away from the stage managed dance of a political convention.
 
38Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 21:24 		Most people that I know that associate with that group don't agree with most of what Vogler says.

So, in essence, it's entirely possible that a person can be involved with an organization for a number of years without ascribing to the more controversial positions of its leader or founder.

Can it also be surmised that to a black person in Souhthside Chicago, the Reverend Wright's sermons aren't all that provacative and that to a person in small town Alaska the agenda of the AIP isn't all that provacative?

Further, is it possible that an aspiring politician in either circumstance might be sympathetic to a cause that has at least some level of popular support in an effort to exploit that popularity to further their careers?
 
39Seward Norse
      ID: 58082219
      Wed, Sep 03, 2008, 23:00 		I'm not sure they're the same thing(since Palin isn't a member), but the Rev. Wright thing was never a big deal to me. I wouldn't use that to argue against Obama.
 
40Baldwin
      ID: 24841319
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 04:50 		I don't find it any more odd than a Rep VP candidate having a libertarian in the family and way less than Dick Cheney's daughter for that matter.
 
41Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 09:22 		Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

we're on a mission, from Gahd...

 
42sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 09:25 		"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

Oh good gawd. This reminds me of a dealership I worked at for about 3 months. Every Sat at the sales meeting, the Sales Manager had a prayer circle where he asked God to deliver us a bountiful day. I of course never participated and when asked why, I told them that I am an Athiest and even *IF* there were a God, one would have to think he had more on his mind than how many cars we sold at XYZ Ford this weekend. So here too, even *IF* there is a God, wouldnt he have more on his plate, than a pipeline?
 
43Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 10:27 		Now there's a report that Sarah Palin cheated at Chutes and Ladders in the early 70's.
 
44Perm Dude
      ID: 2784948
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 10:28 		She can blame it on the meth.
 
45Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 11:14 		If this is true, this is impressive. ... During her speech, I was concentrating particularly on her use of the teleprompter and I wondered whether or not there was a problem or if she just didn't know how to use it ... she kept looking down at her notes during applause lines, and there were a couple of very quick glances downward that I thought were suspicious.

In terms of evaluating her capabilities, getting through a problem like that as seemlessly as she did is a notable achievement.

Still looking forward to her first press avail ...
 
46Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 11:18 		PD 44 -- I believe she's admitted to smoking marijuana, so you could blame it on that. A tough Q from the press would be why she views drug law enforcement as a low priority with the meth problems running around in her hometown ... of course, I think those post-dated her tenure there. She'd either have to tack strong on the drug war, opening the hypocrit charge or defend herself weakening her support from the social conservative base and tough-on-crime types.
 
47Perm Dude
      ID: 21822410
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 11:22 		It was a joke about the meth.

Palin has had little to nothing to do with law enforcement at any level. Given how desperate McCain is to show how close Alaska is to Russia as a prop for her, I suspect she'll be exposed for a inexperienced politico way above her level. She'll even thrown away her nice side as she gets into attack dog mode.
 
48biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 11:25 		She's did minor in politics, Madman. Sheesh. She probably had a whole semester on what to do with the teleprompter went kaput.
 
49Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 14:52 		Looks like the teleprompter broke before her foray into foreign affairs ... which suggests that at the least she had memorized the lines about the Saudi's and Venezuelans ...

Palin has had little to nothing to do with law enforcement at any level. Glad to know you are endorsing Palin's interpretation of Troopergate.

She probably had a whole semester on what to do with the teleprompter went kaput. Obama should sign up for that class.
 
50biliruben
      ID: 38751812
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 14:56 		As someone who is memory challenged, I resemble that remark!

I don't think how well you memorize a speech says much, if anything, about how you would run the country.
 
51Perm Dude
      ID: 21822410
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 15:01 		Troopergate still has yet to be played out regardless of my interpretation of whether Palin's lies rise to a criminal level, Madman, and as a problem which was already out there before McCain made Palin his running mate, is Exhibit A in questioning McCain's judgement.

My own belief, at this point, is for the Dems to simply ignore Palin. She is small ball politics and (from what I can tell) doesn't have the chops to bother to counter. Let her fall on her own terms, and thereby sidestep the trap Republicans have set out. They've already fitted Palin with a martyr outfit.

So let's see what happens when Palin finds herself in an echo chamber with a sheaf of useless counterattack talking points in her hands.
 
52Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 15:07 		I don't think how well you memorize a speech says much, if anything, about how you would run the country. It does speak to poise, self-confidence, and intellectual ability, however. Has any VP candidate ever addressed how they would run the country?

I've been a bit surprised that the Dems have deviated from the Knowles-talking-points on this dimension. It seems like an honest and legitimate approach. Specifically, one could argue that she has an antagonistic management style. There were a series of firings in Wasilla, which is a bit unusual for a small city gov't. And then as Chief Exec in Alaska, there have been some difficulties with the establishment. The Monegan thing being the most prevalent example, but her relationship with the legislature is, I fear, more tenuous than belies her underlying popularity.

Now, part of that may be a genuine reformer in her. I suspect more of it is a massive Type-A personality, and a micro-manager type. I suspect that either a Palin (for aforementioned reasons) or Obama (take the credit, give the blame) administration would have difficulty maintaining a motivated workforce for a full term, let alone two, unless either or both changes from what they've shown thusfar.

PD 51 -- I thought you were arguing that Palin never interfered with law enforcement, meaning that she wasn't trying to micromanagement Alaska state troopers, meaning she wasn't guilty in Troopergate.

Because in general, your statement doesn't make a lot of sense. As a mayor of a growing burb, she was involved with the town's PD and funding, and has an oversight role of various law enforcement functions of the Alaska state government.
 
53Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 16:27 		Some of our more conservative friends seem confused as to how to react to the Sarah Palin choice. For instance,on Monday I got this email from Newsmax.

What Do We Know About Sarah Palin?
[excerpts]

Note: this column was written before the revelation that Gov. Palin's 17-year-old daughter is five months pregnant — a fact conveniently omitted when she was announced as veep last Friday. All the more reason to wait, as no one yet really knows Sarah Palin, including John McCain. You can bet the McCain staff is now apoplectic over what they do not know about their new running mate.

None of us knows much about her, and what we do know comes from Team McCain, an entirely un-trustworthy group with a motive to spin her the way they want. Her announcement speech was written by McCain's alter ego, Mark Salter, a complete manipulator.

# John McCain and his high command believe they are substantially behind the Obama/Biden ticket and thus they threw a Hail Sarah pass; the public daily tracking polls, which show this nationally as a three-point race at the moment belie the crucial state polls which worried Team McCain.

# McCain offered the veep slot after just one substantive meeting with her — a stunning way to make the most important decision of your life, after selecting your spouse! And speaking of marriage, would anyone in their right mind propose on the first date? No! But he offers her this crucial position based on some mild staff vetting and then just one meeting?

# The conservative Christian right did the same thing as McCain and has fallen head-over-heels in love with her virtually overnight. Why? Because they do not like McCain, are not happy with what the Bush presidency devolved into and, most importantly, they want to believe in someone.

And now here is the real kicker: Barack Obama ain't dumb. He and his super-sharp strategist, David Axelrod, now know one thing: If Sarah Palin somehow crashes and burns, then McCain will be destroyed in November. So you can bet their opposition research team is operating at full speed. All they have to do is dig up something damaging to Palin, and that will guarantee Obama's election.

This is exactly why McCain's hasty vetting and decision-making process is so suspect. And yet another reason why the GOP never should have nominated McCain in the first place.

The today, this from Newsmax.

Palin Has Transformed the Race
[excerpts]

As if a light switch had been turned on, John McCain’s decision to add Sarah Palin to the ticket has transformed the race and energized conservatives.

After the announcement that Palin would be the Republican vice presidential nominee, $7 million poured into the McCain campaign that same day.

“That is the biggest day we have ever had,” Bob Heckman, the McCain campaign’s national conservative outreach director, tells Newsmax. “We’ve had an avalanche of phone calls and e-mails saying they want to volunteer and work with the campaign.”

Palin’s acceptance speech turned her into a rock star. But even before that, Heckman said, “The enthusiasm level has been incredible. A number of conservative leaders in particular who had been reluctant before are now fully and totally committed. The attacks on her by some in the media will I think make them more dedicated to helping him.”

In contrast to Barack Obama, Palin has executive experience both on the municipal and state level, Heckman says.

“She had to confront the kind of issues that matter to most Americans,” he says. “Experience is partially having dealt with issues and partially having good judgment. She will have the added benefit of being able to work at the feet of the most experienced foreign policy expert in the country — John McCain.”

Criticism of Palin by Democrats and the media reflects an elitist attitude, Heckman says.

Can we all agree that the word elitist no longer has any meaning in the political world? After all, if you were the most experienced foreign policy expert in the country, wouldn't that make you elite?


 
54Perm Dude
      ID: 22824415
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 16:27 		As a mayor of a growing burb, she was involved with the town's PD and funding...

Is this true? Most small towns do not have their own police department, but depend upon state troopers

...and has an oversight role of various law enforcement functions of the Alaska state government.

Palin has never issued an order to the Alaska National Guard, and, contrary to the McCain campaign's assertion that she's gained command experience because "Alaska is right next to Russia" she has no command authority for the Guard on any federal action or mission.

My statement is a refutation of the belief that Palin somehow has law-and-order cred based upon her experience. If she's somehow gotten credibility on the issue, it must have been through osmosis.
 
55boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 16:59 		Is this true? Most small towns do not have their own police department, but depend upon state troopers i live in small town and we have our own PD and if we didnt we would depend on the county sheriff not the state troopers. i would assume this varies by state.
 
56biliruben
      ID: 38751812
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 17:00 		In Washington the county sheriff performs this role.
 
57Perm Dude
      ID: 22824415
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 17:06 		#55: Yeah, in some states (Ohio) the sherriff would perform that role. In my town we have a regional police, which take care of 5 smaller townships.

In NJ, the state troopers fill in where there isn't a local police department--the Sheriff doesn't do too much in that regard.

pd
 
58Perm Dude
      ID: 22824415
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 17:08 		As a small-town mayor, Palin might have some command over a local police department (though more likely probably some kind of advisory capacity on a police board) but not any command on a regional, county, or statewide policing authority.

And it certainly doesn't prepare her to be Commander in Chief!
 
59Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 17:12 		The mayor position in towns the size of Wasilla is rarely even full time.
 
60ivan
      ID: 35725812
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 17:43 		her HUSBAND was a member of the group. that makes her associated with them.

this should be a big help w/ all then union support she is bound to get thanks to her husband's membership in the united steelworkers.

 
61Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 18:49 		this should be a big help w/ all then union support she is bound to get thanks to her husband's membership in the united steelworkers.

Especially if the vice-president of united steelworkers believed her to be a member.
 
62Perm Dude
      ID: 22824415
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 22:10 		Robert Reich on vetting

Priceless first comment. Gotta love the internet.
 
63Seward Norse
      ID: 58082219
      Thu, Sep 04, 2008, 22:25 		I've gotta wonder if this is exactly the type of attention that the republicans wanted the whole time. The "no publicity is bad publicity" line of thinking. Has there been any discussion about Biden at all? And yet Palin is all over the place. I wonder if democrats are playing right into the republicans hands.
 
64biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 00:46 		Something an anonymous commenter named on a blog thought she'd remind Sarah Palin of:

Jesus was a community organizer.
Pontius Pilate was a governor.
 
65Baldwin
      ID: 24841319
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 03:42 		And he's now king of kings. Does that mean this Dem blogger is in favor of monarchy?

Trying to get anything religiously enlightening from a liberal blogger is like looking to the cover of the NYT and Time magazine for answers to questions like "does God exist?" and "what was Jesus like?". It always blows my mind that liberals expect to be taken seriously when they pontificate on those subjects.

But now I know what type of person does take those pronouncements seriously.
 
66Perm Dude
      ID: 22824415
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 08:43 		It blows my mind how small minded you've become. You back a party which openly mocks community organizers.
 
67Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 08:47 		Did Obama openly mock small towns or small town mayors?

Jesus was a community organizer.

Just can't get away from the Obama is the Messiah imagery can we.

The last community organizer from Chicago that I knew about was Al Capone. Jesus. Al Capone. Obama somewhere in the middle.



 
68Perm Dude
      ID: 22824415
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 09:10 		I don't think that singular comment can stand too much strutiny or allegory, but I think the comment was intended to allude to the GOP's openly Christianist stance rather than the GOP-tagged Obama supporters' messianic statements.

Besides, it was the GOP which seemed fully in the throes of a spiritual revival during their convention. I can only wonder at their labelling the Dems as supporting Obama in a messianic way as they gather sheepishly around McCain (a person the religious right openly hated just a few months ago as not being part of themselves).
 
69biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 10:22 		Sorry. My post assumed you had watched Sarah mock community organizers at the convention.
 
70Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 10:45 		I heard her mock the idea that being a "community organizer" was important experience for a Presidential candidate but that being mayor of a town was worthy of derision.

Obama & Co had spent the previous 2 days demeaning the Governor of Alaska, referring to her only as a small-town ; after having spent the previous 9 months telling us how his time as a comminity organizer and state senator had prepared him to be The One. Spare me the outrage.

I'm pretty sure that the always important "community prganizer" vote was going Obama's way anyhow, so I'm not sure waht kind of traction his camp is hoing to obtain from this faux reaction.
 
71Perm Dude
      ID: 22824415
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 10:49 		Maybe the same faux outrage the GOP has for the non-sexism exhibited against Palin?
 
72Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 10:52 		PD- yes, to a large degree.


Faux outrage all around.
 
73Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 10:59 		can only wonder at their labelling the Dems as supporting Obama in a messianic way as they gather sheepishly around McCain (a person the religious right openly hated just a few months ago as not being part of themselves).

a few months ago?? shooot, they were hating him until last Friday.
 
74Perm Dude
      ID: 22824415
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 11:42 		I think Palin's speechwriter is making a mistake to make this about Obama's qualifications for office, for several reasons. First, he's been making the case for many months now as to his qualifications, and millions already agree he is qualified. Also, the target is set awfully low if we're talking about qualifications for office--does the GOP really want to start out 0-1 by losing the "Obama qualification" argument?

I understand about the "community organizer does not equal Presidential qualifications" argument, but it is not an argument that Obama is making. His organizing is part of his biography and is typically brought up as an indication that he could have gone on to high-paying lawyer jobs but chose not to do so. It isn't presented as being a qualification for President on its own. If anything, it is presented as an anti-elitist argument.
 
75Baldwin
      ID: 24841319
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 12:02 		I wonder if democrats are playing right into the republicans hands. - S. Norse

Ya'think?

They are stuck discussing whether her brief resume resembles Obama's brief resume. Think about that.

"Oh yeah, our presidential candidate is more qualified than their VP candidate".

Any Dem with any strategic thinking would be ignoring her as hard as he could hoping she and her 'narative' disappeared from public discourse along with any attention to the 'experience' question. "Let's get back to lofty etherial rhetoric and baseless promises unchallenged by the media."

 
76Baldwin
      ID: 24841319
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 12:07 		I've always mocked rabble rousers.
 
77biliruben
      ID: 38751812
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 12:54 		You mock Jesus, calling him irresponsible?

I'd get my asbestos underwear ready, if I believed what you believe.
 
78biliruben
      ID: 38751812
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 12:55 		Actually, what Sarah believes, as I now recall you don't believe in h e double hockey sticks.
 
79biliruben
      ID: 38751812
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 12:57
 
80Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 13:14 		Is this true? Most small towns do not have their own police department, but depend upon state troopers

One of Palin's first controversies in Wasilla was when she sacked the Police Chief because of philosophical disagreements. Stambaugh's his name, something like that. Sorry for lack of links ...

 
81Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 13:18 		PD 58 -- And it certainly doesn't prepare her to be Commander in Chief! And no one is arguing that it does.

If she hadn't had her time as Chairman on the O&G Commission, and hadn't been elected governor, and hadn't had some remarkable and complex successes as such, she wouldn't be a VP nominee.

The PTA commentary is strictly bio, and Wasilla mayorship is done to (a) inflate her years of "executive" experience, (b) get Obama embroiled in an experience debate in which he looks really, really weak.
 
82Perm Dude
      ID: 22824415
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 13:23 		Doesn't look like Obama will take the bait. The CW is certainly gelling around an ignore Palin, attack McCain strategy.

It'll be interesting to see how this changes the campaign's early strategy to keep Palin under wraps except for pre-written scripts.

I would think that making so obvious a move to smother her independence will backfire on the Republican campaign.
 
83biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 17:07 		Upon reflection (and a 70-0 loss), Palin's alma mater decided putting an I on their football player's ass - not such a brilliant idea:



WTF?
 
84Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 17:16 		Good one Mr. biliruben. Another big reason not to vote for her.
 
85Baldwin
      ID: 24841319
      Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 18:04 		PD

I have given your word to them, but the world has hated them, because they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.

He was not a 'grass roots organizer' creating a political force in the sense you that you are pretending he was.
 
86Madman
      ID: 7538321
      Sat, Sep 06, 2008, 00:09 		Check out Palin in Cedarburg, WI ... here (ignore the HotAir commentary, just focus on her delivery, especially between minutes 4-6ish) ...

I'd have to say this is disappointing ... regardless of what did or didn't go on with her teleprompter on Tuesday, one has to wonder why she doesn't have some of these lines down better by now ... she really struggled reading a couple of times ...

Just hints, of course, and we're just compiling evidence. Her speech was well done, this was less so. Clips from her gubernatorial debates don't excite me ... seems like she gives sort of beauty queenish answers that are somewhat vague and circular ... I wouldn't be too worried about the debates if I was Biden. The one thing she will bring is plenty of confidence. If she has an array of zingers pre-canned and actually launches one successfully, however, I'll be surprised.

Bottom line: she's good enough to get by on the campaign. But if I were on the radical right, I'm becoming convinced that I wouldn't be hyping her as the second Obama. And not just because that insults her experience. Obama's a proven quick study. Reasonable expectations are your friend. After more studying of this than my wife is happy with, I'm coming to the conclusion that I doubt she is. Hope I'm wrong. This still has a chance to lose McCain the election.

BTW, it also looks like the timeline for Troopergate's been bumped up ... look for an early October wrap-up ... I suspect this signals that it won't be terribly revealing, although you never know when a story will catch new legs.
 
87Perm Dude
      ID: 9832523
      Sat, Sep 06, 2008, 00:32 		Baldwin: I never said he was a grass roots organizer. Maybe that's your mistake. Well, one of them, anyway.
 
88Mac Daddy
      ID: 35212110
      Sat, Sep 06, 2008, 07:08 		No agenda on the Daily Show at all.
link
 
89Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sat, Sep 06, 2008, 08:30 		No agenda on the Daily Show at all.

I disagree. The agenda is to present brilliant political comedy and satire, and they succeed without polluting the political arena with the type of venemous assaults so common in today's political blogosphere.

The guest on that particular show was Newt Gingrich.
The following night it was Mike Huckabee(who was very funny).

In these interviews, Stewart is a master at creating a light-hearted, yet informative atmosphere, and while he usually gets in a few subtle jabs, the premise is neither combative nor insulting.

As regular viewers of the Daily Show are quite aware, Democrats and liberals aren't immune as targets of the show's barbs, not that I'm implying it's an equal opportunity targetfest.
Still, there is a balance in the presentation that separates it from other completely partisan shows, although the most cynical of the right would probably disagree.
 
90Tree
      ID: 5082469
      Sat, Sep 06, 2008, 10:27 		PV - i think the prime difference is the presentation, as you said.

Stewart *is* funny. and even those who are the butt of his jokes have to see that. he is cynical and sarcastic, but rarely is he angry and venomous.

he surrounds himself with a staff that is similiarly inclined, and the show reminds me of the early days of SNL's Weekend Update, which 30+ years ago was getting in some damned funny jabs, without being mean-spirited...
 
91Seattle Zen
      ID: 475582110
      Sat, Sep 06, 2008, 11:55

Well, even she believes her state is warming (it's far too obvious to ignore), but she is not "convinced" that it is man-made. So start drilling, and pipeline building and keep those SUV rolling off the line...

The one head she is upset not to have mounted above her is her ex-brother-in-law...
 
92bibA
      ID: 21835115
      Sat, Sep 06, 2008, 12:41 		Almost everyone I know who considers themselves as Republican/conservative have the same reaction as Mac Daddy to the Daily Show take on Rove and O'Reilly's discrepancies.....that one should ignore said discrepancies due to them being shown by Daily.

As if they are not actually there.
 
93Perm Dude
      ID: 2284614
      Sat, Sep 06, 2008, 15:04 		Ignore Stewart's satire as unreal, but worship Coulter's. Is that about right?
 
94Perm Dude
      ID: 2284614
      Sat, Sep 06, 2008, 15:18 		McCain AK allies trying to derail Troopergate?

The probe, begun after a unanimous Judiciary Committee vote, was going to actually release their report earlier than expected. Maybe the McCain team is trying to dig their heels in to delay it? After Palin says she wants to "cooperate fully" with the probe then lawyers up (ditto on seven previously agreeable witnesses), this has the potential to reinforce a side of Palin that says she's a small town, abuse of power kind of politico. Like Rudy Guluiani, but on a much smaller scale.
 
95Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 04:59 		Further evidence the left has completely lost their minds going after Palin...

The trooper fired in 'troopergate'...[since when do VP candidates get to have their own gate?]...tasered his 11 year old stepson and hunts moose without permits.

So now the left is willing to go to bat for illegal hunting of Alaska wildlife and child abusers as long as it's 'for the cause'.
 
96Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 09:07 		The trooper fired in 'troopergate'...[since when do VP candidates get to have their own gate?]...tasered his 11 year old stepson and hunts moose without permits.

So now the left is willing to go to bat for illegal hunting of Alaska wildlife and child abusers as long as it's 'for the cause'.

It's stunning how much BS can be spewed in two sentences. This attempt at dumbing down this case into the left is willing to go to bat for illegal hunting of Alaska wildlife and child abusers is more an indictment of the right's willingness to suspend reality in support of their new found rock star, much in the same fashion Obama supporters have with his Rezco/Ayers relationships.

Here's an actual account of the left going after Palin on this issue from Josh Marshall.

I've noticed some people who should know better claiming that bringing up Gov. Palin's troopergate scandal is tantamount to making a victim of or defending her slimeball ex-brother-in-law who allegedly once used a taser on his stepson.

That's awfully foolish. So I thought I'd put together a post explaining why.

The person in question is state trooper Mike Wooten -- Palin's ex-brother-in-law who's embroiled in a bitter custody and divorce battle with Palin's sister. Back in the second week of August, well before Palin became a national political figure, TPMMuckraker was reporting on this story. And as part of the reporting we tried to get a handle on just how bad a guy Wooten was. Most people who are familiar with the ugliness that often spills out of custody and divorce cases know to take accusations arising out of the course of them with a grain of salt unless you know a lot about the people involved. And if you look closely at the case there are numerous reasons to question the picture drawn by the Palin family. Regardless, we proceeded on the assumption that Wooten really was a rotten guy because the truth is that it wasn't relevant to the investigation of Palin.

Let's review what happened.

The Palin family had a feud with Wooten prior to her becoming governor. They put together a list of 14 accusations which they took to the state police to investigate -- a list that ranged from the quite serious to the truly absurd. The state police did an investigation, decided that 5 of the charges had some merit and suspended Wooten for ten days -- a suspension later reduced to five days. The Palin's weren't satisfied but there wasn't much they could do.

When Palin became governor they went for another bite at the apple. Palin, her husband and several members of her staff began pressuring Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan -- a respected former Chief of the Anchorage police department -- to can Wooten. Monegan resisted, arguing that the official process regarding Wooten was closed. And there was nothing more that could be done. In fact, during one of the conversations in which Palin's husband Todd was putting on the squeeze, Monegan told Todd Palin, "You can't head hunt like this. What you need to do is back off, because if the trooper does make a mistake, and it is a terminable offense, it can look like political interference."

Eventually, Palin got fed up and fired Monegan from his job. (Palin claims, not credibly, that she fired Monegan over general differences in law enforcement priorities.) This is an important point. Wooten never got fired. To the best of my knowledge, he's is still on the job. The central bad act was firing the state's top police official because he refused to bend to political pressure from the governor and her family to fire a public employee against whom the governor was pursuing a vendetta -- whether the vendetta was justified or not.

Soon after this, questions were raised in the state about Monegan's firing and he eventually came forward and said he believed he'd been fired for not giving in to pressure to fire Wooten.

After Monegan made his accusations, Palin insisted there was no truth whatsoever to his claims. Nonetheless, a bipartisan committee of the state legislature approved an investigation. In response, Palin asked the Attorney General to start his own investigation which many in the state interpreted as an effort to either keep tabs on or tamper with the legislature's investigation. Again, very questionable judgment in someone who aspires to be first in line to the presidency.

The Attorney General's investigation quickly turned up evidence that Palin's initial denials were false. Multiple members of her staff had raised Wooten's employment with Monegan. Indeed, the state police had a recording of one of her deputies pushing Monegan to fire Wooten. That evidence forced Palin to change her story. Palin said that this was the first she'd heard of it and insisted the deputy wasn't acting at her behest, even though the trascript of the recorded call clearly suggested that he was. (Hear the audio here.)

Just yesterday, Monegan gave an interview to the Washington Post in which he said that not only Palin's aides, but Palin's husband and Palin herself had repeatedly raised the Wooten issue with him and pressured him to fire him. And now he says he has emails that Palin sent him about the matter. (In an interesting sidelight, that may end up telling us a lot, Monegan says no one from the McCain campaign ever contacted him in the vetting process.)

The investigator appointed by the state legislature began trying to arrange a time to depose Gov. Palin last week -- in other words, in the final days before her selection.

So let's put this all together.

We rely on elected officials not to use the power of their office to pursue personal agendas or vendettas. It's called an abuse of power. There is ample evidence that Palin used her power as governor to get her ex-brother-in-law fired. When his boss refused to fire him, she fired his boss. She first denied Monegan's claims of pressure to fire Wooten and then had to amend her story when evidence proved otherwise. The available evidence now suggests that she 1) tried to have an ex-relative fired from his job for personal reasons, something that was clearly inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, though possibly understandable in human terms, 2) fired a state official for not himself acting inappropriately by firing the relative, 3) lied to the public about what happened and 4) continues to lie about what happened.

Oh those pesky facts and details. No suprise that Baldwin is in complete denial mode, though, as this is the same depth of convoluted interpretation offered by his mentor,

Ann Coulter.

They tried to create a "Troopergate" for Palin, indignantly demanding to know why she wanted to get her ex-brother-in-law removed as a state trooper. Again, public corruption is not a good issue for someone like Obama, Chicago pol and noted friend of Syrian National/convicted felon Antoin Rezko.

For the cherry on top, then we found out Palin's ex-brother-in-law had Tasered his own 10-year-old stepson. Defend that, Democrats.


This is what passes for political commentary. Coulter brings up Troopergate, but the only names mentioned in her brief "expose" are Obama and Rezco. Certainly not Alaska Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, the man who was fired by Palin, and the man around whom this entire controversy is actually centered.
 
97Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 09:43 		So, to set the record straight, those who in Coulter's words are indignantly demanding or in Baldwin's words going after Palin concerning this issue are not Democrats or the media, but the Alaska legislature and the Alaska Attorney General's office.
 
98Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 10:47 		Let us not forget that the Alaska political machine is exactly whose apple cart she turned over.
 
99Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 10:48 		For example she is the one who actually pulled the plug on the 'Bridge To Nowhere'.
 
100Perm Dude
      ID: 14822710
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 11:24 		Another half-truth. She was for it before she decided to keep the money on other pork barrel projects.

To try to claim that she was against the Bridge to Nowhere would be a lie. Don't go there.
 
101Tree
      ID: 6818710
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 11:28 		...after initially supporting it, Baldwin. she only changed her mind after seeing the public come out against it.

nice red herring though..."oh wait, hmm, this trooper thing is looking tough to defend, so let's move to a different argument..."

and post 98 - are you insinuating that making waves in some "political machine" is ok, even if you're potentially breaking the law and certainly violating ethics?
 
102Perm Dude
      ID: 14822710
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 14:54 		Alaska political machine

I think she *has* made some inroads here. But we need to remember that the "Alaska political machine" is the Alaska GOP.

I don't think she's done nearly as much as those trying to pump her resume up. Even McCain's the "sold the plane on Ebay.

Sounds like they are going to keep her in hiding for a couple of weeks to try and prep her, keeping her away from interviews and other non-scripted events. Hell hath no fury like a media scorned, however, so this isn't a smart play, IMO.
 
103Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 15:53 		PD

Bottom line is that she had the stones to ruin the day for many old bulls in her own party including the ones pushing the bridge to nowhere. I will indeed go there.

Tree

Just keep defending that trooper. There's a winning idea.
 
104Tree
      ID: 44832715
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 16:36 		Baldwin - just keep following the non sequiturs. at this point, it's the only thing you're remotely good at.

don't think i ever defended the trooper, but nice trying to pin it on me. typical of people like you.

whether the trooper was a bad guy or not isn't the issue. it's whether Palin tried to use her political power to try and get that trooper fired, AND to get his boss fired.

but then again, you know that. it's just not convenient for you to accept it, because then you'd have to admit being wrong, which, you often are these days.
 
105Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 19:30 		As Travelgate proves in these matters, the media ratchet always favoring Dems, is all important. If it tars a Dem it goes into the memory hole. If it tars a Rep the media fires never die.
 
106Tree
      ID: 58838718
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 19:42 		again, not relative.

if Palin committed a crime, or had some serious ethical violations, it should be reported. i think your line of thinking is very cute - adorable in fact, but, the fact remains, if she did wrong, it shouldn't be swept under the rug.

oh, and you'd behoove yourself to be realistic, and not be ignorant, because lord knows plenty of scandals involving dems have life DECADES after they originally happened, thanks to people like you...
 
107Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 20:15 		Boldwin: Palin has already been caught lying. Unlike Travelgate, Palin is asking people to elect her to office on the heels of pretty clear evidence she abused her position. And she's running on the platform of "cleaning things up."

It remains to be seen if she'll be able to hide away her own history until Election Day.
 
108J-Bar
      ID: 58845721
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 23:23 		I think Monegan was just not the person she thought she knew.
 
109J-Bar
      ID: 58845721
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 23:36 		Trooper-gate won't be the problem. I predict that the Palin story will end with her regrettably withdrawing due to her need to be home with her challenged newborn and daughter who is having problems with her pregnancy. Job accomplished of taking the free publicity away from Obama. Next pick will be more conventional and Reps will use all of the Dems words about Palin against them and praise her for choosing family above the Number 2 position, knowing that her time will come later.
 
110Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Sun, Sep 07, 2008, 23:42 		Yeah, that Palin pick was just stupid. It has just worked out terribly. What McCain thinking?

It gave him a bounce in the polls and he now leads? Really? Nevermind.
 
111J-Bar
      ID: 58845721
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 00:02 		It is funny that Obama's 8 point bounce in USAtoday /Gallup was big news but you haven't heard anything about McCain's usatoday/Gallup 11 point bounce with most of the gains being undecided. Oh that's right no bias i forgot.
 
112Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 00:05 		I should just bold #110 right now.

Nothing like short-term thinking, Boldwin. And I'll say it again: Until we have a national election, national polls don't mean shiite (and are only bragging rights for people when their pol is ahead). The winner of the Electoral College vote gets to be President. Not a candidate which manages to pull even in a single national poll just after their convention. Not even a candidate who gets more actual votes doesn't win if he doesn't with the EC.

Current state by state polling (at ElectoralVote.com) shows Obama up 301 EVs to 224 EVs with Virginia (13 EVs) tied.
 
113Seattle Zen
      ID: 8748191
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 00:38 		Next pick will be more conventional and Reps will use all of the Dems words about Palin against them and praise her for choosing family above the Number 2 position, knowing that her time will come later.

Really? Has a nominee every withdrawn his first running mate pick and won with a replacement? It may have happened, but I'm not old enough to remember it?

Baldwin: That is a hell of a bounce. I disagree with PD a little bit, the national media still loves to talk about "momentum" and they have used national polls for eternity and will continue to do so. On the other hand, PD, your link in post 112 is the news that is far more important.
 
114Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 06:24 		I'm not saying Obama won't win. I'm just saying that people who think Palin was a bad pick are so addled by partisanship as to be beyond thinking straight. It was a homerun of a pick.

McCain just does not have an appealing personality and Obama does. I suspect the nation isn't ready to turn as hard left as I suspect Obama really is but it's still Obama's to lose in my estimation based completely on his speaking ability and personality.
 
115Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 08:41 		Another "attribute our actions to the Left" post, Baldwin? If you don't think that the delegates at the GOP convention were loving Palin because of her partisanship than you weren't watching.

Are the many Republicans who think Polin was a bad pick "ddled by partisanship?" Were you "ddled by partisanship" when you thought Miers was a bad pick for SCOTUS?
 
116Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 08:47 		Homerun, PD. Clearly a homerun. Demonstrably a homerun.
 
117Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 08:49 		A homerun for the base. A spectacularly bad pick for the general election.
 
118Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 08:54 		I sincerely doubt it, PD. McCain just went from sure loser to 'just might win'.
 
119Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 09:02 		talk about blinders.

Palin at the RNC was like the head cheerleader at the pep rally for the local high school's homecoming game.

she'll help solidify the base, but her radical beliefs aren't going to get her the moderates or the Clinton women.
 
120Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 13:06 		i knew id seen Sarah Palin somewhere before...

 
121Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 15:18 		It's just creepy when Tree gets off on conservative girls.
 
124Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 15:53 		baldwin, conservative girls do nothing for me.

on the other hand, "lady in the parlor, whore in the bedroom" is my mantra.
 
125Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 16:21 		I finally got around to Peggy Noonan's take on Palin, which I had been told [by PD?] was critical. If this is criticism pour truckloads of more of the same on me please.
 
126Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 16:25 		I didn't tell you that. But several have linked to an open-mike "oops" by Noonan in which she called McCain's campaign "over" for this selection.

Noonan has fairly solid conservative cred, and so can be counted on to carry what water she can while in-print or knowingly on-air. But this was a mike she didn't realize was on...
 
127Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 16:33 		I finally got around to Peggy Noonan's take on Palin, which I had been told [by PD?] was critical.

there were two separate posts in two separate threads (one from bili, one from me), linking to Noonan's open mic comments where she basically acknowledged the election was now lost.

color me totally not surprised you glossed over both posts.
 
128Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 16:37 		Yeah, I'd say it's 'fair' to call Reagan's speech writer conservative. I'd also call her reasoning in that pro-Palin piece solidly credible.
 
129Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 16:46 		How Palin got to be governor.
 
130Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 16:54 		I'd also call her reasoning in that pro-Palin piece solidly credible.

and what about her anti-Palin comments she said on a live mic? are those credible?
 
131Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 16:56 		(In)credible, I'd put it.

Meanwhile, we should start a Palin error watch:

Palin believes, in error, that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are taxpayer funded.
 
132Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 17:10 		She didn't say they were "taxpayer funded", Huffington's premature "gotcha" pounce, notwithstanding. She said they were too big (dangerously true) and expensive. Unless you think the bailout is going to be free to the taxpayers, I'd say it's a real stretch to call that statement of opinion a "gaffe".
 
133Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 17:19 		The quote is, that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have:

"gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."

But taxpayers don't pay for them. Of course this is a gaffe. This is like saying that WAMU has gotten to big for the taxpayers--or any other private organization.
 
134Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 17:48 		So which do you think is inarguably untrue? That the are too big or that they will be costing the taxpayers money?

She certainly didn't say they were "taxpayer funded" and saying that taxpayers were going to be bearing an expense for them (they are) is not very different than what you attributed to her.
 
135boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 17:55 		how about Obama's comments on the same issue from the same article ""The management was not making decisions that were designed to help them meet what should have been the mission," he said. "They were boosting profits as a priority" then maybe you can explain to me what the priority of for profit company is? Sounds like he is implying they must be taxpayer runs. these all seem like rather minor gaffes why do we not wait till the major ones.
 
136Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 18:00 		According to the CBO the bailout could cost taxpayers around $25 billion

and according to Obama “These entities are so big and they’re so tied into the housing market that it is probably true that we have to take steps to make sure they don’t just collapse, because the housing market, which is already weakened, would be in even worse shape if we didn’t take some steps.”


Yeah, real major gaffe there. Pounce away.
 
137Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 18:04 		I think if they are taken over then taxpayers are on the hook for a lot of money (and bili, I think, can probably chime in here a lot more intelligently than I can as far as actual liability).

But to speak about it the way she did, that both of them are "too expensive to the taxpayers" implies either that she believes they are currently paid for by taxpayers, or that she is against the McCain-backed government takeover of them both. So which one is it?
 
138Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 18:05 		Are you under the impression that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are purely private sector? Even before they were nationalized?

If that's a gaffe what's this?
 
139Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 18:12 		Great--somehow I got the tinhats to come out.
 
140Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 18:13 		PD - So now were talking about a "gaffe" from what she "implied". For a gaffe, i think I'll stick with the plain, clear meaning of the words she spoke - all of which are true if you believe either Obama or McCain's take on this.

At a certain point people are going to start to wonder why the likes of Kos and HuffPo and Andrew Sullivan feel the need to attack Palin, the Governor of one of the more important economic states in the country as a novice to the point that they strain so hard to see "gaffes" where there are none. Do powerful, independent women scare Libs this badly? Why not attack her on the issues?
 
141Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 18:14 		Great--somehow I got the tinhats to come out.

Oh, OK you're done then.
 
142Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 18:16 		I think it's a gaffe either way, to be honest.

I have been urging an issues-oriented campaign against Palin since she was named. Her record is terrible (and, at best, at odds with her publicity materials), she's got two abuse of power probes hanging over her head, and she seems incredibly vacuous on the issues.
 
143Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 18:33 		*roll*

The Palin Rumor Patrol has them all rounded up, debunked and lieing there in a neat shredded heap.
 
144Boldwin
      ID: 33828610
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 18:47 		MBJ

Imagine after scouring the land for 'victims' whose views could not be challenged without shrieks from the left...and who it was insisted could only be dealt with on a sympathetic emotional level...think Cindy Sheehan...

Imagine you now see a very intelligent, very photogenic, very well spoken member of the 'most favored victim' class walking directly at you high on a ridge for all to see, prepared to hoist you on your own petard. You already know how well it works. Panic-mode sets in.
 
145Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 20:15 		#143: A good one-stop shopping place, but it makes it seem like everyone is asking all these questions. And there is nothing about the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae gaffe.

 
146biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 21:29 		Freddie and Fannie are GSEs, government sponsered enterprises, private institutions where the profits go to the shareholders, but there was an "implied backing of the US treasury". Now that implication has become a reality.

Fannie was purely public until the 1950s, iirc, until they decided to privatize her for god-knows what political reason, and create a competitive brother named Freddie.

The taxpayers have so far not spent a dime on Fannie, so Palin's statement sure seems like she knows next-to-nothing about them. Fine. Just admit your are ignorant instead of trying to (and failing) remember what Lieberman told you to say.

Big whoop.

On to a more interesting concern for me:

I keep hearing she has this strong record of "taking on the establishment", of which voting against the bridge to nowhere was the headline deed. Now that we know that's bunk, what are some other of these daring anti-establishment deeds she has performed?
 
148Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 22:35 		She killed the sweatheart natural gas pipeline deal worked out between the former governor and the three big oil companies up there. The deal would have included a 40 year tax honeymoon period bonus for the oil companies and the deal included the state putting up billions of dollars to build the pipeline.

She was so incensed she ran for office, kicked out the former governor and worked out a deal that only required half a billion in public funds and less or no tax holliday.

That's the off the top of my head version. You can look it up.

She definately threw a wrench in the politico/oil company revolving door where pols get rewarded for screwing the Alaskans out of their resource profits while the pols retire on oil company perks .
 
149Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 22:40 		And no we didn't 'learn her killing the bridge to nowhere story was bunk'. I heard it on the radio from a congressman who spearheaded the congressional killing of that deal. He said they had it killed in the house and they were moving to kill it in the senate when she pulled the plug from the state financing side.

You can cynically dream up a scenario where she only jumped on the 'kill the bridge' bandwagon when it's defeat was inevitible but you aren't the one who gets dedicated prosecutors pawing thru your dumpster and interviewing your enemies for dirt just for having crossed the old bulls of the party.
 
150Seattle Zen
      ID: 8748191
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 23:27

The mayor of Ketchikan himself said she spoke out in favor of the bridge while campaigning for Gov. less than two years ago. She most certainly did not kill it. Take credit for a victory when you were behind the defeat, hmm, she's got a little Karl Rove in her as well...
 
151Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 23:45 		#149: The Wall Street Journal digs through the dumpster on the Bridge to Nowhere, which is apparently where Palin tosses the truth.

Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government "thanks but no thanks" to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state.

The McCain campaign released a television advertisement1 Monday morning titled "Original Mavericks." The narrator of the 30-second spot boasts about the pair: "He fights pork-barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."

Gov. Palin, who John McCain named as his running mate less than two weeks ago, quickly adopted a stump line bragging about her opposition to the pork-barrel project Sen. McCain routinely decries.

But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.

"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge," Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, "and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." The bridge would have linked Ketchikan to the airport on Gravina Island. Travelers from Ketchikan (pop. 7,500) now rely on ferries.

A year ago, the governor issued a press release2 that the money for the project was being "redirected."

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," she said. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Gov Palin, in redirecting the money rather than giving it back, gives the clearest answer yet on why she wasn't spending the money on the Bridge: Congress wasn't going to give her more money for it. Rather than stand up against pork, she kept the pork for her own projects while decrying that Congress cut off the tap "despite the work of our congressional delegation" in getting the poster child for pork in the first place.

pd
 
152biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Sep 08, 2008, 23:48 		Palin’s Oil & Gas Appointee Is Former Lobbyist for TransCanada. “Marty Rutherford, who leads Gov. Sarah Palin’s gas pipeline team, made $40,200 in 2003 while consulting in Juneau for a pipeline subsidiary of TransCanada. TransCanada is one of the companies bidding for a state license to build a pipeline to carry gas to market from Alaska’s North Slope. It’s not a disqualifier, but the past connection deserves a second thought.” [Anchorage Daily News editorial, 12/15/07]

Palin “Counting on Her Lieutenant Governor Candidate… Former Oil Lobbyist” to Help Win Oil Industry Support. “The defiantly grass-roots nature of the campaign may have distanced her from certain traditional centers of power in Alaska. The oil industry is one -- but the campaign says it is counting on her lieutenant governor candidate, Parnell, a former oil lobbyist and legislator, to help there.” [Anchorage Daily News, 10/24/06]

Palin’s Former Chief of Staff is Stevens’ Campaign Manager. “Monegan says pressure came from those around Palin, including former Palin chief-of-staff Mike Tibbles, Department of Administration Commissioner Annette Kreitzer, and director of boards and commissions Frank Bailey. Tibbles, who is now the campaign manager for Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, said Friday he couldn't comment on whether he spoke to Monegan about Wooten.” [Anchorage Daily, 7/19/08]

As Mayor, Palin Hired a Washington Lobbyist to Help Get Earmarks for Wasilla – Lobbyist Was Former Chief of Staff for Indicted Senator Ted Stevens. “And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste and lobbying documents. Wasilla's lobbying firm was headed by Steven Silver — a former chief of staff to Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, a key proponent of the bridge project.” [USA Today, 8/31/08]

The Usual Alaska Suspects - Ted Stevens, Don Young, And Lisa Murkowski Fundraised For Palin. “Will we see Ted Stevens stumping for Sarah Palin? Palin said this morning that Stevens appeared at a fund-raiser for her in Ketchikan and gave a speech about ‘moving Alaska forward.’ But does that mean he’ll pop up in any advertisements? (Remember his arguably pivotal role at the end of the Knowles and Murkowski Senate race?) Palin said she doubts it and hasn’t asked… She said Don Young came to one of her fund-raisers two days ago, and she expects Lisa Murkowski at an upcoming event. Tonight she planned to talk with John Binkley, who she says is writing a letter to his supporters on her behalf, and she planned to meet with Frank Murkowski tomorrow morning.” [“The Trail” blog, Anchorage Daily News, 10/13/06]

In Her 2002 Campaign for Lieutenant Governor, Palin Raised ‘About 10 Percent Of Her Campaign Fund’ From Veco, An Oil Company At the Heart of Federal Investigation. “While mayor of Wasilla, Palin ran for lieutenant governor in 2002. She gathered $5,000 -- or about 10 percent of her campaign fund -- from Veco officials or their wives along the way.” [Anchorage Daily News, 9/6/06]

She's no reformer.
 
153Tree
      ID: 5785095
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 06:53 		But she's hawt, so per Baldwin, she does no wrong. It's the dreaded Coultar syndrome from which he is burdened.
 
154Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 09:11 		SZ

The mayor of Ketchikan himself said she spoke out in favor of the bridge while campaigning for Gov. less than two years ago.

Yes, before you actually decide to 'commit political suicide' by bucking the old bulls of the party...you take the safer path until you can work up the courage or political capitol. She actually was non-committal on exactly how big that project should be from the start.

She most certainly did not kill it.

Yeah, she actually did kill it.

Huffington, no friend of conservatives, confirms this.
 
155Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 09:15 		She did certainly kill it. When it became clear it was going to roll over her. Nice courage there, Ms Palin.

But she kept the money.
 
156Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 09:52 		Bili, good grief, tell the whole story.

Palin’s Oil & Gas Appointee Is Former Lobbyist for TransCanada. “Marty Rutherford, who leads Gov. Sarah Palin’s gas pipeline team, made $40,200 in 2003 while consulting in Juneau for a pipeline subsidiary of TransCanada. TransCanada is one of the companies bidding for a state license to build a pipeline to carry gas to market from Alaska’s North Slope. It’s not a disqualifier, but the past connection deserves a second thought.” [Anchorage Daily News editorial, 12/15/07]

Murkowski, her predecesor hammered out a corrupt sweatheart deal with 3 oil companies, namely BP, ConcoPhillips, and ExxonMobil, that would have cost the state 40 years of oil company tax revenues and over 4 billion in state funds to build it.

Murkowski's deal was a corrupt backroom deal. Palin's Trans-Canada deal was an open bidding deal only costing the state half a billion up front and without the tax givaway for the next fourty years.

Rutherford was one of the six Alaska officials who resigned over the firing of state natural resources commissioner Irwin, for criticizing Murkowski's terrible deal. So what if he went to work in the private sector pushing a MUCH better deal for Alaska? Good for him. Every state official should be that responsible. BTW I believe one of her first acts as governor was to restore Irwin to his post in charge of Alaska natural resources.
Earlier this year, she attempted to revoke Exxon's license to the Point Thomson oil-and-gas field, one of the largest undeveloped fields in the U.S., for failing to develop it quickly enough. The company hasn't drilled a well there since 1982.

On Thursday, Exxon said it has brought in equipment and was preparing to drill a well this winter. An Exxon spokeswoman declined to comment when asked if Gov. Palin deserved any credit for accelerating development.

Gov. Palin showed an independent streak in the first weeks of her term by appointing Tom Irwin to be the natural resources commissioner. Mr. Irwin was fired in 2005 after he wrote a memo saying Gov. Murkowski was going too easy on oil companies in earlier pipeline negotiations. Six top staff members resigned in protest, an incident called the "Thursday Afternoon Massacre."

"She is not pro- or con-big companies," says Mr. Irwin. "Gov. Palin didn't submit to the force and control of the large companies. She forced [them] into a fair, open competitive process."

Mr. Irwin says he has been impressed with Gov. Palin's integrity since 2004. She resigned from her job as chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in protest against Randy Ruedrich, a fellow commissioner and state Republican Party chairman.

"She was unsettled and unhappy that he was conducting party business on state time," says Joe Balash, Gov. Palin's special assistant. Mr. Reudrich was later fined $12,000 for violating state ethics laws - WSJ

 
157Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 10:00 		PD

It wasn't going to roll over her. All she had to do was let the national congress kill the deal. Instead she killed it herself and thus further incurred the wrath of the power elite in her own party who could and did send out earnest prosecutors to dig up any scandal they could blow up on her.

sidebar:

You would think that uncorruptible principled prosecutors would be the natural enemy of the corrupt power elite. Au contrere! I learned just the opposite is true by watching how it works in Illinois. Illinois had a great principled prosecutor by the name of Fitzgerald. The corrupt power elite just sic such a man on their own enemies, put on the popcorn, make reservations at the inquisition, and watch the good men fight the other good men.

 
158Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 10:05 		Baldwin's dream comes true...

Sarah Palin Dolls

20 bucks says he's already purchased this one:
 
159Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 10:25 		All she had to do was let the national congress kill the deal.

If that had happened she would have lost all that money, Baldwin.

She reluctantly killed it (by her own admission at the time) then kept the money for in-state pork projects.

I realize that McCain has made this a cornerstone of his support for Palin but they've gone far overboard in describing what happened, to the point where the L word seems appropriate.
 
160Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 11:00 		You completely lose me there, PD. Feel free to expound on the exact mechanics of that legislation. BTW asking Republican governors to return already allocated federal transportation dollars is a pretty high bar. If you want to claim it was wasted somewhere else then prove it. Any Dem governors meeting that standard?
 
161Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 11:18 		Wonder how Obama, Biden, and McCain voted on the "Bridge to Nowhere"?

Anyone wanna guess?

I'm guessing it was consistent with their repsective votes on the Porkorama Farm Bill
 
162DWetzel at work
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 11:50 		Bridge to Nowhere votes, courtesy some link from Google
 
163Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 11:50 		Ah, the old "when backed into a corner, try to find Dems to compare it to" trick. Home run, eh Baldwin?

MBJ: The Bridge to Nowhere was an earmark, not a separate piece of legislation so there was no vote on it. McCain has been pretty clearly against earmarks in particular, which makes her selection of Sarah Palin kinda strange--her ability to hire lobbyists and game the system for her constituents makes her the Earmark Queen.

Nothing illegal (or unethical) about it, IMO. But when you are running on a platform to eliminate earmarks, you probably want to avoid someone who crowed about how much earmark money she was getting.

[If I recall correctly, Sen Stevens threatened to quit if Congress took back the BtN funds rather than divert them to Katrina rebuilding. Seemed to be a fine, but missed, opportunity to kill two birds with one stone...]
 
164Perm Dude
      ID: 20815719
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 11:54 		Nice find, DW! Wish I had the time to break out the committee bill (which has no earmarks) from the final bill.

MBJ: I think you and I share a disdain for the Farm Bill. I think this is a huge waste of money that Obama strongly supports while McCain doesn't. I haven't heard McCain hit Obama on it, however. Seems like a real opportunity for the GOP on that piece of legislation.
 
165Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 11:57 		No one knows how much, but the Treasury has signed contracts to invest up to $100 billion in each company. Oh, and loan them money too. Oh, and buy their mortgage-backed securities. Do you really want to argue that she made a mistake by saying the two companies are "too big and too expensive to the taxpayers"?

Give her time, and a few one-on-one interviews. I'm certain she's as capable of the other three of a real screwup. This is not it.
Peter Viles - LA TImes
 
166Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 12:00 		I'm guessing McCain won't hammer Obama on it for the same reason Obama voted for it - political expediency. Like I said at the time - so much for "new politics"

Obama and Biden voted for the Bridge twice. McCain bravely abstained, though, as PD, noted, he was vocall against earmarks in general and the Bridge in particular.
 
167Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 16:08 		Ah, the old "when backed into a corner, try to find Dems to compare it to" trick. Home run, eh Baldwin? - PD

Ah, the old, 'when it's Dems complaining never let them mention the rafter in our own eye' trick.

Looking for the perfect man in human politics is futile, thus a sense of proportionality is required to even talk about them with a straight face.

For perfect leaders turn your attention to God's messianic kingdom just around the [great tribulation] corner.
 
168Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 16:09 		Proportionality requiring a fair weighing and comparison. If you had a sense of fair play it wouldn't bother you so much.
 
169Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 16:14 		For perfect leaders turn your attention to God's messianic kingdom just around the [great tribulation] corner.

sounds really dull. i'll pass.
 
170Perm Dude
      ID: 35816915
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 16:16 		In a thread on Sarah Palin, when backed into a corner you want to talk about Democrats, and blame Palin's errors on being less than perfect.

You're not even very good at this apologist thingy. You might admit she's not perfect, but fear (and refuse) to bring up any examples of this being the case.

As Palin is shown to be more and more "authentic" (using Gingrich's term), her suitability for this "potential President" job will be shown to be less and less true.

I'm not knocking Palin for not being perfect. I'm knocking her for lying and abusing her power. It's called "accountability" and "vetting."
 
171Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 18:17 		Now, this is a gaffe

Actually, it's a example of Biden being pretty smooth and classy after a goof.
 
172Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 18:24 		"You can tell I'm new," Biden.

That's funny.
 
173Perm Dude
      ID: 1821917
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 18:40 		Wow, very good comeback. I'd probably have just turned around and walked out the door after saying something like that.
 
174Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 18:47 		Yeah, that one has no legs but knowing Biden we can expect a steady stream of moments that would sink a Republican.
 
175Perm Dude
      ID: 1821917
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 18:59 		If the lies don't sink Palin, nothing like a gaffe like this would.

You don't play victimology very well, B.
 
176Tree
      ID: 5287918
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 19:16 		Baldwin. you're ridiculous. absolutely, and astonishinglu, ridiculous.

never mind your cruel pun - intended or not - that gaffe wouldn't sink anyone. (man. i really hope that pun was totally unintentional.)

one of my closest friends is in a wheelchair, and i can't tell you the number of times i've said something like "hey man, you wanna get out of here for a few and walk around?"

and he'll look at me, bemused, and say "pal, you know i'd love nothing more than to walk around. i'll have to settle for rolling over people who won't get out of my way..."

to a lot of people in chairs - especially those that put themselves in the spotlight like my friend does - they're used to it, and they simply don't care.
 
177katietx
      ID: 201411622
      Tue, Sep 09, 2008, 22:36 		Once again I'll ask Boldwin the question....

"Aren't you supposed to stay out of politics?"

While I can support your right of free speech, your continued postings in the political arena simply make me question your true belief in the religion you practice.

Sorry to call you out on this one again, my friend, but you have time and time again said you are required to stay out of the political arena. Yes?
 
178Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 03:41 		Katie, I'm really not trying to get McCain elected. I don't even like him.

I am however drawn like a fly to crap by the howling stupidity of the left.

It's just too funny to leave it uncommented upon.

Here's hoping it doesn't get me killed in the end.
 
179Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 04:17 		Katie, further thots:

As always I wonder why a freemason always has to dog me on these boards.

If you don't believe me and think I am really trying to get someone elected consider this...

My favorite site WorldNetDaily has a campaign called 'None of the Above' trying to get people to not vote for either choice A or choice B.

The guy I like most in the race is Bob Barr and you haven't seen me touting him anywhere lately.
 
180katietx
      ID: 201411622
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 05:21 		As always I wonder why a freemason always has to dog me on these boards.

Hmmm, I know you aren't referring to me...are you? I do not belong to the Masonic Lodge. Sorry to disappoint you.
 
181Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 05:54 		So where do they send the women?
 
182Tree
      ID: 14840105
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 06:43 		heh. good stuff. this is fun.

welcome back Katie.
 
183Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 08:59 		Earlier this year, she attempted to revoke Exxon's license to the Point Thomson oil-and-gas field, one of the largest undeveloped fields in the U.S., for failing to develop it quickly enough. The company hasn't drilled a well there since 1982. - from the link in #156

Ironic that Palin supports one of the Democrats' main positions, either produce on current leases or lose them. As for giving Palin credit for this lease revocation, the
court case precedes her taking office as governor.

The state has been wrestling with Exxon over Point Thomson for years — at least four governors have contemplated evicting the Irving, Texas-based company and its partners for failing to develop the field despite Exxon holding some leases for decades. In late 2006, the state finally signaled it had lost patience with Exxon, and began the process of taking back the unit after years of approving nearly two dozen development plans that were unfulfilled.

The unit was terminated in late 2006, a decision later upheld by the state Superior Court. However, Judge Sharon Gleason remanded the decision to the department to give Exxon and its partners an opportunity to suggest an alternative remedy for their failure to develop.

The pipeline deal is intrinsically connected to the development of Point Thompson, or is it?

The director of the state Division of Oil and Gas said last week, in commenting on the administration’s findings in favor of a pipeline proposal by TransCanada, that gas from Point Thomson “will not be available when the pipeline starts up.”

The administration doesn’t see that as a problem.

But for years prior to that statement, Alaskans, their legislators and even their governor and candidates for governor had been led to believe that gas from Point Thomson is essential for the North Slope pipeline to proceed. The Point Thomson Unit, as it is called, contains the second-largest amount of gas reserves on the North Slope. Only Prudhoe Bay is larger.

No Point Thomson, no pipeline. That is the clear message we have all heard and been told.

Legislators need to ask the governor and her people to explain this dramatic change in view. They need to ask their own experts, in and out of the Legislature, to explain it. And they need to ask if the administration is withholding approval of a Point Thomson development plan as leverage to force the oil companies to provide gas to TransCanada’s pipeline. Remember that without a firm commitment of gas, TransCanada won’t be able to get financing for its project.

I don't fault Palin for her positions or her actions in any of these complicated manueverings. She appears to have the best interests of her Alaskan constituents at heart. However, this charge to give her credit for things which are neither signed nor solved, and where her actions could possibly lead to years of delay in both the Point Thomson and the pipeline projects, is an example of her supporters willing to suspend reality in order to sing her praises.
 
184Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 09:06 		things that scare me about Sarah Palin...

the Alaskan Pipeline is "God's Will":


the War in Iraq is "God's Plan":
 
185walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 09:34 		I am less scared about Palin than about the reaction of many Americans that such views resonate and make them passionate about her being a leader. UGH.
 
186Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 10:39 		tree - Something in your ears? She's didn't say that the " War in Iraq is "God's Plan":". Why don't you use her words and not your paranoid misinterpretation. She said "we have to pray that there is a plan and that it's God's plan"...in other words we have to request that our actions are in accordance with the Lord's will.

Back to the smear factory. Why don't you get the fake list of books she was supposed to have banned (she never asked for a single "book to be banned") or how 'bout claim that she's for abstinence only sex ed (100% false) or maybe just claim that she's Elevis' love child.
 
187Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 10:56 		MBJ - she's pretty clearly referring to the war in iraq as God's plan. or, in your words, the Lord's will. it's completely unacceptable for her to do that.

Why don't you get the fake list of books she was supposed to have banned (she never asked for a single "book to be banned")

i'm not a republican. i don't come up with fraudulent lists, whether they be reasons to go to war, or banned books list.

there's a reason you haven't seen the false list posted here - because it's false. Snopes has even shown it to be false. again, that's the domain of the right...

in fact, when SZ posted the article about this back in post 14,, it was VERY clear that there was no list, nor specifics: Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.

so, you tell me. who's smearing here? you, or those of us that have refrained from posting a false list, and instead posting EXACTLY what happened - that the town librarian was approached by Palin about the possibility of banning some books.

how 'bout claim that she's for abstinence only sex ed (100% false)

as cited from numerous sources, including this one...:

Palin backed abstinence-only education during her 2006 gubernatorial race. In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire, Palin gave this response to the following question:

Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

MBJ - up until the last few days, you've been one of the posters here who leans right, yet kept your wits about you. but in the past few days, you seem to be going off the deep end, subscribing to total falsehoods from the righty blogosphere, and even succumbing to accusing those who post here of things that simply never happened.

what gives?
 
188Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 11:05 		tree - here's the quote: “they should pray ‘that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.’”

It's your choice how you want to purpoely misquote and obtusely miscomprehend it.
 
189Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 11:09 		On sex Ed - you should get in touch with the abstinece only people who are upset with her for her pro-condom education stance

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau.

But just keep smearing, iif that works for you.

The confusion you have with me lately is that BS from whatever source gets to me - you seem to like the smell depending on who's feeding it too you.
 
190Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 11:11 		RE: 188 - I occurs to me that my priest prays, essentially that same prayer every mass: "Let us pray that our leaders lead us in the way that is right" etc.
 
191Perm Dude
      ID: 35855107
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 11:17 		Still looking for Sarah-only references...

 
192Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 11:29 		MBJ - thanks for that link. it's more updated than the link i had, and it's refreshing to see that she changed, although if she were Obama, McCain's camp would accuse her of flip-flopping.

seriously though, what's with the hostility all of a sudden? instead of being a jack ass and making all sorts of accusations about the left, do things like provide the link that you did so we can have accurate and up to date information.

you're the one being confrontational. i provided a much quoted answer Palin used in a questionaire.

you provided more up-to-date words from her, and it makes her less scary in her eye.

but really, try to be less of an attack dog. there's no reason.

her words bear repeating - "I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau.

 
193Perm Dude
      ID: 35855107
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 12:15 		Joy Harjo (Native writer & musician) on Sarah Palin
 
194boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 16:10 		PD how did you find that article?
 
195Perm Dude
      ID: 35855107
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 16:17 		I don't know where the original is (it reads like a cut n paste on the blog, doesn't it?). But I know Joy Harjo and ran across it there on her blog.

I should have titled it a little differently, since Joy didn't write it.

I'll drop her a note and see if it has appeared elsewhere on the web.
 
196Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 16:41 		Keepin' classy in South Carolina

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate " whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”
 
197Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 17:12 		Hilllary supporter - "Hmmm...I haven't had an abortion...could I be a Palin gal"?
 
198DWetzel at work
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 17:20 		I don't see the big deal. Biden hasn't had one either, so, push, right?

Seriously though--someone needs to buy Carol Fowler some chloroform.
 
199Perm Dude
      ID: 35855107
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 17:32 		South Carolina always seems to have these wackos. Is that the state where Bush's cronies started a whisper campaign against McCain in 2000 that he had a black baby?

Really over the top by Fowler, though, and very harmful to her own candidate.
 
200Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 18:05 		From PD's #193..

In both hunting and fishing matters, Palin has continued uninterrupted the policies
initiated by the former Governor Frank Murkowski Administration, challenging hunting and
fishing protections that Native people depend upon for their subsistence way of life in order to
enhance sport fishing and hunting opportunities. Palin’s lawsuits are a direct attack on the core
way of life of Native Tribes in rural Alaska.

And so much for her ethical pro-life position, as she vigorously supports

aerial killing of wolves and bears so there can be more killing for fun.

In early 2007, Palin's administration approved an initiative to pay a $150 bounty to hunters who killed a wolf from an airplane in certain areas, hacked off the left foreleg, and brought in the appendage. Ruling that the Palin administration didn't have the authority to offer payments, a state judge quickly put a halt to them but not to the shooting of wolves from aircraft.

Detractors consider the airborne shootings a savage business, conducted under the euphemism "predator control." The airplanes appear in the winter, so the wolves show up like targets in a video game, sprinting across the white canvas below. Critics believe the practice violates the ethics of hunting, while supporters say the process is not hunting at all, but a deliberate cull.

Palin has argued that she is worried about Alaska's hunters, locked in perennial competition with the canine carnivores for the state's prodigious ungulate population. A hunter herself, Palin has battled critics of aerial wolf hunting with the support of the Alaska Outdoor Council, a powerhouse advocacy and lobbying organization for hunting, fishing and recreation groups. In addition to so-called urban hunters, who shoot moose mostly for fun, Alaska is home to a significant number of subsistence hunters, including some of the Native population. Subsistence hunters rely on an occasional moose to make ends meet. The wolves, Palin has said, are stealing food from their tables.

In 2007, she approved $400,000 to educate the public about the ecological success of shooting wolves and bears from the air. Some of the money went to create a pamphlet distributed in local newspapers, three weeks before the public was to vote on an initiative that would have curtailed aerial killing of wolves by private citizens. "The timing of the state's propaganda on wolf control was terrible," wrote the Anchorage Daily News on its editorial page.

"Across the board, Sarah Palin puts on a masquerade, claiming she is using sound management and science," says Nick Jans, an Alaskan writer who co-sponsored the initiative. "In reality she uses ideology and ignores science when it is in her way." The initiative was defeated last month.

Gordon Haber is a wildlife scientist who has studied wolves in Alaska for 43 years. "On wildlife-related issues, whether it is polar bears or predator controls, she has shown no inclination to be objective," he says of Palin. "I cannot find credible scientific data to support their arguments," he adds about the state's rationale for gunning down wolves. "In most cases, there is evidence to the contrary."

Last year, 172 scientists signed a letter to Palin, expressing concern about the lack of science behind the state's wolf-killing operation. According to the scientists, state officials set population objectives for moose and caribou based on "unattainable, unsustainable historically high populations." As a result, the "inadequately designed predator control programs" threatened the long-term health of both the ungulate and wolf populations. The scientists concluded with a plea to Palin to consider the conservation of wolves and bears "on an equal basis with the goal of producing more ungulates for hunters."

Sarah Palin would have us believe that every human embryo is precious and sacred, but the left foreleg of a wolf is worth $150. She would have us believe that her God is OK with the wanton slaughter of wolves and bears so that rich, lazy hunters from the lower 48 will have an better chance at killing one of God's creations...for recreation. Then she has the balls to call someone else an elitist. What a fraud.

 
201Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 19:05 		Are you under the impression that the anti-abortion people are anti-hunting?

There is a huge divide between saying every human life is sacred' and 'every life is sacred'.

There is a huge difference between 'culling the herd' when you are talking about deer in Starved Rock State Park in Illinois because their protected selves have nearly killed off every wildflower in the park...

...and 'culling the herd' when it's George Soros spending a hundred million promoting the culling of the human herd.
 
202Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 19:45 		and 'culling the herd' when it's George Soros spending a hundred million promoting the culling of the human herd.

Wow, talk about complete and utter nonsense.

Are you under the impression that the anti-abortion people are anti-hunting?

No, are you under the impression that killing wolves and bears from aircraft is hunting?

There is a huge divide between saying every human life is sacred' and 'every life is sacred'.

There's a huge divide between a fertilized human egg or stem cell and a majestic mature wolf or bear whose very existence is constantly threatened due to the expansion of man on this planet.

There is a huge difference between 'culling the herd' when you are talking about deer in Starved Rock State Park in Illinois because their protected selves have nearly killed off every wildflower in the park...

Well, duh! After man has killed off all of the deer's natural predators, what do think is going to happen to the deer population? Predator control=Playing God. Nice to know that your God is down with deleting species off the face of the Earth so man can have his adrenalin rush of killing something.

And what happened to Sarah Palin, the great reformer? She not only accepted the policies of Murkowski's aerial murder campaign, she expanded it, to the everlasting glee of the recreational hunting lobby.
 
203Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 21:36 		Amazing...shooting wolves is murder to you and abortion isn't.
 
204Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Wed, Sep 10, 2008, 23:18
FYI..

World human population - 6 billion and increasing

World wolf population - less than 200,000 and decreasing

Where in the world, if not the still relatively wild and sparsely populated state of Alaska, do the wolves get to claim as their domain, free from the threat of extermination?
 
205Perm Dude
      ID: 35855107
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 01:30 		Millions of Americans apparently agree: It is unfair to ask if Palin's experience makes her qualified for the job she's seeking

Leave the little lady alone!
 
206Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 02:26 		PV

Even more amazing...you defend abortion as logical and maintain wolf killing is immoral.

Do you even know whether Alaska wolf population numbers aren't at all time highs?
 
207Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 03:15 		What's amazing is that you can bear false witness while maintaining a professed committment to the 10 commandments.

Nowhere did I defend abortion, logically or otherwise.

My population figures relate to the ever increasing loss of wildlife habitat due to the encroachment of human population.

Your cynicism has devolved into simple dishonesty.
 
208Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 04:03 		We were discussing 1) abortion, 2) wolf culling.

You come back with 1) human population figures, 2) wolf population figures...

And somehow I am being dishonest to assume we are talking about the same things?
 
209Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 06:03 		Returning hero.

Just offered for the flavoring.
 
210Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 06:08 		After being called dishonest about twenty times in the past two days when I know perfectly well I didn't harbor the slightest intention of lying, it becomes clear to me that the dishonst left doesn't even understand the concept of honesty.
 
211Tree
      ID: 37847115
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 06:51 		or, maybe, it should become clear to you that you're dishonest.

funny to see you classify PV, who is probably among the most moderate posters here, part of the "dishonst left"...

congrats PV - you've made the bigtime now.
 
212Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 08:40 		We were discussing 1) abortion, 2) wolf culling.

I wasn't discussing abortion, nor was I defending it as you erroneously claimed in an attempt to distract from the issue I did present.

You not very adroitly turned the issue of aerial hunting of wolves and bears into an attack on my personal moral compass, not once but twice.

Amazing...shooting wolves is murder to you and abortion isn't.

Even more amazing...you defend abortion as logical and maintain wolf killing is immoral.

How about you respond to issue of Palin's position on predator control and aerial hunting of wolves and bears, an issue that is and has been at the forefront of Alaska wildlife issues for decades?

How about you respond to Palin's support from the hunting lobby, and her claims that wolves are stealing food from Native Alaskan tables, when Native Alaskans are claiming it's Palin's support for recreational hunting(mostly out-of-staters), not wolves, that is the reason for the decline in substinence hunting opportunities?

If you want to start a thread about the real Pancho Villa, I'd be more than happy to contribute.
 
213Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 09:08 		And so much for her ethical pro-life position, as she vigorously supports

If you ctrl-f that phrase you will find...surprise!...PV brought up the subject of abortion or tried to tie wolf-culling to the pro-life position.

No it's not some devious effort on my part at distraction...you yourself tried to disparrage her pro-life creds by linking wolf-culling to the pro-life movement as if the two were incompatible.

What could be a more apt response on my part but to actually discuss why there is no inconsistancy in her position and in fact a disturbing disconnect between your own aparent concern for the lives of wolves and lack of concern for the actual object of the pro-life movement you brought up into the discussion.
 
214Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 09:11 		How about you respond to issue of Palin's position on predator control and aerial hunting of wolves and bears, an issue that is and has been at the forefront of Alaska wildlife issues for decades?


Wolves and bears aren't endangered. Hunting and the second amendment are.
 
215Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 09:14 		PV - haven't you learned. Baldwin won't stay on topic, because if he does, he'd have to acknowledge he's wrong.

btw, i was sent an email this morning regarding the educational backgrounds of Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin. haven't researched whether it's true or not, but it is certainly entertaining and enlightening.

Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)


McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899

Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism
 
216Perm Dude
      ID: 3845118
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 09:45 		Shhhh. When the Right finds out she's an elitist journalist (a degree! in Journalism!!) they'll kick her to the side of the road.
 
217Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 10:21 		man, it took me two universities to get my degree. it took her...five...wow.
 
218Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 10:42 		My wife attended:

Eastern Kentucky University
University of Louisville
Loyola University - (in Venezuela)
Universidad Ibero-americana(Mexico City)
George Washington University

before graduating with honors from William & Mary.

That's six. What's your point, exactly.

PV- Seiously - you try to mock someone's pro-life stance and then forget that you wer discussing abortion? Try to keep up, man.
 
219Perm Dude
      ID: 3845118
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 10:54 		She was obviously just killing time until she knew you were enrolled there, MBJ. Can hardly knock her for that.

:)
 
220Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 10:54 		you wife isn't running for VP. :o)
 
221Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 11:19 		PV brought up the subject of abortion or tried to tie wolf-culling to the pro-life position.

That's only because to you(and Palin) the term pro-life only applies to unborn humans. Is there some copyright infringement involved here? Anyone who puts a bounty of $150 for a wolf's foreleg deserves to have their pro-life creds disparraged, since the objective is wholesale slaughter, not wolf-culling, which would indicate a need for thinning a herd. Wolves were hunted into extinction in the lower 48 and most of Europe and Asia. Yet you make the unbelievably ignorant statement that Wolves and bears aren't endangered. Hunting and the second amendment are.

You may notice that the word life appears prominently in the extended wildlife. So yes, I find it impossible to hang the pro-life handle on someone who is so obviously set on the extermination of a species. I also wonder what kind of intelligent designer would design an animal only to have man wipe it off the face of the Earth.
 
222Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 11:27 		PV - You mean to say that you didn't realize that the term "pro-life" has a commonly understood connotation? Please.

Does this mean all pro-lifers are hypocrits unless they are Rastafarians, or, at the least, vegetarians?

I guess pro-choicers should have their "cred disparaged" if there exsists any choice on any topic that they wouldn't go along with, right?

Sometimes you are the King of the Non-Tangent.
 
223Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 11:32 		God forbid a mother cockroach slips into your house. The ethical dilema might just do you in before the diseases set in.

And yes it was culling, that she proposed. To hear you tell it she was ready to napalm ANWR.
 
224Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 11:36 		So yes, I find it impossible to hang the pro-life handle on someone who is so obviously set on the extermination of a species. I also wonder what kind of intelligent designer would design an animal only to have man wipe it off the face of the Earth.

Are bears or wolves in Alaska under any real danger of being "exterminated"? Are their numbers even in danger? My understanding of the aerial hunts was that they were warranted because the wolves were culling too many moose. (So it would seem some creatures' lives were being saved or traded or pro-longed for future development or whatever)

I also thought the reintroduction of wolves into the lower 48 was done by moving Alaskan and Canadian wolves....surely not if they, too, are on the brink of extermination, as you say. BTW, are you against this forced detention and diaspora of wolves from their Northern Homeland to the South. Isn't this, too a crisis on the level of the Trail of Tears. How can anyone credibly argue against the one and support the other. Hypocrits all.
 
225Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 11:38 		Seek therapy before you read this, PV.

Or maybe you'll just put the lawnmower up on E-bay, I dunno.
 
226Perm Dude
      ID: 3845118
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 11:40 		A little extreme, Baldwin?

Or is that redundant?
 
227Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 11:46 		As Rush says, you gotta highlight the ridiculous argument of your opponent by taking their argument all the way to it's ridiculous end.
 
228Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 11:47 		alternate response:

Tell it to the Swiss.
 
229Perm Dude
      ID: 3845118
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 12:03 		you gotta highlight the ridiculous argument of your opponent by taking their argument all the way to it's ridiculous end.

Except that this is not logical at all. I realize that crazy stuff like "logic" and "evidence" and "truth" are as slippery as you want it to be, but if you are going to put on the trappings of an argument you should try to make sure you know what all the words mean.
 
230Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 12:36 		PD

The pro-life movement is the anti-abortion and the anti-euthanasia movement. It is the proposition that human life is intrinsically valuable and sacred. Putting animals on the same level as human life is not the pro-life movement.

Stewardship is not the same thing as putting human life on an equal footing with animal and plant life.
 
231Perm Dude
      ID: 3845118
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 13:07 		And it isn't the same thing as saying that cruelty to animals is the same as not mowing your lawn. You made a petty argument there.

 
232Boldwin
      ID: 34845818
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 13:45 		I wasn't discussing cruelty to animals nor has any sane person accused Palin of that.
 
233Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 13:56 		I wasn't discussing cruelty to animals nor has any sane person accused Palin of that.

well, when it comes to the trails you choose to blaze, why is sanity relevant?

i mean, you're all about Obama not being a US Citizen, and no sane person would think he wasn't. heck, for all we know, Palin tortures puppies in fetish videos, because, well, you can't prove she doesn't.
 
234tastethewaste
      ID: 12847618
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 14:55 		dont forget obama wants to teach our 5 year olds to have sex and then wants them to abort the baby. right POS?
 
235Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 15:04 		he also wants your white women.
 
236Perm Dude
      ID: 3845118
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 15:59
 
237Boldwin
      ID: 358331116
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 17:39 		Nooooo, you guys are too smart to fall for thaaaat.
 
238Perm Dude
      ID: 3845118
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 17:51 		It isn't about falling for anything. It's about the dishonorable things people do to try to make it happen.

Your gal Sarah is lying on the stump (these aren't even "gotchas" These are things that were written ahead of time for her), who often has done the exact opposite of what she says she did. That's OK though: She shares your "values."
 
239Boldwin
      ID: 358331116
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 17:59 		Just remember when you spend two months discussing Palin, that you fell into the pitfall eyes wide-open.
 
240Boldwin
      ID: 358331116
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 18:32 		I really should drop out of this forum until after the election. Think you guys can keep it interesting without me?
 
241Boldwin
      ID: 358331116
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 18:33 		I had meant to drop out just as the conventions began but they got interesting.
 
242Boldwin
      ID: 358331116
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 20:06 		Your gal Sarah is lying on the stump - PD

Yeah, she's been using sentences with periods at the end which is all you need to sling that charge. Happy sputtering, PD. See you in the 'not flat' thread maybe.
 
243Madman
      ID: 7538321
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 21:33 		Tree -- "man, it took me two universities to get my degree. it took her...five...wow." I only count 4, you leave off the 5th?

You disturbed about Obama refusing to release his Columbia records?

PD -- "Your gal Sarah is lying on the stump..." Oy vey.
 
244Perm Dude
      ID: 3845118
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 23:33 		She's not, you say?

And why, exactly, should Obama release his undergrad transcipt? Isn't it typical that the media digs these out?
 
245Boldwin
      ID: 358331116
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 23:46 		What is needed...
Clearly, not enough is being done to debunk the myths that the press is spreading, and these debunkings are not being spread widely enough if the staff of ABC hasn’t learned that what they are saying is not true.

Again, rather than relying on competence and fairness to solve the problem, newsrooms need to be integrated politically.

Political segregation and lack of ideological diversity just doesn’t work, no matter how careful or how fair a newsroom tries to be. And this time, I am struggling to believe ABC was even trying to be fair. - The Volokh Conspiracy
 
246Perm Dude
      ID: 3845118
      Thu, Sep 11, 2008, 23:51 		Heh. The Palin handlers handpicked Gibson. Now they (and you) are whining that it wasn't a homerun?

Reality about Palin will hit you very hard. So hard you'll almost certainly blame anyone you can except yourself.
 
247Perm Dude
      ID: 3845118
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 01:12 		An earlier Volokh post, in which he not only makes the case for creationism being a valid reason not to vote for a candidate (due to the fact that creationists often have to reject scientific rules of evidence evaluation to reach the conclusions they do), but admits to catching himself in a contradiction on the issue based upon his support for Palin.

Money quote:

Studies show that people are more likely to reject or minimize negative information about candidates they favor than those they oppose

Post
 
248nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 5047110
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 06:29

Palin during her first interview with ABC...

"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Thursday that Georgia and Ukraine should be admitted to NATO and that the U.S. should be prepared to go to war if Russia invades Georgia again."

Are you flipping kidding me? Go to war over Russia for invading Georgia after Georgia attacked Russian citizens.

I mean just the phrase "the U.S. should be prepared to go to war if Russia invades Georgia again." should give everyone extreme pause here.

Unbelievable.

Let's see how fast they try to stop her from making insane statements like that.

Of course Baldwin you must like it since it will get us closer to Armageddon?

 
249Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 07:15 		Hmmmm...I wonder what Obama and Biden think about admitting Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, a mutual security organization....
 
250Boldwin
      ID: 358331116
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 08:07 		Nerve

That wouldn't be armageddon.

Armageddon is that state of affairs when satan has...
Psams 2:2 The kings of earth take their stand
And high officials themselves have massed together as one
Against Jehovah and against his anointed one
When you see the world united against Jehovah and Jesus, and these united nations feel emboldened to make a worldwide threat to the lives of God's people, that is armageddon, which leads directly and immediately into 'The Great Day of Jehovah', vindication for God's reputation, salvation for his people, and a restoration of the paradise lost in the beginning of the Bible.

Jehovah is not really concerned with the squables between nations nor does he have any special relationship with the USA. If Palin did or didn't engage Russia, it would have no bearing on armageddon.
 
251Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 09:15 		Wolverines!!!!

presenting everything Sarah Palin knows about Foreign Policy, and the great Red Menace.

 
252Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 11:13 		PD ... "She's not, you say?" I'm not sure which items you think rise to that level. The closest I've seen is the Bridge to Nowhere, but even on that topic, Democrats described her as "killing" it, which is basically what she's been repeating on the stump. If you call her a liar, you're calling Alaskan Dems liars, too.

"And why, exactly, should Obama release his undergrad transcipt? Isn't it typical that the media digs these out?" I thought these were private; the media doesn't get access unless the candidate wants them to get access. I personally do NOT want him to release them; waste of time. However, I was trying to help Tree weigh the evidence; as someone who thinks that Palin's 4 university stops are relevant he presumably also thinks that information on Obama's stops would be relevant, too.
 
253Perm Dude
      ID: 25857128
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 11:26 		Well, I think it is clear that she has lied about the Bridge to Nowhere (despite some unnamed Democratic Alaskans stating otherwise--the truth doesn't change even if some people pipe in in error). There are other areas as well. Anyone who deliberately and consistently spreads and untruth is a liar. I won't give her a pass because others are repeating the lie.

Neither would you. If Obama makes up something and spreads it around (particularly after it has been pointed out as being wrong), he would still be lying even if some Republicans chime in on it.
 
254Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 11:59 		Unnamed Dems? just one source ... Regardless, the simple fact is that she stopped the project. It's a bit odd to call someone a liar for saying what they did do. Now, I understand that there is a lie of omission here, in that the funding had already been reduced, etc., and that she had originally supported it. But that doesn't change where she ended up, and those sorts of "lies" are extremely common from all candidates trying to establish or defend their brand in a simple and understandable way.

Nerve 248 -- I can't find that quote or anything to that effect in this transcript ... seems like a very straightforward (a) Georgia should be allowed in NATO -- a position all 4 candidates advocate, and (b) if in NATO, the section on article 5 will continue to be relevant. Notice also that she didn't agree with Gibson that war would be required. She said "perhaps" and paraphrased our would-be treaty obligation that we would be required to render "help".

Seems like very standard boilerplate, although articulated bluntly in a beauty-queenesque fashion. And yes, that was sexist. But it just felt like that to me.
 
255Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 12:12 		Did Charlie Gibson misquote Pailin on purpose or is he just comprehension chalenged?

Outrageously, in his interview Gibson claimed that Sarah Palin had called the Iraq War “a task . . . from God.”

No she didn’t. She prayed that it was a task from God. As I said a few days ago:


I find it hard to believe that Anderson Cooper [and now, Charlie Gibson] does not understand the difference between praying for something you hope is true and stating that it is true.

Is praying for peace throughout the world the same as saying that there is peace throughout the world?

If I had prayed for the press to be fair to Sarah Palin that would not be the same as stating that the press is being fair to Sarah Palin.

Here was the exchange between Palin and Gibson tonight:



GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. . . .

GIBSON: But you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

No, Charlie, she prayed that that was true.

The more I look at this, the more it looks intentional. How could Gibson and the staff have blown both quotes (not just one as Anderson Cooper did on CNN)?

Clearly, not enough is being done to debunk the myths that the press is spreading, and these debunkings are not being spread widely enough if the staff of ABC hasn’t learned that what they are saying is not true.

Again, rather than relying on competence and fairness to solve the problem, newsrooms need to be integrated politically.

Political segregation and lack of ideological diversity just doesn’t work, no matter how careful or how fair a newsroom tries to be. And this time, I am struggling to believe ABC was even trying to be fair.

Here was most of my earlier post, which includes a transcript of Palin's actual remarks in her former church:



DID PALIN ACTUALLY SAY THAT IRAQ IS "A TASK . . . FROM GOD"?

While searching for CNN's story on Troopergate, I came across a surprising statement of Palin's quoted by Anderson Cooper: that the war in Iraq was "a task that is from God":


[Palin] also talked to church members about “being saved” at the Assembly of God and suggested to them that the war in Iraq is a mission from God. Palin said, “our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Wow! CNN caught Palin saying on tape that Iraq was a task from God. Ouch!

But then I listended to the clip. Palin actually said:


“Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Trask] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” . . .


I'm an atheist, but I'm not so old or out of touch that I don't know that Palin was doing what Christians often do: praying that what the country was doing was God's will. It's not strange for a Christian to hope that what you want to do or think is right is indeed God's will. . . .

 
256Perm Dude
      ID: 25857128
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 12:39 		Baldwin posted that in #245, MBJ. I thought Volokh has a good point in that, but David Kuo, who has pretty solid evangelical cred, hits back pretty hard on something I noticed right away: Her wimpiness about the whole "God's will" thing, which seemed to be at the heart of her church talk but which, during the interview she seemed to decribe as some unknowable thing.

I don't really see any problem with her original talk: Asking that actions such as going to Iraq be done with God's will in mind is not only common, but expected from a Christian. But her efforts to explain this makes it even worse, IMO, despite Volokh's efforts to play gotcha with Gibson.

Meanwhile, Palin on Georgia & Ukraine's NATO membership. Despite several weeks of cramming, I dunno if Palin is ready yet.
 
257Perm Dude
      ID: 25857128
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 12:40 		BTW, I've not come up with any reference that Biden or Obama refers to Gov Palin as just "Sarah." Sounds like an urban legend generating some fake outrage to me. If you, or your wife, has a particular reference I'd be happy to hear it.
 
258Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 12:49 		PD - My post, as other posters alluded too, was about him calling her Sarah instead of Governor (as in the quote I posted). (He doesn't call Rev. Wright Jerimiah, you know) Other posters have noted that Obama, McCain and Biden call each other with using Sen. Maybe they're right, that not using Governor in front of Sarah, when talking about someone he doesn't know personally is done without ill intent, but it sticks in the crawl of a well-mannered Southern lady Democrat that I'm married to, particularly when Obama perists in referring to her as a small town mayor.

On Gibson, I don't know what you mean by his "efforts to play gotcha". He "got him". Gibson absolutely and inexcusably misquoted her.
 
259Perm Dude
      ID: 25857128
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 12:52 		Right. But that wasn't the point I was making (nor the point that Volokh should have seen). Palin wasn't led into her religious change through a misquote (deliberate or not) by Gibson.

Sure, Volokh was successful at the gotcha. But the larger point remains unexplored, as though the question is now closed.
 
260Perm Dude
      ID: 25857128
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 12:54 		I'm not clear--which post of yours demonstrated the Sarah-only reference?
 
261Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 13:14 		PD 256 -- I don't understand the Georgia/Ukraine issue yet. To repeat, here's the exchange Palin:

"GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO."

Seems like a straightforward statement of what she would support. She wasn't asked whether she was arguing to circumvent the admission process, nor when it should happen. She just said she'd support their inclusion, something all 4 candidates (Obama, McCain, Biden, Palin) apparently agree on. For better or worse.

On Kuo and her interview questions ... Kuo makes a false assertion: that she was "thinking about Lincoln" *when* she made those comments originally.

Her interview answer about the religion question was, in my opinion, remarkably strong. Specifically, she correctly pointed out to her interviewer that she had been misquoted. The interviewer then mistakenly denied that. Undeterred, she then argued, again correctly, that her comments were mainstream by saying that they repeated thoughts Lincoln himself had. That was by far her best exchange of the interview, and quite good in an absolute sense, as well.

Lastly, in defense of Gibson, Obama's had to answer interview questions where the interview makes factual inaccuracies. That's part of the game today with journalism as crappy as it is. It also happens more often with TV "journalists", and Palin picked Gibson.

Gibson did it at least twice to Palin -- misquoting her and then mis-stating the Bush Doctrine. She did well in the first instance, and not so well the second. But anytime the interviewer pretends that he's sharing a referenced fact but is instead lying or misquoting accidentally, it is very tough on the interviewee.
 
262Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 13:30 		Madman
mis-stating the Bush Doctrine

Gibson:
The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
You disagree with this?
 
263Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 13:57 		MITH -- yes, I disagree with that.

Gibson's question, and Palin's response, reflect a much more innocuous, pre 9/11, view of international relations. Not as isolationist and passive as "they must attack you first", but much more inline with international norms, pre 9/11. You couldn't justify the invasion of Iraq, for example, based on Gibson's statement or even, probably, Palin's response. The invasion of Iraq was based on the presumption that if we waited until they got nukes it would be too late, whether they were planning to attack us in the short-run or not.

Dunno. Feel free to dig through the forums. I recall quite a bit of parsing about what is imminent or not, especially with WMD's. There is a high likelihood that I'm wrong/misremembering. There's quite a bit of confusion about the 2002 BD, mostly because it failed so spectacularly and then morphed into the 2004 BD, both of which have morphed into "we're just plain tired of thinking about it" doctrine that we're headed to now. And don't forget the first 2001 BD which was that nations that harbor terrorists should be treated as terrorists. In fact, the failure of Bush to maintain a clear definition of the BD suggests to me that referencing it as such is itself an error. A Doctrine has to be clear and supported over time. We all know what the Monroe Doctrine was/is. It's just 6 years later, and you can get into all sorts of debates about what the BD is or isn't.

Ideally, Palin would have caught Gibson's error/oversimplification ... or shown command of some nuance of the subject. She did not. On the other hand, the question was a minefield (support any part of the BD and that's political death ... attack any part of the BD and your base's excitement goes argh ...) and she escaped with her limbs intact. So I can't be too critical. Pretending ignorance may have been the best strategy, since it keeps her distance from Bush. And how many of the remaining potential swing voters know much of the Bush Doctrine other than it must suck? To be honest, I mentally froze on the question myself in live-time ... only after doing a bit of Google and thinking about it would I have come anywhere close to being a deer capable of getting across the road before the semi smashed me. Of course, our problem as interview analysts is that we don't know if her ignorance was feigned or real.
 
264Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 14:10 		I agree that Bush has shifted his foreign policy philosophy over the course of his two terms. However, I believe the term, "Bush doctrine" has continued to refer rather specifically to his policy of pre-emption. I dug up a few of your old quotes in which you used the term. Decide for yourself whether some or all align with Gibson's definition.

Madman 10/6/03: How to implement the timing for the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption before threats become imminent *is* a complex issue.

Madman 7/16/03: The case for war against Iraq was clear -- to stop nuclear proliferation. The way you do that is to engage in the Bush Doctrine -- attack BEFORE they arm themselves, not after.

Madman 3/18/04: the Bush Doctrine is for preventive action in the face of dire unknowns. Take a threat that you believe to be the most pressing, and deal with it, even if it isn't likely to strike immediately.
 
265Perm Dude
      ID: 25857128
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 14:27 		This isn't about what the Doctrine is or whether Gibson stated it correctly or not. This is about Palin's understanding of foreign policy.

Gibson: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

Palin had a chance to go several ways here:

-Correct Gibson's interpretation of the Bush Doctrine

-Accept the interpretation and say why she disagrees with the Doctrine

-Accept the interpretation and say why she agrees with it.

She did none of these. As one might expect for someone without a deep understanding of foreign policy in general.

The interview isn't about Gibson. It was about Palin. And she failed to articulate a foreign policy vision vis a vis the Bush Doctrine, which has been the guiding policy for 6 years in this country.
 
266Boldwin
      ID: 358331116
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 14:34 		As one might expect for someone without a deep understanding of foreign policy in general.

Madman admitted he couldn't have answered that without deep thot and research. Do you believe Madman has a deep understanding of policy?
 
267Perm Dude
      ID: 25857128
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 14:40 		I believe Madman, if given two weeks of intensive prep, could name (and spell) every nation's capital if asked. Of course, he has an interest in foreign policy to start.

The Bush Doctrine has been the policy of the US for 6 years now. She should have smacked that question around like a softball. And, given how her handlers feel toward the media in general, she should have put down Gibson for mistating it as she did it.
 
268Boldwin
      ID: 358331116
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 14:48 		I don't know how the public rated her answer to that but I felt she knocked Gibson around pretty good with the Lincoln response to the 'God's will' attempt at a gotcha by Gibson.

I'm tempted to give Gibson a mulligan. He is in the impossible position of dodging right complaints of bias and left complaints of being in the tank for her, so I won't go overboard putting question marks behind everything he did.
 
269walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 14:56 		Yeah, she was overly prepped and yet underprepared...cos she's not qualified. However, that's sorta obvious and does not need to be harped on. I'd not give Palin any further attention if I were Obama (for sure) and even the liberal bloggers, for Obama and the Dems, ought to be focusing more on McCain's policies and campaign tactics. I mean, it seems now like the liberal bloggers are obsessed with Palin (ratings, ad revenue driving this coverage of course) and are digging in every spot to find her mis-steps and radical beliefs. I don't really need any further data -- she's not qualified, and it gives me more pause to trust McCain's judgment, and that's it. Got it. Move on. Time to focus on McCain vs. Obama. The differences are stark and more in line with what got Obama noticed and nominated.
 
270Perm Dude
      ID: 25857128
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 15:05 		McCain on The View: Palin never received any earmark money as governor. Even that carefully parsed response ["Not as governor she didn't."] doesn't work

"I think she will fit in really well in Washington D.C. because she is already used to saying one thing and doing another," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a key adviser to Sen. Barack Obama and one of the only Democrats who refuses to ask for earmarks.
 
271Perm Dude
      ID: 25857128
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 15:16 		Apparently the Gibson interview was too tough. Next up (and not until next week): Sean Hannity gets to pitch batting practice for Palin.

Will the devolve into just her kids asking her questions?
 
272Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 15:29 		Pretty funny for MCCaskill to lay into someone who actually has taken measures to cut back on earmarks, while supporting Obama and Biden, two of the worst earmark abusers in Congress.

But it seems that Obama & Co. are convinced that it is to their advantage to make this election about Palin and the VP office instead of Obama and the Presidency.
 
273Perm Dude
      ID: 25857128
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 15:33 		McCaskill doesn't do earmarks at all, from what I understand (like McCain). She's in pretty good shape, then, to criticize someone who does take earmarks but claims not to.

McCain selected Palin, not Obama. I don't think you can blame the Dems for questioning the qualifications of the pick. Next step will be tying this all back to McCain.
 
274Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 15:39 		Right PD, I understand why Obama would want to use McCaskil as his surrogate on this issue - he stinks on earmarks. What I don't get is:

a. Why he wants to draw more attention to the earmark issue, on which he and Biden are losers and McCain is a winner. and

b. Why he continues to think making this election about Palin is a good idea.

It really seems like his campaign strategy has gone all to hell since the DNC.
 
275Perm Dude
      ID: 25857128
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 15:43 		I agree, on both counts. Politically I think this is short sighted.

I guess that they see Palin as McCain's strength right now, and I'm guessing that they hope to take her out quickly, then get back on message with just McCain. As before they know that they can take on McCain alone and win.

Hard to tell, though. So much of what is going on isn't really from the campaign, but other Dems (and Lefties) chipping in.
 
276nerveclinic
      ID: 408441214
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 15:44

MM You couldn't justify the invasion of Iraq, for example, based on Gibson's statement or even, probably, Palin's response. The invasion of Iraq was based on the presumption that if we waited until they got nukes it would be too late

Assuming you believe the Skull and Bonesman's song and dance?

Can I sell you some swamp land?

How about %244.00 a gallon gas?

Halliburton stock?

Give me a break that you say it with a straight face at this point MM.

If that is your argument we cannot debate in the real world.

What a joke.

I mean are you going to walk into this forum and try to hold an intellectual debate, that the reason we invaded Iraq is because we believed they were close to having Nukes?

Is this a sorority debate?







 
277walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 16:07 		#274 & 275, agreed. I think Obama's campaign thought if they could knock down Palin, McCain would be down for the count. The strategy backfired and is now out of control as the media will not stop focusing on Palin -- partly because of her historic nomination, partly because of her story, partly because of her public speaking, and partly because the Dems prior focus on her.

Obama has clearly switched gears today, with a McCain-focused speech. I think they should ignore Palin and if asked, talk about the policies she supports that are not resonant of change. Obama has gone back to the theme of change today and that is where he should stick. I really liked this hypothetical Clintonia advice from Politico today:

Hypothetical Advice from Bill to Obama
 
278nerveclinic
      ID: 228251215
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 16:25
Post 276 wrote 4 dollar a gallon gas. Something fried in wires between Dubai and the land of the Free

 
279Boldwin
      ID: 588371215
      Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 16:52 		Obama's best strategy at this time would be to remind McCain's base how much they don't like McCain.

Maybe a Carville could figure out how to do that at this point. Nothing comes to my mind. Focusing on Palin sure won't do it.
 
280Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sat, Sep 13, 2008, 21:19 		Since Ann Coulter is such a big fan of the National Enquirer, can we expect to see her applauding their newest target?
 
281bibA
      ID: 5580818
      Sat, Sep 13, 2008, 22:16 		From details in the article, one might believe that Track would be a good candidate to become at least an intern for Rush.
 
282Boldwin
      ID: 58151319
      Sun, Sep 14, 2008, 03:49 		Typical Democrat household. I expect we'll be hearing about a Palin Democrat like we used to hear about a Reagan Democrat. And will it estrange her from the base McCain needs? Where they gonna go?
 
283Boldwin
      ID: 58151319
      Sun, Sep 14, 2008, 03:58 		Don't stop there...make these your next talking points and see if everyone believes it.
 
284Boldwin
      ID: 58151319
      Sun, Sep 14, 2008, 04:01 		The North Viet Nam prison guards were the good guys and USA guards are sadistic thugs. Sounds like a winner. Rush that out to Obama.
 
285Boldwin
      ID: 58151319
      Sun, Sep 14, 2008, 04:42 		ROTFL, from the leftwing TIMESonline
Obama’s adviser said the attacks had misfired. “At the end of the day, women are sick of men running everything. They’re thinking, ‘Enough already.’ It has nothing to do with what she stands for. Our mistake was thinking women had nowhere else to go.” ...

Palinmania has washed away Obama’s polling leads in several swing states that he had been counting on to win.

A clutch of polls last week showed McCain ahead by five points in Missouri, four in Ohio, four in Virginia and eight in Florida. New Mexico and N e v a d a , t w o t o p O b a m a targets, recorded narrow leads for McCain. Other states that had appeared to be comfortably in the Democratic camp now look precarious. In blue-collar New Jersey, Obama’s lead has shrunk to three points; in latte-sipping Washing-ton, it is down to two.

He is still narrowly ahead in Colorado and Michigan, where Palin has been campaigning energetically, but the ground is shifting beneath his feet.

The Obama campaign expects support for Palin to subside. ...

However, there is little time for voter disillusion to set in. Palin’s working-class, Wal-Mart-mom appeal and moving life story are insulating her from attack.

Her decision to raise Trig, a Down’s syndrome baby, and support for her pregnant 17-year-old daughter Bristol have been widely praised.

At a rally attended by 23,000 supporters in Fairfax, Virginia, last week, Jayne Young, 57, a registered independent, said: “My heart goes out to her family. I liked what she said about being ‘just an average American family’. You can be one of those übermoms and on your kids 100% of the time and they still go off the rails.”

Katherine Hoppe, 65, was wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the slogan “Another Democrat for McCain”. She worked as a volunteer at Hillary Clinton’s headquarters in Ballston, Virginia, and was present at her concession speech to Obama.

“I felt horrible,” she said. “When McCain announced that he had picked Palin, I went crazy. When you’re my age and Hillary’s, you want to give to the next generation. Hillary did that. She gave us Sarah.”

Clinton is said by friends to be “gutted” that she put 18m cracks in the glass ceiling for women only to have Palin kick in the pane. But she is thought to share Palin’s conviction that the media are treating the Alaskan governor unfairly.

Mark Penn, Clinton’s former chief strategist, said: “The media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they’re not doing on the other candidates. People are going to conclude that they’re giving her a rougher time.
 
286Boldwin
      ID: 58151319
      Sun, Sep 14, 2008, 04:53 		Only for the videos...
 
287nerveclinic
      ID: 1847146
      Sun, Sep 14, 2008, 07:47

Baldwin

From your post and support for her pregnant 17-year-old daughter Bristol have been widely praised.

Can't you agree that if Palin were a Democrat the Right Wing contingent would be screaming about promiscuity, under age sex, decline of moral values, improper parenting etc.?

 
288Boldwin
      ID: 58151319
      Sun, Sep 14, 2008, 10:07 		I think they'd be rather subdued about getting hooked on Oxicontin.
 
289Boldwin
      ID: 58151319
      Sun, Sep 14, 2008, 10:10 		Besides if it had been Dems, there wouldn't have been any tiny survivors to talk about.
 
290sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Sep 14, 2008, 10:27 		Haven't we seen enough of this in the past 7 1/2 years?


Palin hired friends and hit critics....

Ok, its natural to hire 'friends' to a degree, but coupled with the vengeance with which she went after her ex-brother-n-law and then HIS supervisor when he wouldnt follow suit? Doesnt this trend disturb you just a little?
 
291Tree
      ID: 41858149
      Sun, Sep 14, 2008, 11:13 		Only for the videos...

it's scary, but it's true. there are lots of people who will vote for Bush III/Palin just because they perceive her as hot...

Besides if it had been Dems,

typical non-sequiter response from you.

but enough about things that don't matter. we touched on it briefly, but the fact that Palin would support going to war against Russia is something so huge and scary, that i can't believe people are shying away from it.

Russia is no iraq. we go to war with russia, and that, my friends, is the whole shootin' match...
 
292walk
      ID: 22854919
      Sun, Sep 14, 2008, 12:41 		Palin Coverage in NYT

Yeah Sarge33rd, prolly the same story. This alleged cronyism does not feel good. The more I read/hear about Palin, and I am not trying hard to seek out this info (too much coverage, IMO), the more she reminds me of Bush. Ugh.
 
293walk
      ID: 22854919
      Sun, Sep 14, 2008, 16:14 		Maureen Dowd on Palin
 
294Madman
      ID: 7538321
      Sun, Sep 14, 2008, 21:54 		Tree 291 -- Read the transcript, or watch her interview. She was very careful to *not* say what you claim she is saying ... she only repeated the article 5 responsibilities of any NATO member under the hypothetical that Georgia obtained NATO membership (as supported by all candidates in this election). Knowledge of our potential treaty obligations is a good thing, not a bad one.
 
295Perm Dude
      ID: 108291412
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 00:07 		Palin overheard bitch-slaping Tina Fey

Going after a parody is a no-win situation for Palin. She should probably be careful about commenting out loud in the future.
 
296Perm Dude
      ID: 108291412
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 00:36 		A travel resume walkback?

Iraq trip? Well, I got to the border, anyway. And that Ireland trip was a fuel stop.
 
297Tree
      ID: 18858155
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 07:03 		i hope Obama really does learn to back off Palin, because she's going to do a fine job of burying her MILFy self.

but she is oh so dreamy, so really, what other qualifications does she need?
 
298Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 16:36 		more flat out lies from Palin...

Campaigning on her own, the Alaska governor also said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama "wants to raise income taxes and raise payroll taxes and raise investment income taxes and raise business taxes and raise the death tax.

"But John McCain and I know that's not the way you grow the economy," she added.

In fact, independent groups such as the Tax Policy Center have concluded that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.
 
299Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 16:51 		It's not that Palin is under qualified; it's that she is hilariously under qualified that makes this so rich. She's somewhere between Mike Brown and Hariett Miers in that regards.

I agree, though, that Obama's best bet is to let the press do the work on Palin and to keep hammering away on McCain.
 
300Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 17:05 		Tree 298 -- Both her statements AND the tax policy analysis are true. The primarily difference is the applicable population.

The last I saw, teh Tax Policy Center also purposefully excluded Obama's payroll tax proposals because they deemed them too vague to evaluate properly.

Lastly, good economists would also point out that the burden of government over time is a function of spending more than taxation. Tax cuts today coupled with increases in spending lead to tax increases tomorrow. The tax policy analysis is only meant as a short-run snapshot, not a measure of the effective burden of government.
 
301Perm Dude
      ID: 458531512
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 17:29 		The last I saw, teh Tax Policy Center also purposefully excluded Obama's payroll tax proposals because they deemed them too vague to evaluate properly.

What they say is that Obama proposes additional taxes on those making more than $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples) which were not specified.

TPC's most updated report
 
302Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 17:54 		According to the Tax Policy Center report linked by PD, Obama's tax plan would lower taxes $3.9 trillion over 10 years while McCain's would hit us for $7 trillion.

Palin did not say "Obama will raise ___ taxes for the rich", she said "he wants to raise ___ taxes", which is simply wrong. His tax plan cuts taxes by trillions. Your defense of Palin is typical.

I won't call Palin a liar because she is simply reading what is given her, but those who wrote it certainly know it is a lie.
 
303Tree
      ID: 08561517
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 21:12 		Palin won't meet with 'Troopergate' investigator

where have i heard this before? more of the same...
 
304WiddleAvi
      ID: 323531619
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 22:03 		I am sure someone here is knowledgable enough to answer this. I looked at the Tax document linked above but it is way above me. I have a small business as does a friend of mine. Both our businesses have gross income between 200-500k. How will both candidates tax policies affect our companies ?
 
305Perm Dude
      ID: 458531512
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 23:05 		What type of company? LLC, dba, something else?

Except for waiving almost all capital gains taxes for small businesses, I'm not aware that Obama's plan does very much either way. As an employee of your own small business you'll do better if you make under $200K/year, however.

I can dig a bit further though.
 
306Perm Dude
      ID: 418111522
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 23:11 		Here's Obama's Small Business issue sheet (PDF). Not very specific. I'll dig around a bit.

John McCain's web site just crashed my browser. Twice. Hmmm.
 
307WiddleAvi
      ID: 323531619
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 23:14 		My Friends Business is an LLC. Mine is Corporation.
 
308Perm Dude
      ID: 418111522
      Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 23:29 		If you are a subchapter S Corp I believe you pay taxes as an individual rather than a regular corporation, right?

In both cases it is net income (after business deductions, etc) rather than gross which would really be the determinant. If you are paying taxes as an individual (whether a single taxpayer or as a couple filing jointly), you've have to be in the top two tax brackets to see any increase under the Obama plan.

Assuming the plan is enacted as proposed (always a leap of faith!) you are likely to see a slight decrease in your taxes if you are making under $200K filing single ($250K filing married). And if your taxable income is less than $150K you will also get a $500/$1000 tax credit.

I haven't yet looked in-depth at McCain's plan with regard to small businesses, but this FactCheck article on some overstated McCain ads might be worth a look regarding Obama's plan.

I just read through a McCain speech which looked promising from a small business standpoint, but was disappointed to find no details at all on what McCain would do, and some distortions of Obama's plan as filler.
 
309Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 09:58 		McCain's Small Business fact sheet to juxtapose with the Obama one PD linked to.

We could go through point by point, but I'm not sure that's really meaningful as anything other than a policy-wonk parlor game.

Instead, I think it's more reasonable to look at the context and see what might get enacted. If McCain gets elected, I doubt the Democratic Congress is going to let him get by with much of anything in terms of his tax policies, especially the lower corporate tax, maintaining the current marginal tax brackets for all income brackets, and the higher ceiling on estate taxes. There will be a standoff and I have no idea how it will turnout.

If Obama gets elected, I also have no idea how it will turn out, but the playing field will obviously be different. Democrats in Congress seem much more willing to pass tax increases than what is in candidate Obama's plan. Will Democrats in Congress live within the revenue targets of Obama's plan? Or will they instead go down the path they have been travelling (2009 budget resolution revenue target), which suggests increasing taxes on all those earning more than 30K?

And in both situations, recognize that the fiscal situation of the government is awful. Both because the economy is tanking but also because of the huge mess that's become of the appropriation and budgeting process. I estimate a FY2009 deficit of more than $500b, maybe even $600b before all is said and done. That's a 20-30% revenue shortfall at the same time the Feds are putting some real crap on their balance sheets. With Social Security and Medicare increases beginning to batter us annually.

Lastly, the one area where I think you will get a substantive divergence is healthcare policy. Obama tends to mandate coverages (for your children and for your employees if your firm gets to have 10 employees or so), offer an optional national plan with rich benefits and high premiums, and also alleviates health insurance companies of bearing the risk for multi-day hospital stays (which, in turn, will lower your premiums, although I wonder what it will do to hospital contracting and medical care delivery in the long-run). McCain tends to want to open up the competition across state borders and equalize the tax treatment across individuals and corp's (eliminate the corp deduction, give all individuals a progressively scaled tax credit). Honestly, I think both plans mostly suck and miss the types of reforms that could actually help small businesses (portability between individual and group coverage, risk-pooling mechanisms to keep premiums stable and low, etc.). I lean McCain here not because I think his plan will work but because it is reversible in case it doesn't.
 
310Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 10:06 		Aargh. I just write a long post and then see a new article on a related subject ... sigh ... Op-ed in favor of Obama's HC plan ... what's notable here is the discussion of "pooling" ... without getting into the nitty-gritty details, this looks like a serious revision to his HC plan ... moving more toward the plans healthwonks are familiar with in the Enzi plan or the Durbin SHOP plan ... he wants to create these giant pools of people.

This works if you restrict whether people can join or leave the pools. It doesn't work if they have choice. Pretty much that simple. Developing ...
 
311Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 16:18 		GOP lawmakers sue to stop Palin investigation

Five Republican state lawmakers filed suit Tuesday to end the bipartisan investigation into Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of the public safety commissioner even though the vice presidential candidate once said she welcomed the probe into allegations of abuse of power.

mhmmmmm....so much for ethics reform...
 
312Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 21:53
 
313Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 00:21 		BTW neither the trooper nor the supervisor fired are making a federal case out of this. Unlike the Clinton's Troopergate.
 
314walk
      ID: 6845166
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 06:20 		NYT, Dowd: Alaska Travels on Palin

Interesting...a smattering of Dowdian observations while touring Alaska.
 
315Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 12:27

LMAO. I hope Tina Fey will occasionally show up on SNL to do the Governor even after they lose the election. There is just so much material.
 
316Perm Dude
      ID: 3084178
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 16:43 		Palin's email addresses hacked.

No joke.

This is the kind of thing that will end up with a backlash, no doubt about it. And while the Obama campaign almost certainly had nothing to do with this, they will end up paying the price. Idiots.
 
317DWetzel at work
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 16:47 		Is it wrong that the first thing I thought was "Damn, and McCain already has the 'can't use a computer' cover set up"?

 
318Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 22:31 		I wonder if that is covered under secret service responsibilities.
 
319J-Bar
      ID: 348351812
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 22:44 		PD #112 Current state by state polling (at ElectoralVote.com) shows Obama up 301 EVs to 224 EVs with Virginia (13 EVs) tied.

I noticed that you haven't given this link lately.
updated
Obama 243 McCain 274 Ties 21
 
320Perm Dude
      ID: 228261817
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 23:11 		State by state polling is still extemely tight in many of the states. My lack of linking to that site is mostly to due with merely putting the link out there once as an antidote to the stupid national "horserace" polling results which tend to dominate.

The interesting things about the state-by-state polling are how tight many of the states are that should be solid red are barely in the red (or are within the margin of error). NV, VA, OH, IN, etc. And that 166 EVs are within the margin of error.

This is why the projections have swung so much. In fact, Just one week ago the race was looking much different because of the polling within the states was still reflecting McCain's post-convention bounce.

What I'm seeing in other polls is that in many of those tied states are starting to inch back toward Obama. And that Sarah Palin is increasingly becoming a non-factor.
 
321J-Bar
      ID: 348351812
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 23:38 		hmmm let me see if i get this right

9/8 301 to 224 13 tied
9/11 273 to 238 27 tied
9/18 243 to 273 21 tied

and the bounce is over and Obama is on his way back, nice interpretation of the numbers.
 
322Perm Dude
      ID: 228261817
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 23:49 		You're not looking at the numbers. You're only looking at the summary. You didn't even see that 166 EVs are tied or within the margin of error. Or maybe you only post polls when you think they are of benefit and otherwise try to hide from them.

Polling within the margin of error are ties.

From the site:

Today's Polls

We have 38 presidential polls today due to a large number of new ARG polls. The results are given below. The upshot is that John McCain has taken the lead in the electoral college 274 to 243. However, there are three large caveats. First, 13 states worth, 166 electoral votes, are statistical ties. If we look only at the states where one of the candidate's has a lead of 5% or more, Obama has 188 EVs to McCain's 184. In other words, it is very close (again this year). Second, McCain has not taken a single Kerry state from Obama while Obama has taken two states from those Bush won in 2004 (Iowa and New Mexico). Pennsylvania is currently a tie. Third, all these polls were taken before the meltdown on Wall St. Polls taken a week from now could look quite different.
 
323Perm Dude
      ID: 228261817
      Fri, Sep 19, 2008, 10:57 		538 has been doing computer projection modeling, and some Electorial College mapping

The race is tight, but the macro sense here is that Obama has stopped McCain's convention bounce and has some momentum in a number of states. My own belief is that McCain's bounce was entirely due to Sarah Palin being put onto the ticket, which energized the base. Now that the glamour is off the numbers are coming down for McCain.

First debate is in a week. I project that McCain will continue a very slow drop until then, and we'll see if he can turn it around by going head-to-head with Obama in that first debate.
 
324Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Fri, Sep 19, 2008, 11:55 		538 is an awesome site. Although I think this election's analysis isn't that complicated.

* Whoever wins two of the following three will win: NV, NM, CO.

McCain's offense in MI and PA is doomed to fall just short. Ditto with WI and MN. IA is out of reach.

Obama might win VA or OH, but if he does, he'll win two of the three I mentioned above and also hold the Kerry/Edwards states plus IA. Which means that VA and OH aren't critical for him.

I think both campaigns realize how critical NV,NM,CO are, which is why there has been the bitterness and downright thuggery going on on Spanish-language TV out there.

Just my two cents; putting it in writing. National polls can go +/- 2 points without changing the basic electoral college map. And there is still the chance of a strong Obama win (my previously predicted 53-47 ish). Don't think there's a chance for a strong McCain win.
 
325Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Fri, Sep 19, 2008, 18:04 		I haven't digested that whole argument yet so I'm not discounting the conclusion here, but I think PA is by no meas out of reach for McCain. If his campaign can't pull a win there out of Obama's SF comments his advisors choked bigtime.
 
326Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Fri, Sep 19, 2008, 23:08 		My betting site has a line on some of these states, and they are as follows:

Penn
R +200
D -300

OHIO
R -170
D +130

NEVADA
R -160
D 120

NM
R +120
D -160

IOWA
R +225
D -350

FLA
R -290
D +215

COL
R -115
D -125

NATIONAL
R +110
D -150

The spread or the vig is rediculous.

I would place the accuracy of voting in this order:

1. Actual voting results with a paper trail
2. Betting sites where real bets are being made
3. Poll results
4. Actual voting results via electronic voting machines i.e. Diebold
 
327Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Sat, Sep 20, 2008, 14:08 		I would place the accuracy of voting in this order:

1. Actual voting results with a paper trail
2. Betting sites where real bets are being made
3. Poll results
4. Actual voting results via electronic voting machines i.e. Diebold

Amen.
 
328Perm Dude
      ID: 49822228
      Mon, Sep 22, 2008, 12:12 		Maybe they'll make them use small words only.
 
329Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Tue, Sep 23, 2008, 20:41 		Imagine if Palin had said this:

Part of what a leader does is to instill confidence, is demonstrate that he or she knows what they're talking about, and communicates to people, if you listen to me, and follow what I'm suggesting, we can fix this. When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television, and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed, he said, look, here's what happened. - Joe Biden with Katie Couric

We'd hear no end of what a dunce she was for having such a piss poor knowledge of history......
 
330Perm Dude
      ID: 49822228
      Tue, Sep 23, 2008, 20:48 		I haven't heard squat about her history knowledge. What I have heard is about her fibs, her power fights, Troopergate, and the attempts to keep her shielded from the Press.

That said, I've heard that Biden was a bit of an idiot. As I've said before, there is a good reason he didn't go very far in the primary.
 
331Boldwin
      ID: 548152320
      Tue, Sep 23, 2008, 23:19 		MBJ

But you will never get a concession that the media has two sets of rules.

How is that less significant than Dan Quail's potatoe? No I have no idea if I spelled it right nor do I care.
 
332Perm Dude
      ID: 49822228
      Tue, Sep 23, 2008, 23:33 		Well, how about giving the media access and we'll see what we've got with Palin. No?
 
333Boldwin
      ID: 548152320
      Tue, Sep 23, 2008, 23:41 		If Barrack can boycott Fox, I'd say tit for tat was in order.
 
334biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Sep 23, 2008, 23:53 		Did you somehow miss the 4 interviews he gave O'Reilly? I would have thought you would have been rapt.
 
335Perm Dude
      ID: 49822228
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 00:18 		Even if Obama was boycotting GOP-TV (which he isn't anymore--as bili notes Bill O'Reilly had a very long interview with him), is this reason why there have been no press conferences, no print or online media interviews, no questions taken at staged events, only two TV interviews (one with Hannity--hardly an "interview"), no open question and answers with voters even, and an attempt to ban the media completely from her UN trip?
 
336walk
      ID: 5289245
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 06:14 		tit for tat? As PD details, it's not even close the lack of media access to Palin (and now McCain). There's been a complete shutdown of media access to Palin and McCain's campaign is alleging media favoritism. Schmidt is trying to ensure that the campaign is about culture and identity and not about issues and policies. I think Obama and Biden are better people anyway, but this heavy decline in media access to very senior candidates to office is pretty unprecedented, and should set off red flags to a lot of semi to fully intelligent voters who are on the fence.

Politico
 
337Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 08:41 		I don't think it will, walk. People have already decided whether or not they like Palin without knowing a whole lot about her. Maybe being anti-Democrat is all you need to gain popularity on the Right. Bring back Bob Dole!
 
338walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 09:31 		I know, Razor. Just wishful thinking, but I retain hope for the undecideds that they will ponder the leadership capabilities of McCain and the awfully conservative and naive views of his running mate. I think Maureen Dowd's column sorta got at that. Most folks have made up their minds, based on either real or not-so-important issues, but you cannot tell them how to vote.

NYT, Dowd: Diplomacy Cram
 
339Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 09:56 		If Barrack can boycott Fox, I'd say tit for tat was in order.

wow. Baldwin, that's really offensive. just because she's a woman doesn't mean you can call her "tit"...
 
340Boldwin
      ID: 548152320
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 10:07 		Always here to elevate the discussion, aren't you?
 
341Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 10:48 		but this heavy decline in media access to very senior candidates to office is pretty unprecedented,

No, this very thing happened in the Governor Recall election in CA when Arnold ran. Check out, How Arnold Won the West, and you'll see how a Republican with great mass appeal and no political experience/skill can smile and wave their way through a campaign without having to answer a single tough question.
 
342Perm Dude
      ID: 23829248
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 10:51 		The Onion, as usual, is all over this
 
343Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 11:42 		no Baldwin, it was a joke referencing a now (in)famous BS McCain lie, but it went over your head, as usual, which is amazing, since your head is usually stuck far up your ass.

with another 40 or so days until the election, i think it's a race to see what cracks first - the McCain/Palin "don't her and her family look adorable, but don't ask them any questions strategy", or the media and american people saying "WTF!?!? we don't know much at all about this woman who is one 72-year-old heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world".

After the Florida event, Palin left behind the print reporter “pooler” designated to follow her – but not the pool camera crew – as she, Todd and their three youngest children sped off in their motorcade to a Cold Stone Creamery ice cream parlor.

Footage captured the Palins being greeted by cheering supporters and mingling with customers without the uncomfortable presence of reporters shouting questions at Palin. The campaign later sent them an email detailing the flavors of ice cream each ordered.

“Piper had Oreo Overload. Willow (14) had Birthday Cake Mix (sic). Todd had chocolate with peanut butter. Gov. Palin also had Birthday Cake Mix (sic).”

important stuff, there.
 
344walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 12:48 		It's so fcuked up. Palin should be like pre-impeached based on her lack of obvious qualifications. There should be a ruling body, this board, any person who: (1) spends a reasonable amount of time discussing and reading politics with (2) moderate cognitive abilities, or (3) a good stand-up comedian, to say: "no, this does not pass the test of common sense, of reasonableness, that someone with such little experience, knowledge, understanding of economic and international issues, could be nominated to be VP." I'd give the benefit of the doubt and leave it republicans, folks in their own party, who meet the two criteria stated above. Judge for yourselves. Do YOU want this person to be making such decisions about OUR country?

Then ditto for the President although I have more confidence in McCain, Obama and Biden than Palin. Palin is like the equivalent of a high school hoops player (but a barracuda, I forgot!)compared to the NBA types in McCain, Biden and Obama. One could ague that Obama's limited experience would make him less than NBA in my analogy. I disagree. He knows the issues and policies deeply and has a very reasoned approach. He's an exception. And, McCain loses ground in his NBA stature cos I think the guy is somewhat jelly-brained and completely lost his way when it comes to integrity and policy platform. He seems to be figuring it out as he goes along, whatever it takes to get elected.
 
345Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 13:10 		Obama is the LeBron of politics, a prodigy whose relative inexperience won't stop him from going to the top very, very soon. Biden is like Tayshaun Prince, a good guy that no one has any complaints about and who has no holes in his game but will never be a star in his own right. McCain is like Shaq, a guy whose star peaked in the early 2000's but now is a bit long in the tooth and offers more in the way of soundbytes than he does quality input to his team. Palin is like Tyler Hansbrough, a guy unqualified to play in the NBA right now and will nothing but be a middling role player once he gets there, but who has legions of people either love or hate for whatever reason.
 
346walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 13:54 		Gotta love the NBA analogies! Good one, Razor!
 
347Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 14:31 		Palin should be like pre-impeached based on her lack of obvious qualifications.

You should read the Constitution some time. She meets all of the qualifications.
 
348Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 14:37 		B7 - i'll let Walk speak for himself, but i think it's fairly obvious he wasn't talking about factual-type qualifications, but more conceptual qualifications.

like, legally, i'm qualified to be an astronaut. but my lack of skill set for that job would likely get me, as well as many others, killed.

Sarah Palin is just like that astronaut without the proper skill set.
 
349Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 14:51 		A VP's biggest job is being ready to step in should anything happen to the President. If the Constitution were to be re-written in such a way that the VP was removed from the line of Presidential succession, then she'd probably be qualified for the job since the other responsibilities of the job are not terribly important.

It's just very telling that Obama used his VP campaign to address his actual weaknesses (experience, foreign policy) while McCain used his pick to address his campaign's weaknesses (base support, women). No one can say with a straight face that Palin is the most qualified person for the job. Or even in the top 20. On the flipside, have there been any legitimate complaints about Biden from the Right? I can't recall any. In this day and age of hyper-partisanship, that's almost unheard of.
 
350astade
      ID: 241071315
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 14:52 		I prefer the term 'space cadet'
 
351Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 15:02 		Just so you are made aware that this is the hot bumper sticker now...



Yeah, that's what it means.
 
352walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 17:26 		Thx Tree. You're speaking for me here was spot on.
 
353Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 19:58 		So you two New York Democrat Liberals are opposed to the Republican nomination for Vice-President. I'm shocked. You would have criticized anyone who was nominated. You would have criticized George Washington. Sure he told the truth about cutting down that cherry tree, but look what he did to the environment. He has no political experience. Look at those wooden teeth, how can foreign leaders take him seriously. And that hair.

And why are you picking on a woman. At the minimum, if you care at all about women, you should just say nothing if you are opposed. They're just trying to be equal with men. It's probably part of the Democrat platform somewhere. It hurts me to read that thing, though. So I'm not checking.
 
354Tree
      ID: 568152418
      Wed, Sep 24, 2008, 20:03 		You would have criticized anyone who was nominated.

quite possibly. but i'd rather be criticizing someone because i disagree with their stance on the issues, instead of criticizing them because they are ducking the media, appear to be woefully corrupt, and are, for all intents and purposes, not qualified for the job.

and i love women. but i appreciate your tongue in cheek comments.
 
355Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 03:32 		Note McCain chose someone too young for wrinkles and too good with her looks and makeup to get the Katherine Harris treatment. Because you know there isn't one sexist weapon they wouldn't have swung at her.

Yeah yeah, Hillary got it too. But the left is supposedly the scrupulously non-sexist. Not.
 
356walk
      ID: 5289245
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 06:23 		NYT, Cohen: Palin's American Exception

I’m going to try to make this simple. On the Democratic side you have a guy whose campaign has been based on the Internet, who believes America may have something to learn from other countries (like universal health care) and who’s unafraid in 2008 to say he’s a “proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.”

On the Republican side, you have a guy who, in 2008, is just discovering the Net and Google and whose No. 2 is a woman who got a passport last year and believes she understands Russia because Alaska is closer to Siberia than Alabama.

If I were Obama, I’d put it this way: “Senator McCain, the world you claim to understand is the world of yesterday. A new century demands new thinking. Our country cannot be made fundamentally secure by a man who thought our economy was fundamentally sound.”
 
357walk
      ID: 5289245
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 06:24 		Please with the bogus outrage about sexism. This has nothing to do with Palin's gender, oh ye Hillary basher. It's about her ignorance and lack of obvious qualifications. The choice of Palin is an embarrassment.
 
358walk
      ID: 5289245
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 06:31 		Building 7: I don't understand what two "NY Dem Liberals" has to do with anything. I voted for Hillary for senate and would have voted for her as President had she beaten Obama. No one's gender should be a qualification or a disqualification for a position. Palin is not in an affirmative action situation here. The same logic you use could be applied to voting or criticizing Obama because he a Black, and there is a prejudice and bias against minorities as well. I do not expect you or anyone to vote for Obama because he is Black and I do not expect you or anyone not to criticize Obama because he is Black. Please defend the selection and qualifications of McCain and Palin based on their real qualifications. Thanks.
 
359Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 09:52 		Dr. walk, thanks for acknowledging me for once. My point is that readers don't know if there is a valid reason for your opposing Palin, because you would have opposed anybody. George Washington, Lieberman, Mother Teresa, Huckabee, Abraham Lincoln, Romney, etc. But, go ahead and knock yourself out with the criticism. Just know that readers who are familiar with your past posts are taking it with a grain of salt. Or truckload of salt.

As for being "qualified". I would prefer someone who has not been in Washington for a long time. That counts against the nominee. So, Biden is a bad choice. Palin is not. They've screwed things up for a long time, both parties. Also, Palin has not attended a Bilderberg meeting and the other three have. Of the four, she would be my top choice.

I don't belong to a party that includes a bunch of women-libbers. One would think that they would support Palin. But, they do not. There must be some other compelling reason to oppose her. So, they are a bunch of hypocrites IMO.

I can't stand McCane. Yes, I know I spelled it wrong. I'm not voting for him.
 
360Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 09:59 		My point is that readers don't know if there is a valid reason for your opposing Palin, because you would have opposed anybody.

see post 354.

I don't belong to a party that includes a bunch of women-libbers. One would think that they would support Palin. But, they do not. There must be some other compelling reason to oppose her. So, they are a bunch of hypocrites IMO.

seems to me you're saying they should support her just because she has a v@gina, which, well, is asinine.

they oppose her because except for the v@gina thing (i cannot believe that word is censored on this site, i wonder if "penis" is censored, speaking of sexist), she has nothing in common with them.

her moral, political, social, and just about every other belief is so completely different than theirs - why on earth would they support her???

 
361Perm Dude
      ID: 8845258
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 10:33 		Sexist treatment of Palin must end.
 
362Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 11:35 		I don't belong to a party that includes a bunch of women-libbers. One would think that they would support Palin. But, they do not. There must be some other compelling reason to oppose her. So, they are a bunch of hypocrites IMO.

There seems to be a leap in logic that I am missing. Actually several, but let's start with these two:

1) Your main criteria for President is that the person has not spent time in Washington?

2) Have you not heard one argument that Palin is not a good VP candidate that does not involve her gender? Nothing about her inexperience, cronyism, secretiveness, vindictiveness or socially conservative philosophy?
 
363walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 12:22 		Building 7, I am not sure why this is about me, or how this makes me a hypocrite. I agree directly with Tree and Razor that the logic (your logic, I guess) that members of a party that supports womens' rights should vote for a woman is absurd. I support womens' rights, but not a woman who does not support womans' rights. Palin's biological make-up has nothing to do with my preference for Palin. I also think of my wife and about a dozen female friends and co-workers, all of whom are voting for Obama and all of whom think Palin is unqualified. What does that make them? Betrayers of their gender?

I cannot tell you what your criteria should be for selection of your elected officials. To me, I want a politician who:

- Shares my views and beliefs
- Has my confidence in leadership
- Has a good understanding of how things work in Washington and a view that things can improve in Washington and a willingness to try and change things in Washington (cos a complete ignorance and lack of understanding is worthless, as Washington is bigger than a VP...other than Cheney that was)

You may feel that Palin's outsiderness is sufficient. I think her outsiderness coupled with her complete lack of knowledge and her Bush-like "tenacity combined with ignorance" is incredibly dangerous. We've seen what that nice combo can do, and it is not good.

However, feel free to make your own judgments now and elsewhere based on your seemingly self-described valid criteria. I do not accept your views of my views though; they just don't make sense.
 
364Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 20:09 		Sorry, I didn't mean to pick on you walk. It's just this statement set me off: It's so fcuked up. Palin should be like pre-impeached based on her lack of obvious qualifications. In any event, you have your voting criteria and I have mine. What a great country. And how much damage can a VP do anyways? lol

 
365Razor
      ID: 498292519
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 20:29 		And how much damage can a VP do anyways?

The honest answer is very little unless the President dies or gets impeached, the first of which is a valid concern with McCain's age. I think whatever gains he made with conservatives by picking Palin, he lost with independents who view his age as a concern.
 
366Perm Dude
      ID: 48482515
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 20:52 		I think B7 was making a joke, with Dick "I even shoot my friends" Cheney in mind.
 
367walk
      ID: 5289245
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 22:48 		I hearya, B7, thanks....I sure hope if McCain wins, he lives. Sounds harsh, but he is kinda old and has had some medical issues. Younger folks in less stressful jobs have passed.
 
368Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 22:59 		They should ask McCane why most major companies make their workforce retire at age 63. I think it's because their faculties start to diminish. An accountant at Campbells Soup has to retire, but not the leader of the free world.
 
369Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Sep 26, 2008, 10:51 		Conservative Kathleen Parker on the Palin problem.

As we've seen and heard more from John McCain's running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.
 
370Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Fri, Sep 26, 2008, 14:19 		I don't know Parker and I would look long and hard at the conservative cred of anyone knocking Palin.

Neocons and globalists are not legitimate conservative quotes and have a hidden agenda knocking Palin.
 
371Perm Dude
      ID: 54828269
      Fri, Sep 26, 2008, 14:25 		Apparently Kathryn Jean Lopez calls her a "friend." And PV's link is to NRO, which offers a bit of conservative cred.

Ross Douthat is another McCain/Palin support who appears to be bailing as a result of the interviews.
 
372Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Fri, Sep 26, 2008, 14:49 		I don't know Parker and I would look long and hard at the conservative cred of anyone knocking Palin.

so, then, espouse what she brings to the ticket, in your opinion. and none of this "brings energy to the base" crap.

in your opinion, what strengths and leadership abilities - especially for someone who may damn well be present in the next four years - does she bring to the table.

pretend i'm on the fence. convince me.
 
373Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Sep 26, 2008, 16:05 		I would look long and hard at the conservative cred of anyone knocking Palin.

Yeah, that honesty thing and the modern day conservative "cred" seem to be at odds.

It's OK to knock McCain for his immigration stance and working with Kennedy and Feingold; it's OK to knock Pat Buchanan for his opposition to the Iraq War and his warnings on AIPAC, it's OK to knock Mitt Romney because he's Mormon; it's OK to knock Ron Paul for any number of issues, but Sarah Palin, who has yet to complete a coherent sentence concerning foreign policy or the economy, is off limits.

As long as Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin and Sean Hannity dictate what determines conservative cred, it will belong to the vast array of other meaningless phrases tossed around these days.


 
374Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Fri, Sep 26, 2008, 20:06 		Tree

The same thing Reagan brought, to a lesser degree. That guy doesn't come around so often.

In a lotta ways the presidency is a multiple choice quiz and the really important strength is sticking to your 'do-the-right-thing' conservative philosophy no matter what your advisors bring to the table as your options and no matter how hard they advise against your instincts.

I'm just guessing her advisors weren't so keen to piss off every powerful republican old bull in the state of Alaska.

Another key is the backbone to stand against the idiot marxists in the media and set yourself up for a lifetime of their slings and arrows. After watching McCain spend several decades kissing MSM @$$ and getting rugburns on his knees begging for MSM approval I really am entirely ready for the McCain era to pass along to the Palin era.

Another key is how insane the candidate drives Al Franken and Micheal Moore and Keith Olberman. A definate key they are doing something right.
 
375Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Fri, Sep 26, 2008, 20:09 		Tree

I forgot that she also brings the Reaganesque ability to talk over the heads of MSM and get her message across to the people effectively despite the MSM's contretemps.
 
376Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Fri, Sep 26, 2008, 20:12 		PV

You have it entirely wrong. Conservative demand for a spokesman for their already held beliefs are what created Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Conservatives are not a creation of Rush and Ann.

 
377Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Fri, Sep 26, 2008, 20:29 		So, Baldwin, do you see yourself following through with your "retirement" from the forum after Plain/McCain lose, or will you ratchet up your ringing of the alarm bell, a modern day Paul Revere, "The Socialists are coming!"?
 
378Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Fri, Sep 26, 2008, 20:35 		Fair point and something I struggle with every day. I will surely leave you alone for the tail end of the election.

Hard to stop posting about something as significant as the financial meltdown.

Hard to stiffle the impulse to post when I don't see anyone else making the points that are obvious to me. Probably when I leave Azdbacker takes over even better than I could but I don't see him.
 
379Razor
      ID: 498292519
      Sat, Sep 27, 2008, 00:04 		The bailout coverage is the best thing to ever happen to Sarah Palin, besides of course, being chosen as a VP candidate despite a woeful lack of credentials. How has the brutal Palin interview with Couric not been mentioned here? Did I miss it? Did this interview conjure up images of Ronald Reagan in Boldwin's head or is this as fictitious as his crackpot "the globalists are taking over!" rants?

 
380walk
      ID: 5289245
      Sat, Sep 27, 2008, 08:59 		NYT, Herbert: Palin and Red Flags
 
381walk
      ID: 5289245
      Sat, Sep 27, 2008, 14:00 		Sullivan: Sure They Vetted Her

If this sheet is true, holy fcukin sheet. It's more satirical than what you can possibly do on SNL.
 
382Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 06:35 		In a democracy, even one as 'managed' by the insiders as this one, occasionally this guy gets elected...



...and they don't have all the polished rhetoric of the usual political hack...

...or a smooth counter for every debate trick that could be used against them...

...but that doesn't mean the people wouldn't just as soon see them win, or that they couldn't tell their cabinet where to shove their stale ideas. Come back after you rework these options.
 
383Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 06:51 		And that Katie Couric 'gotcha moment'...puhleeze.

As if it matters if Palin has memorized McCain's congressional voting record.

As if Biden knows Obama's every great achievement. [*convulse in laughter*]

'Katie Couric, your new Nielson ratings are in.'

 
384walk
      ID: 5289245
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 07:53 		Boldwin, your denial about Palin's sheer lack of knowledge and intelligence is mind boggling. At this stage, it seems to be common knowledge how unprepared this individual is for this role.
 
385Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 08:52 		I would agree that Palin is Reaganesque, if you're talking about Reagan post Alzheimer's, as evidenced by this hilarious description:

"Meandering off in fruitless pursuit of coherence." (Los Angeles Times)

Palin on the bailout: "But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."

link
 
386walk
      ID: 5289245
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 08:56 		Yeah. Tina Fey parodied this reply yesterday by basically just repeating it. Palin is so clueless one need not change the content of her drivel; it's self-parody.
 
387Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 10:32 		So y'all are suggesting the Republicans should have nominated someone with more Washington experience and more experience in foreign affairs. Perhaps a former Congressman, or a Cabinet post like Secretaary of Defense, or head of a multi-national Fortune 500 Company, or even a White House job like Chief of Staff. Perhaps someone like.......wait for it..........because it's going to be good........someone like Dick Cheney.
 
388Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 10:34 		At this stage, it seems to be common knowledge

What will it take me to convince you just how little respect I have for the zeitgeist?
 
389Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 10:39 		My advice to Palin...just quote Reagan, 'There you go again...'

You guys would still be calling Reagan a buffoon while they chiselled his likeness on Mt Rushmore.
 
390Perm Dude
      ID: 348422810
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 11:45 		You think Palin is like Reagan? Aside from being attacked by the opposition party (which, in your eyes, appears to cover for her lack of actual policy positions), how is Palin like Reagan?
 
391Perm Dude
      ID: 348422810
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 11:48 		Reagan was, at his best, an amazing actor. Palin can't even fake it.

Here's Tina Fey as Sarah Palin from last night's SNL. As Sullivan points out, SNL doesn't even have to change much of the actual interview.
 
392Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 12:27 		So y'all are suggesting the Republicans should have nominated someone with more Washington experience and more experience in foreign affairs.

I initially applauded the choice based on what limited I had heard about her in standing up to the Republican old guard in Alaska and her general independence and possibly libertarian leanings.

But, like an NFL referee, after further review, I had to reverse my earlier positive reaction. I'm especially suspicious of those politicians who conjure up the notion of "God's will," partly because it sounds like fundamental Islam, and partly because clowns like this helped defeat my favorite candidate:

Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, first made a name for himself last year by openly and unapologetically attacking Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith, blasting Christians who supported his candidacy and declaring “that Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult.”

Now, Romney is not even running any more, but Jeffress isn’t done calling him a cult member or criticizing those who supported him:

Evangelicals who believe the country needs a Christian in the White House but promoted Mitt Romney's candidacy during the Republican primaries were hypocrites, according to a Texas pastor.

Romney, a Mormon, is not a Christian, the Rev. Robert Jeffress said, but a member of a "cult."

"I believe we should always support a Christian over a non-Christian," Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, told a packed audience of journalists at last weekend's Religion Newswriters Association (RNA) annual meeting. "The value of electing a Christian goes beyond public policies. . . . Christians are uniquely favored by God, [while] Mormons, Hindus and Muslims worship a false god. The eternal consequences outweigh political ones. It is worse to legitimize a faith that would lead people to a separation from God."


link
 
393walk
      ID: 5289245
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 13:03 		Exactly PD! I even said it myself in #386. Palin is clueless. The Dems will not want the press to go off on her now that the VP debate looms. They know the expectations are low and that she can be perceived as doing well by merely not continuing to be a laughing stock. I really do hate these "expectations games" the parties play, and the Dems are laughable when they say that "Palin is a great debater." She's really ignorant and seemingly a moron for not having the wits to come up with something better. I much rather have Biden make his rambling mistakes but know that he knows his sheet than have a someone who makes mistakes cos that person simply does not know and cannot seemingly learn.

This morning the repubs on TV shows were saying that Palin was ineffective in her interviews cos the McCain campaign was sheltering her and having Bushies give her talking points. They are saying: "let her go, give her the confidence." I agree with letting her go (although not the attribution that her constraints are resulting in her poor interviews, even to the extremely mild Katie Couric (Baldwin's "gotcha interview"...the most mild interview conceivable, and that is perceived by him, and only him, as gotcha...go whack off some more to her image) and then she can sink or swim on her own, as they all should. It's a "conservative approach" the conservatives are taking with their conservative VP candidate...and based on what we know, what she says, and what is at stake, I guess they don't want something even worse.
 
394walk
      ID: 5289245
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 13:09 		Kos Poll Tracker

Palin's favorable rating continues to decline. Maybe the zeitgeist is finally recgonizing the obvious gap between this individual's qualifications and the job requirements. Perceived intelligence may also be a factor.
 
395walk
      ID: 5289245
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 13:10 		New Yorker View on Palin
 
396Astade
      ID: 488102222
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 13:34 		Re: #391, PD thank you for sharing that. I didn't realize there was going to be another Palin (Fey) segment on SNL this weekend.

I found it to be hilarious (Fey does a great job not just looking the part, but acting it) until I realized half way through that alot of the script was lifted directly from the interview...

 
397Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 13:39 		how is Palin like Reagan? - PD

Guts and instincts.

Granted she is not as polished a communicator nor has she spent a lifetime writing out her philosophy as Reagan has been belatedly shown to have done.
 
398Razor
      ID: 418502723
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 13:40 		So y'all are suggesting the Republicans should have nominated someone with more Washington experience and more experience in foreign affairs. Perhaps a former Congressman, or a Cabinet post like Secretaary of Defense, or head of a multi-national Fortune 500 Company, or even a White House job like Chief of Staff. Perhaps someone like.......wait for it..........because it's going to be good........someone like Dick Cheney.

No one griped about Cheney's qualifications. There were gripes about his health.

Why is anyone debating this with Boldwin? There is mounting evidence that Palin is in way in over her head, but Boldwin's entire basis for support is that she is disliked by the Left. So while she fumbles around and makes a mistake in seemingly every public appearance she makes, Boldwin will only approve more, which is made worse by the fact that he claims he is not supposed to be engaged in the political process.

 
399Astade
      ID: 488102222
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 13:48 		Baldwin, why are you supposed to not be 'engaged' in politics?
 
400Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 13:51 		Can't the question, 'can Sarah Palin be effective?' not be a question of objective fact?

I'm not intent on merely speaking of likes and dislikes.
 
401walk
      ID: 5289245
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 14:11 		#400, that is a very fair and valid question. I am sorry if I am coming across as nothing but the issue of potential effectiveness. I believe her lack of experience, lack of knowledge, and lack of understanding of complex economic and international issues would result in her to be very ineffective in her job.

I create tests, simulations and criteria to measure leadership and managerial effectiveness as part of my job. Potential effectiveness is absolutely the correct question. We have to make our judgments based on what limited data we have in the cases of candidates, and in the case of Palin, we have very limited data, and data we do have either speaks to what I would consider to be small-town political governance (with potential bias and ethical issues) and a very small "world view" (knowledge and intellect based on speeches and interviews).

And, of course, in the case of potential leadership effectiveness of politically elected officials, comes the question of values and political viewpoints. I am basing my evaluation of Palin outside of the fact that our beliefs are very different, but also cannot ignore that they could be a factor nonetheless.

I am also politically diametrically opposed to Gingrich, Romney, Rudy (of late) and Huckabee. I don't think any of them are ignorant and of low intellect like Palin. And I believe there are plenty of conservative women leaders who are of high intellect.

In THIS case, I see a very inexperienced, uneducated, uninformed and not-so-smart leader who is in waaaaaay over her head. I believe, if elected, Palin would be very ineffective in her job.
 
402walk
      ID: 5289245
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 14:17 		Getting back to my comment about Romney, Huckabee, Rudy and Gingrich. I do think some of their views are ignorant, but I don't believe they are deep-seeded beliefs on their part, just pandering to the base. Huckabee is sharp; Rudy is sharp and socially left; Romney was a Gov of a liberal state and has merely flip-flopped based on poli expediency; Gingrich is smart and knowledgeable and aware of the other sides' views. Palin, on the other hand, from what she says, seems very sorta closeted in her views and does not demonstrate any semblance of a broad world view. I wondered about that with Huckabee, too. Too religulous.
 
403Boldwin
      ID: 58582413
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 15:01 		any semblance of a broad world view

That's code for 'plays well in Paris and Berlin'? The Hague? The UN?
 
404walk
      ID: 5289245
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 15:31 		Oh c'mon, you know what it means. Palin has no understanding of foreign relations, the economy, science, geography, national security, foreign cultures, and fantasy baseball. Razor said it best back in #398.
 
405Razor
      ID: 418502723
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 15:38 		That's code for "has left the borders of the United Stats before last year." This "I didn't grow up rich" excuse is pure drivel. She's 44 now, very well paid and running for the second highest office in our country, which of course, is the most influential country in the world. There is a large number of Americans, I am one of them and so is Sarah Palin's running mate, who believe that traveling to other countries is a requirement for having an accurate world view.
 
406walk
      ID: 5289245
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 15:59 		And a lot of university programs now strongly guide students to do a semester abroad. Did she really say: "I did not grow up rich"...?
 
407Razor
      ID: 418502723
      Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 21:40 		"I’m not one of those who maybe came from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduate from college. Their parents get them a passport and give them a backpack and say, “go off and travel the world.” No, I’ve worked all my life. In fact I’ve had two jobs all my life until I had kids. I was not a part of, I guess, that culture."

That Palin is a backwoods, small time politician with little legitimate experience isn't the funniest thing. The most amusing part about all of this is that everything McCain tries to accuse Obama of, his own running mate is guilty of. He calls out Obama for not having gone to Iraq and Afghanistan. He cites Obama's relative lack of experience. He chides Obama about being naive, yet virtually every interview Palin gives exposes her as woefully inexperienced, especially in the arena of foreign affairs.
 
408Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 09:41 		Broad view? Why she can see all the way to Russia.
 
409Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 09:46 		That's code for "has left the borders of the United Stats before last year."

Naturally. There you go again. You would say that.
You're no good for me
I'm no good for you
Gonna look you right in the eye
Tell you what I'm gonna do
You know I'm gonna leave
You know I'm gonna go
You know I'm gonna leave
You know I'm gonna go-o, woman
I'm gonna leave you woman
Goodbye American Woman
 
410Great One
      ID: 428262410
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 09:50 		I think maybe he is in denial of how much of a disaster the Palin/McCain ticket is.
 
411Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 09:59 		It was a disaster when McCain got on it.
 
412Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 11:03 		Why she can see all the way to Russia.

I seriously doubt Palin has ever seen Russia from Alaska. There's no record of her ever visiting Little Diomede, the island in the Bering Strait where one can see Big Diomede, it's Russian counterpart.

When would Sarah have time to actually explore Alaska's eco-systems when she's busy either killing the wildlife or polluting and wasting fuel at snowmobile races?
 
413Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 11:25 		Bill Clinton's qualifications to run for President (while governor):
1) Relentless

2) Iron-like inability to register shame

3) Prodigious memory and appetite

4) Could not see Russia from his house

5) Great at laundering drug money thru government agency and siphoning off to campaign funds

6) Kicked out of Cambridge for being a playboy...aka Rhodes Scholar

7) Seduction...oops, covered that already

8) Already master at workplace sexual harrassment and worse

9) Accent

10) In with the Dixie Mafia

11) Could flip same property 10 times in one week to inflate misleading investment values.

12) Reportedly was a minority candidate/first black president

13) Other more minor skills like performing magic tricks with subpoenaed documents
And in what way was he superior to Palin?
 
414Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 11:45 		And in what way was he superior to Palin?

He could answer a simple question coherently?
 
415Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 12:32 		Hostile liberal interviewers don't ask simple questions. They ask if you've memorized McCain's voting record.
 
416Perm Dude
      ID: 388372911
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 12:45 		Hostile liberal interviewers don't ask simple questions

Don't blame Palin's obvious troubles at this political level on those asking the questions. If she was ready she'd at least be able to fake it better.

What has happened is that she has been promoted to her level of incompetence.
 
417Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 13:43 		Hostile liberal interviewers don't ask simple questions.

Hilarious, especially considering the campaign handpicked the interviewers.

So candidates for the highest positions in the land should only be required to answer simple questions? You don't think it's fair to ask for specific examples from a VP who says her running mate is a staunch believer in government oversight while having spent his career promoting deregulation?
 
418CanadianHack
      ID: 21937272
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 14:32 		Hostile liberal interviewers don't ask simple questions.

As vice president or president she may find herself meeting with Vladimir Putin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, yet she finds Katie Couric too tough in an interview.

That's just stupid. She can't handle the job. Her nomination should have been rejected offhand as a stupid stunt that is dangerous to the US.
 
419Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 15:03 		Hostile liberal interviewers don't ask simple questions.

is it even possible for you to make any sort of political statement without using the world "liberal"?

you're like the little boy who cried wolf.

it would be as if we were all saying "palin's an idiot because she's a conservative."

but she's not. she's an idiot because, well, she's an idiot.

it's so funny that Palin's ineptness isn't her fault, but the fault of the interview.

bravo Baldwin - you continue to top yourself with silliness.
 
420Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 16:47 		Tree

Off the top of your head how did Obama vote on Senate bill S180.

Don't know? Don't you look like an idiot?
 
421Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 17:00 		i'm not running for vice president.

that sort of response coming from you was obvious though. you're never about taking on the point - you'd rather try and sneak around it with an unrelated issue.

what *I* think isn't relevant. what Palin thinks, is. and what she doesn't know about stuff she should know, could fill volumes.

but go on - keep supporting her because she gives you wood. it's cute.
 
422Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 17:16 		Yes, they are exactly the same. A message board poster knowing some esoteric Senate bill by its alphanumeric name is exactly like Palin not being able to justify her position with even one example that her own running mate is a staunch advocate of increased government regulation.

Palin's job is to know McCain's positions. Apparently she thinks she can get by on rhetoric alone. That may work in Wasilla, but it's not going to work on the national stage. I have seen no evidence from Palin's interviews that she is well versed in McCain's platform or has a thorough understanding of domestic or world affairs. She gave one of the worst interviews I have seen in some time.
 
423Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 17:29 		Palin's problem isn't that she doesn't know the minutea of McCain's voting record. It is that she doesn't appear to hold coherent opinions on the issues that are being asked about.
 
424Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 22:00 		No one could come away from that trick question looking competent and that was the whole point of Couric's interview. To produce an impossible question.
 
425Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Mon, Sep 29, 2008, 22:09 		Example of her "trickery?"
 
426Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Tue, Sep 30, 2008, 05:35 		Just watch the Couric interview? You can't google utube? Your computer isn't fast enuff to run it? Is there really anyone here who hasn't watched the interview?
 
427Great One
      ID: 428262410
      Tue, Sep 30, 2008, 08:54 		Charles Gibson interview...

There were times during her appearance on ABC that Palin seemingly did not have a full grasp of McCain's own foreign policy positions. For example, when pressed by Gibson whether, in efforts to combat terrorism, the United States should target al Qaeda figures in Pakistan without that country's permission, Palin tried to circumvent the question. The ABC host attempted to pin her down with a yes or no answer, to which Palin seemed to suggest that it would be an American imperative to make such an un-sanctioned attack.

"In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie. In making the tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target. she said.

The response, though hardly definitive, seemed to put her at odds with McCain, who has harshly criticized Obama for saying he would target terrorist leaders that are replenishing their ranks in northwest Pakistan.

 
428Perm Dude
      ID: 1481309
      Tue, Sep 30, 2008, 10:01 		#426: Yes I watched it. Palin became most flustered when asked by Couric to come with examples of what she (Palin) was talking about. Tricked? I didn't see any tricks. Asking for examples isn't a "trick."
 
429WiddleAvi
      ID: 323531619
      Tue, Sep 30, 2008, 11:53 		Baldwin - Whats your view on this. Palin blames 'Gotcha' Journalism. I have seen the original video of the student asking her the question. It was pretty straight forward.

 
430Great One
      ID: 428262410
      Tue, Sep 30, 2008, 12:33 		What about Palin the Miss Alaska competition? I thought we'd be all over that footage.

from 411 --The rumors are true. The latest gaffe to come out of Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric is that she could not discuss a single major Supreme Court case except Roe v. Wade. The clip is expected to air Wednesday or Thursday.Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.

The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.

After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.

There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.This really isn't funny anymore. Anyone who went to high school in America should be able to name at least three Supreme Court cases. We have a Vice Presidential nominee who doesn't even know the basic history of the country she is trying to lead.

 
431biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Sep 30, 2008, 15:47 		"Beauty Queen drop-out. Go back to high school..."
 
432Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Tue, Sep 30, 2008, 21:38 		If you think experience is important:

There is a 100% chance it will be important for the Presidential election where McCane has more experience.

There is a 10% chance it will be important for the Vice-Presidential election where Biden has more experience.

 
433Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Tue, Sep 30, 2008, 22:41 		Speaking of Biden,

check this translation.
 
434Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Tue, Sep 30, 2008, 23:05

Yeah, don't sigh off camera. Tens of millions of people who were about to vote for Al Gore back in 2000 decided to shoot this country in the foot because Sen. Gore made audible what anyone who graduated from high school could see, "Man, this guy is a moron."

"Yeah, he's a moron, but I'm going to vote for him anyway because it's not nice to make fun of morons."

Yup, that's America!
 
435Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Tue, Sep 30, 2008, 23:35 		So it's possible for a moron to graduate from Yale and to receive an MBA from Harvard? Any high school graduate can see that, but the faculty at these colleges cannot. I'm just asking.
 
436Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Tue, Sep 30, 2008, 23:39 		Gentlemen's C's, Building 7, gentlemen's C's.

By the way, I like your choice of words; yes, he received a MBA, he didn't earn one.

In fact, his autobiography should be titled, "What I have Received"
 
437Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 00:06 		And you have evidence of this?
 
438biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 00:12

I don't think he's a moron, but he ain't that bright.

If you were questioning whether there is grade inflation at the Ivy's, well that's common knowledge.
 
439Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 00:35 		Nice to have the calvary on your side. I rarely get any help on these boards. A few comments:

It's hard to read.
He lived in an apartment in Houston.
He did good in anthropology.
He played rugby.
Skull and Bones is right on there.
Grade inflation is fairly recent.
Looks like pretty much C's though.
One would think you would need better grades to get into Harvard graduate school.
I'm going to bed.

Do you have one of those for Bill Clinton?
 
440Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 00:35 		And you have evidence of this?

LOL, you, of all people, asking for evidence.
 
441Perm Dude
      ID: 991910
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 01:20 		One would think you would need better grades to get into Harvard graduate school.

One would think. Since he didn't get in on brains alone....
 
442Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 06:29 		B7

I think 'expelled for date rape' is an incomplete in the grade department.
 
443Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 10:38 		B7: Nice to have the calvary on your side. I rarely get any help on these boards.

Oh, B7, you get "help"....

I think 'expelled for date rape' is an incomplete in the grade department.

It's just that your cavalry rides in on a toy poodle wearing a tinfoil helmet.
 
444Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 11:52 		Show us Clinton's final year grades then, SZ. A graduation picture. You'll have a grand old time finding those.

It is to laff. Never challenge me with regard to the Clinton's biography. You will lose every time.
 
445Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 12:06 		Oops, it was Oxford. I always get Oxford and Cambridge confused. Continue googling, SZ.
 
446Perm Dude
      ID: 1291318
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 12:33 		The next few weeks should help answer the questions: How low can Baldwin go? And can he get there without the Clintons?
 
447Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 12:42 		This month I'm planning a reprise of Obama's voting record while in the Illinois legislature.
 
448Perm Dude
      ID: 1291318
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 12:54 		Ah, something actually on-topic. How refreshing.

You make the list, and I'll provide the context. Deal?

:)
 
449Tree
      ID: 14946111
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 13:12 		love the cover of the new New Yorker...

 
450Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 13:35 		LOL, you, of all people, asking for evidence.

I guess you're talking about the 911 thread. Most people would deduce that I have been looking for evidence of what happened on 911. How do you determine if someone is a "conspiracy theorist" or they are just a concerned citizen asking some reasonable questions about what happened.

Since the Clinton transcripts are not available, one can only surmise that his is worse than Bush's IMO.
 
451walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 13:54 		Back to the subject. NO way Palin was gotcha'd by Couric. Couric could not have been a more benign interviewer. Palin's job is to have sound judgment based on known facts. She has neither.

If you want to deflect and compare to the Clintons, go ahead. The zeitgeist would suggest that such a comparison is analogous to MLB and college baseball (not even single A).
 
452Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 14:51 		Since the Clinton transcripts are not available, one can only surmise that his is worse than Bush's IMO.

Ya, I hear they are handing out those Rhodes' scholarships to anyone who wants one.
 
453Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 15:01 		Since the Clinton transcripts are not available, one can only surmise that his is worse than Bush's IMO - B7

What transcripts? He was kicked out. Just google up his time at Oxford if you don't believe me.
 
454Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 15:20 		Since the Clinton transcripts are not available, one can only surmise that his is worse than Bush's IMO - B7

So, let's see if we have this straight. It has been shown that GW was a legacy who received gentleman's C's. We have heard from many, many of his classmates, friends and foes, who all agree that he was a much better cheerleader than student.

We don't have copies of Clinton transcripts, but in your opinion, because you don't like him, he must have been a worse student. Hmm. He received a Rhodes Scholarship. Did he get it because the scholarship board was trying to curry favor with his single, lower middle class mother?

He was then accepted to the most prestigious law school in the country. I think it is safe to assume that neither Virginia Clinton Kelley nor any of her five husbands ever went there. Since no one had ever heard of him, perhaps he got in on, hmm, his grades and brains?

Well, Alan Greenspan, not particularly stupid himself, said of the 6 presidents he worked with, Clinton was the only one who understood and engaged him in policy discussions. No one else was even close.

Yeah, one can only surmise, B7. Yet again, you make such a convincing argument!
 
455walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 17:19 		And the judge rules in favor of SZ. Time to vape!
 
456Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 18:47 		He has some reason for not releasing them. My guess is he has something in there he does not want people to see. Until he releases them, I'll have to surmise what I want. I haven't heard about that expelled for date rape, but it seems to jive well with this interview.

A moron is someone with an IQ of 51-70. I doubt GWB has an IQ that low. It's just above seaweed. And if he does, what's that make Gore and Kerry? Losing to a moron. I'm no fan of GWB, but I'm pretty sure he's not a moron.

Note: this post is not intended for walk, as he has already ruled.

If you want to continue this, you should move it to another thread as it has little to do with Palin.
 
457Razor
      ID: 418502723
      Wed, Oct 01, 2008, 22:35 		Biden and Palin on Supreme Court decisions

 
458Perm Dude
      ID: 2491128
      Thu, Oct 02, 2008, 11:26 		Sarah Palin's Facebook page:

 
459Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Thu, Oct 02, 2008, 12:17 		"i'm banging your daughter" and the comments from Putin, Bristol, Bill Clinton, and especially the big JC are particularly hilarious...

Dan Quayle is the most thankful man in america. never, ever, will we mock him for misspelling potato..
 
460Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Thu, Oct 02, 2008, 22:45 		I'd say it was a push. I don't think you would want to read the transcript as she did have quite a few of her famous nonsensical rambling answers. I think most people listening just glazed over those ramblings. People who liked her were probably pumping their fists, Democrats were rolling their eyes and independents, well, what the hell is wrong with them? How can you not have made up your minds yet?

McCain/Palin needed more than a push, however. The bottom has dropped out of McCain's support and I don't think there is anything he or she can do to revive their hopes.
 
461walk
      ID: 98582821
      Thu, Oct 02, 2008, 22:48 		I thought Biden, after a rought start where he was caught off guard by Palin's rapid rambling, was outstanding. Once it went to around 9:45, somewhere near foreign affairs, Biden's substance, knowledge and specifics made Palin's repeated attempts at populism, winks and repetitive talking points clearly trivial.

The Biden comments on McCain not really being a Maverick, Cheney being the most dangerous VP ever, and how McCain was wrong 18 different ways on Iraq just was like a freakin (early career) Mike Tyson knockout.
 
462Tree
      ID: 30959219
      Thu, Oct 02, 2008, 23:49 		say it ain't so! doggone it! god bless her! her reward is in heaven!

and so on.

Palin wasn't awful or clueless necessarily. she just rambled, and by her own admission, pretty much refused to acknowledge the answers people were looking for.
 
463Perm Dude
      ID: 2491128
      Fri, Oct 03, 2008, 00:06 		She's perfected the art of folksy stiffness.
 
464Razor
      ID: 418502723
      Fri, Oct 03, 2008, 00:31 		So while the country is in crisis mode on the home front and fighting two wars abroad, people would seriously consider electing someone on the basis that she's an outsider who vows to bring change to Washington but can't specify what that change would look like?
 
465Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Oct 03, 2008, 00:42 		The debate started horribly. Biden parroted Pelosi in throwing the economic blame on the last 8 years of Bush policy and deregulation. Palin could have responded that ACORN and the CRA were partially responsible as well, but either she froze or was instructed not to go there. Neither fared well addressing the economy.

Biden nailed her when he pointed out that her standing up to the oil companies in Alaska was a windfall profits tax that she returned to the people, even commended her for it. She repeated that energy independence is this country's future, failing to point out, or realize, that this country will never be energy independent as long as it is crude oil based.

He also nailed her about Ahmadinejad, who she continually claims is a dictator, and Biden reminded her that Ahmadinejad answers to the theocratic leadership. Biden basically blew her away in foreign policy, which was expected.

Overall, because expectations of her performance were so low, she debated admirably.

Ironically, though, of the 4 candidates - President and VP - the most prepared and the most capable is Joe Biden, also the most ignored of the candidates.
 
466Perm Dude
      ID: 2491128
      Fri, Oct 03, 2008, 01:02 		I largely agree, PV. My own reactions, after watching the debate, a little PBS post-debate talk, and re-watching some of the debate on video:

The big question mark coming in was obviously whether Palin would have a major gaffe. The debate rules were changed to help her out, and Palin stepped up and...didn't make any major mistakes. I thought she came on strong so as to throw Biden off his game, and Biden looked a little unsure very early.

Biden was obviously playing defense early, trying to get the measure of Palin. But he got better as the debate got going while Palin seemed to be running on fumes at the end.

Palin's strongest moment (IMO) was when she was being genuinely folksy without shoving people's faces in it (at times she went over the line a bit, but when she connects she does seem very likeable and genuine). Her best moment was her talking about sitting around the kitchen table with Todd when they had no insurance and had to figure it all out. Great moment for her, which Biden completely destroyed in his response about being a single dad. Near the end of his response, when he seemed to almost break down talking about whether his kid would live after the accident, you could feel all that folksy empathy shift, in one swoop, from Palin to Biden.

Then, Palin sealed the deal by a seemingly unsympathetic and canned response to what was the most personal and human part of the debate.

Biden had the tougher job: Demonstrate competance, attack McCain, don't seem, on any level, to be seen as sexist, demeaning, overbearing, or paternalistic. Palin merely had to make no major mistakes. Like Olympic diving, Biden won the debate based upon degree of difficulty, combined with pretty good execution.
 
467Razor
      ID: 418502723
      Fri, Oct 03, 2008, 01:10 		I don't think there's any doubt that Biden won the debate by making far more relevant points, but the McCain campaign has to be pleased that Palin performed better than acceptably. She hung in there against a seasoned Senator, and that counts for a lot after the questions that were raised about her competence following the Couric interviews. I think may would argue, correctly, that she didn't do a great job answering the questions and merely shoe horned in pre-written answers, but that could easily have been overlooked by someone not paying attention or who favors the ticket.
 
468Perm Dude
      ID: 2491128
      Fri, Oct 03, 2008, 01:20 		You know, Razor, I was thinking about that very point a bit during the debate. Obviously Obama supporters were hoping for a mistake upon which to pounce and came away disappointed that they only got small mistakes, most of which were balanced by Biden's mistakes.

But those people who are truly undecided (who will, in the end, decide this election) probably don't care enough about expectations to care whether Palin met or exceeded them. If you came into this without a lot of expectations about either one, I think Biden, despite his slow start, won the debate (mostly by winning the last third pretty clearly and finishing well).
 
469Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Fri, Oct 03, 2008, 08:45 		I doubt there were many that came into the debate without any expecations. Palin's horrid interviews have been national news for a solid week. Even comedic spoofs of her have been national news. A lot of people tuned in hoping to see a Youtube worthy moment from Palin. To her credit, she didn't produce any. That being said, she was very robotic and clearly forced lines like "there you go again" and "waving the white flag of surrender" did not have the impact that they could have had.

Palin helped the McCain ticket by, for the first time in weeks, not hurting it. This could have been the end of the ticket if she had bombed tonight, but she quieted detractors on both sides for the time being. Not by winning mind you, but by merely appearing to be competent for 90 minutes. She set the bar pretty low for herself, so the fact that she exceeded it by quite a bit should comes as no surprise.
 
470Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Fri, Oct 03, 2008, 09:24 		it speaks volumes that "she didn't embarrass herself" amounted to a job well done for Palin.

but, as some of the more right-leaning members of this board has shown in regards to their Coulter-lust, what a woman says doesn't matter, as long as they think she looks good doing it.

so whatever repression they have, translates well to their support for Palin as well.
 
471Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Fri, Oct 03, 2008, 16:55 		Since Victor Davis Hanson has been cited by Palin bashers they will appreciate his latest piece.

Or not.
 
472Perm Dude
      ID: 5891638
      Fri, Oct 03, 2008, 18:54 		Roger Ebert hones in on the same point in the debate I was thinking about.
 
473Perm Dude
      ID: 5891638
      Fri, Oct 03, 2008, 19:00 		A very dry parody, Baldwin. What was his point?
 
474Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Fri, Oct 03, 2008, 19:24 		Well, the polls were pretty clear: People thought Palin did better than expected, but in no way would they prefer her to Joe Biden.

Before you scroll down to read the story on the polls, just stop and look at that map. There's a landslide a-brewin'! Ohio! Florida! Virgina! NORTH CAROLINA!!!

As for this CNN poll:

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. said 51 percent of those polled thought Biden did the best job, while 36 percent thought Palin did the best job.

On the question of the candidates' qualifications to assume the presidency, 87 percent of those polled said Biden is qualified and 42 percent said Palin is qualified.

CBS had these results from a poll of 473 uncommitted voters:

Forty-six percent of the uncommitted voters surveyed say Democrat Joe Biden won the debate, compared to 21 percent for Republican Sarah Palin. Thirty-three percent said it was a tie. After the debate, 66 percent see Palin as knowledgeable about important issues – up from 43 percent before the debate. But Biden still has the advantage on this – 98 percent saw him as knowledgeable after the debate. That figure was 79 percent before the debate. Fifty-five percent say Palin is prepared for the job, up from 39 percent before the debate. Ninty-seven percent say Biden is prepared, up from 81 percent pre-debate. Although Palin made some gains on the question of whether she could serve as president if needed, she rose just 9 points on that measure. Now 44 percent say the Alaska governor could be an effective president. Ninety-one percent said Biden could be effective as president, up from 66 percent before the debate.
 
475walk
      ID: 98582821
      Fri, Oct 03, 2008, 21:12 		Palin Debate Flowchart
 
476Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Sat, Oct 04, 2008, 04:07 		I personally think she would have torn that room apart by satirizing Tina Fey right back at her, posing beside Biden pumping a Remmington just for a second.
 
477walk
      ID: 98582821
      Sat, Oct 04, 2008, 08:22 		Bill Maher: "Personally, I don't think the VP of the US should sound like the host of Romper Room."

Garry Shandling: "Watching Biden debate Palin was like watching Johnny Carson interview Charo."
 
478biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Sat, Oct 04, 2008, 09:04 		It's kinda hard to satirize a comic, dontchathink, Baldwin? If she was capable of managing that, I might have been impressed.
 
479Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sat, Oct 04, 2008, 09:49 		posing beside Biden pumping a Remmington just for a second.

Or maybe she could have pleaded her energy independence mantra while showing slides of her cheering her husband at snowmobile races.

Of course that would have exposed of her of being right wing, but not conservative.
 
480Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Sat, Oct 04, 2008, 13:34 		Bili

Perhaps a slightly wrong way to put it. Turn the tables, turn an intended slam into a big advantage.

I hear Tina Fey wants to be free of that impression as soon as possible.

Tears of a clown, it reminds me of Steve Martin desperately wanting to get out of playing 'wild and Crazy Guy' because it so wasn't him. or Carlin back when he was clean-cut, playing to rooms full of normal conventioneers in Vegas.

It would have been risky but Palin is an experienced media figure and she may well have had the instincts to pull off that remmington pump. Nothing quite as galvanizing as the pump of a remmington. Just ask a home invader. Tina would have just died. Not in a good way.
 
481biliruben
      ID: 38751812
      Sat, Oct 04, 2008, 14:12 		I own a 20 gauge pump, so I know! Tough on doubles skeet, however. Gotta get the action down quick and smooth.

I'm starting to think Tina Fey IS the governor of Alaska. Have you ever seen them in the same room?
 
482Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Sat, Oct 04, 2008, 15:51 		I hear Tina Fey wants to be free of that impression as soon as possible.

Of course she does, we all do. We want that cute, twinkling nose to move back to Wasilla and leave the governing to the adults. Just thirty more days.
 
483Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Sat, Oct 04, 2008, 15:52

Wasilla, he we come...
 
484Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Sat, Oct 04, 2008, 19:57 		#482 We want that cute, twinkling nose to move back to Wasilla and leave the governing to the adults.

The voters of Alaska would disagree with that insult. Probably a lot of women, too. How much governing is a VP going to do anyways?
 
485Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Sat, Oct 04, 2008, 20:00 		How much governing is a VP going to do anyways?

far, far, FAR too much the past eight years.
 
486Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Sat, Oct 04, 2008, 22:10 		I'll have to agree with you on that one. What do you get an email when I post something?

Obama's going to win this thing. It's now McCane +200, Obama -300 on my betting site. The only way he can lose is:

1. Voting machine fraud
2. We get "attacked". Bush declares marshall law and cancels the elections.
 
487walk
      ID: 98582821
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 08:41 		NYT, Frank Rich

That was then. Now McCain is looking increasingly shaky, whether he’s repeating his “Miss Congeniality” joke twice in the same debate or speaking from notecards even when reciting a line for (literally) the 17th time (“The fundamentals of our economy are strong”) or repeatedly confusing proper nouns that begin with S (Sunni, Shia, Sudan, Somalia, Spain). McCain’s “dismaying temperament,” as George Will labeled it, only thickens the concerns. His kamikaze mission into Washington during the bailout crisis seemed crazed. His seething, hostile debate countenance — a replay of Al Gore’s sarcastic sighing in 2000 — didn’t make the deferential Obama look weak (as many Democrats feared) but elevated him into looking like the sole presidential grown-up.

But there’s a steady unnerving undertone to Palin’s utterances, a consistent message of hubristic self-confidence and hyper-ambition. She wants to be president, she thinks she can be president, she thinks she will be president. And perhaps soon. She often sounds like someone who sees herself as half-a-heartbeat away from the presidency. Or who is seen that way by her own camp, the hard-right G.O.P. base that never liked McCain anyway and views him as, at best, a White House place holder.

But the debate’s most telling passage arrived when Biden welled up in recounting his days as a single father after his first wife and one of his children were killed in a car crash. Palin’s perky response — she immediately started selling McCain as a “consummate maverick” again — was as emotionally disconnected as Michael Dukakis’s notoriously cerebral answer to the hypothetical 1988 debate question about his wife being “raped and murdered.” If, as some feel, Obama is cool, Palin is ice cold. She didn’t even acknowledge Biden’s devastating personal history.

You can understand why they believe that. She has more testosterone than anyone else at the top of her party. McCain and his surrogates are forever blaming their travails on others, wailing about supposed sexist and journalistic biases around the clock. McCain even canceled an interview with Larry King, for heaven’s sake, in a fit of pique at a CNN anchor, Campbell Brown. Talk about the world coming full circle. This is the same Democrat who had been slurred as “Barney Fag” in the mid-1990s by Dick Armey, a House leader of the government-bashing Gingrich revolution that helped lower us into this debacle. Now Frank was ridiculing the House G.O.P. as a bunch of sulking teenage girls. His wisecrack stung — and stuck.
 
488walk
      ID: 98582821
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 08:42 		NYT, Dowd

Palin's pandering ;-)
 
489walk
      ID: 98582821
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 08:47 		"I hear Tina wants to be free of that impression"...from who? She's not even a cast member of SNL, has an emmy-winning TV show that she created, stars in and is the exec producer of, and just last night at the movies, I saw her in an advert with Martin Scorsese. She is at the top of the TV comedy ladder right now and can do whatever she wants. This just gets funner and funner for her. Last night's parody was excellent. "Thanks Gwen, I'll ignore that questiona and instead talk about..." (fill in the blank with written circular gibberish)
 
490walk
      ID: 98582821
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 08:54 		Also, at this point in the race, with the eco teetering, the strategic move with Palin is to distract the voters from the real issues: the economy, neverending Iraq, gas prices, and McCain's increasing teetering/irrelevance. If folks unlike us get singlemindedly absorbed with Palin, thinking it's Palin vs. Obama, then the decision is which "reformer" is better for America. However, it's McCain vs. Obama, and as recent performances suggest, McCain seems to be a little lost in his stances and ability to generate buzz in his campaigning. I think most of us know that Palin is a third grader compared to Obama (or compared to the average fourth grader) when it comes to knowledge, worldliness and judgment, but if she can continue to rally the repub base with her fervor (however, unsubstantive), incredibly bizarre circular comments-to-nowhere, and her looks, that keeps teh repub ticket alive. It's really pathetic and absolutely scary cos if she is anywhere near making an important decision for this country ever, and particularly at this time in our history, I truly fear for all of us. This is serious stuff, and the nerve of the repubs to put up a running mate who is so clearly unqualified, is plain unethical.
 
491Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 5593858
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 09:39 		Also at this point in the race, with the eco teetering, the strategic move with the liberal media is to distract the voters from the real issues:the economy in which the democrats on the financial committee said nothing was wrong with fannie mae and the chairman was doing a great job, never ending Iraq war in which obama says the surge is working surprisingly well beyond expectations, gas prices lets use the resources that we have here and drill baby drill and Mc cains non involvement with terrorist such as Ayers
 
492Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 10:50 		Mc cains non involvement with terrorist such as Ayers

This infers that Obama has an involvement with Ayers, or as Palin said yesterday:

"This is someone[Obama] who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country."

I refer all to the title post in this thread. The one to which MBJ responded:

She was never a member of that party

And Obama was never a member of the Weathermen.

But, as Greg Sargent points out on TPM election central

If Palin is going to say this, it is now perfectly legitimate to point out that she repeatedly courted a secessionist group founded by someone who openly professed hatred of the American government, cursed our flag, and wanted to secede from the Union. Sarah's husband, Todd Palin, was a member of this group, which continues to venerate that founder to this day, for years.
 
493Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 11:00 		Walk

I completely agree Tina Fey is at a career zenith and this amazing impression is part of the package. I seldom watch SNL and don't know the exact contract relationship by which she is appearing on their show. I don't think I misrepresented the situation however. I can't get enuff of her Palin impression.
 
494Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 11:02 		PV

Has she ever said you weren't allowed to bring up that subject? Like BHO does?
 
495Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 11:20 		Has she ever said you weren't allowed to bring up that subject? Like BHO does?

What do you mean "weren't allowed?" Weren't allowed by who? Palin not only brought up the subject, she completely distorted the record with her "palling around" statement. Was the NY Times not allowed to bring up the subject when they printed
this article Friday?

Find me a quote with Obama saying "You're not allowed to bring up this subject" and who it's directed to.
 
496walk
      ID: 98582821
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 11:45 		And, of course, PV, to also bring up the Keating Five...but then again, according to Palin at the debate, "we should look forward, not backward... (unless I feel like it"). And we should look forward, and that is where I truly believe Obama is a better candidate, and Biden compared to Palin is a much more qualified VP candidate. The trailing team always get more negative towards the end, and we're seeing it now. McCain and Palin are awful.
 
497Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 17:53 		Bringing up OBH's terrorist and communist pals is her perogative. Hey, I'm really liking a woman on the ticket!
 
498walk
      ID: 98582821
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 19:06 		Sorta, Boldwin...however, after Palin said at the debate, "we should look forward, not backward, I think it's bad form...particulary when based on very loose associations, and particularly coming from someone as stupid and uninformed as Gov Palin.
 
499Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 19:54 		The more you study the Ayers-OBH connection the stronger you realize it was. There is no running away from it. All you can do is pretend it isn't significant.
 
500walk
      ID: 98582821
      Sun, Oct 05, 2008, 21:25 		NYT, Obama & Ayers

Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors.

I think the rest is not pretending, but typical conspiracy theory stuff of which some here give much credence.
 
501Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 03:04 		The evidence provided to the NYT deliberately left out of that piece.
 
502Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 03:25 		Even Hillary had use for the truth of the Ayers-OBH relationship.

On the same board for years including during the time Ayers answered while being interviewed for the 9/11 story, that he wasn't sorry for terrorist bombings. So yeah, it really was the Ayers that he knew and who had promoted OBH.
 
503walk
      ID: 5292522
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 06:08 		So what does it all mean?
 
504Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 08:08 		What it means is that the twisted chilren of the power elite who made up SDS and the weathermen stopped doing childish and counter-productive revolutionary street theater and amateur military actions, and raised up a new more sophisticated generation of activists schooled in the tactics of Saul 'the red' Alinksi, and these new radicals have been working underground in below-the-radar foundations, NGO's, community organizations, government funded associations, extortion rackets, etc.

Obama was just one of the most promising of these new school marxist radicals, and he got rushed up the political pipeline by people like Emil Brown, in the Illinois legislature. They got bankrolled by appointment to the boards of leftist foundations and other leftist entities. They got connected up with the power elite and given political polish by guys like Rahm Emanuel.

The full story of how Obama learned the language skills to describe bloodless marxist revolution in language that would not frighten the average american is the most fascinating aspect of all. I have a lot of mining to do in that area. I wonder if the internet will remain free until I get to the bottom of that story?
 
505Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 09:41 		Probably not. Obama has spoken out fiercely against free usage of the Internet.
 
506Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 09:45 		run to the hills! one of them darkies is running for president! he's got an ay-rab name, and he's friends with some of them there terr-o-wrists!

he also wants to ban the usage of the internet by the common folk! and he don't even talk to no russians, and he sure cayn't see them from his yard like that other lady runnin' for pressdent can...

jesus. what isn't going to be thrown at the wall by the loons on the right...
 
507Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 09:54 		Razor

The power elite have made it known that they think the internet is too free. Globalists want to tax it to fund global government. Neither development would lend itself to research on the internet.

The president doesn't make law, but I don't expect Obama to veto laws like that and I fully expect Pelosi to immediately try to indirectly outlaw [right] talk radio as soon as we no longer have divided government. I expect she agrees with Hillary and Chuck Schummer that the internet is too free and should be censored.
 
508Perm Dude
      ID: 5791469
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 10:14 		Obama has spoken out fiercely against free usage of the Internet

Where?
 
509Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 10:23 		Well, it goes without saying that I can't find any supporting links because the process has already begun.
 
510Great One
      ID: 2936213
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 10:24 		"I can see the moon every night from my front porch, but it doesn't mean I'm qualified to be an astronaut"
 
511Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 10:36 		So what does it all mean?

It means guilt by distorted association. It means your platform and your candidates are so weak that any distortion of the record is acceptable if it distracts from real issues that need to be addressed.

Does the right wing believe those who have associated with G Gordon Liddy as palling around with burglars, or with Oliver North as palling around with illegal arms dealers? More up to date, who's been palling around with former #3 at the CIA Dusty Foggo, who last week pleaded guilty to several felonies related to the Duke Cunningham/Brett Wilkes/place several California Republican house members here scandal?

Palling around with terrorists sounds like Ayers and Obama were down at the local tavern discussing bomb making over beers and pretzels. It's ridiculous.

The Republican ticket should be hammering Obama and the Democrats on entitlements. I don't know what happened to the welfare-to-work program during the Clinton administration, but it actually forced my sister-in-law to find a job. The past few years, though, she's sat on her butt collecting every type of government handout known to man. Cut the bureaucracy that Obama wants to expand. Concentrate on the potentially irresponsible spending of a Democratic White House and Congress and leave the swift-boating to Sean Hannity.
 
512Perm Dude
      ID: 5791469
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 10:46 		Oh, man, Baldwin goes for the "he wants to tax the internet" canard. Yikes!

Nice post PV. Both candidates are doubling down: McCain is going negative, hoping that his anger against Obama is enough to carry him through. Obama is holding the line that termperment matters.

Having Palin deliver the attacks makes them seem all the more shallow, however.

Saw this on Andrew Sullivan a couple of days ago:

 
513Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 11:07 		Obama has spoken out fiercely against free usage of the Internet

you didn't see it! it's everywhere! except the MSM refuses to cover it, because of the liberul conspiracy...

wow. look at that chart. McCain literally has fallen off the table.

 
514Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 11:40 		Baldwin seems to think that those voters who are still undecided in the 5 or 6 states that matter will be swayed by talk of the power elite, globalists, new school marxist radicals and outlaw [right] talk radio, not seeming to understand that those voters who buy into that form of radicalism would never vote for an Obama(or Hillary) under any circumstances.

Voters who believe that the power elite and globalists are the below-the-radar foundations, NGO's, community organizations, government funded associations, extortion rackets, etc. but not the Carlisle Group, Halliburton, Blackwater, most defense contractors and international energy conglomerates have already overdosed on the far right koolaid.
Anyone who thinks loyal listeners of Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage or loyal readers of Coulter, Malkin and Prager are still wondering whether or not to vote for Obama is deluded beyond belief.

The undecided voter listens to Journey and REO on the way home from work, not Rush Limbaugh. The undecided voter has reservations about expensive wars across the globe. The undecided voter has a 401K, IRA, college fund or other market-based investment that's tanking. The undecided voter is wondering if they're going to be able to keep their house and their job.
McCain has a record of spending restraint that should resonate with these undecideds, but he's failing to communicate, and Palin's initial glow has dimmed for all except the most fervent of Republicans. Trying to frame the election around Karl Marx and William Ayers is suicidal.
 
515Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 12:13 		And everyday the S&P drops 5% like it is today, is a day when anything associated with George W Bush(like the Republican Party) is going to be viewed in a negative spotlight, warranted or not.
 
516Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 14:08 		PV

I am not trying to influence votes. I just want to understand this deeply. It pleases me to see beyond the spin and the mind control that is the zeitgeist.
 
517Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 14:19 		PV

In practice democracy doesn't work. The public does not understand things like lag time, the business cycle, the Fed's influence. They don't understand that the congress holds the purse strings. They don't understand the president almost has zero control over what laws get passed and what gets funded and thus does not deserve the credit or the blame from what flows from them.

Eventually the public does develop surprising gut instinct decision making considering how woefully ignorant they are of how things really work, but that is a very very poor, late-to-the-gate process.

BTW no one is denying that there are poorly understood shadowy establishment institutions as well.

What you are describing are both parts of the Daniel 2:44 prophecy that end-time government would be made up of clay and iron, anti-establishment and establishment.
 
518walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 15:08 		I knew the "what does it all mean" would result in some good stuff, but this was more than I had expected. Wild stuff!

Palin going off on Obama again today. Along the lines of what PDi said, kinda funny coming from such a dolt. She gets them going though. Fortunately, it's just the base. If anything, at this stage, I think she'd be off-putting to undecideds and moderates. Too radical, too stupid and too uninformed...oh, and too closely aligned to Bush/Cheney and their great track record.

McCain is also going off, and some new Obama ads are capitalizing on his almost exclusive negative campaign. Some effective counter-ads using McCain's own previous disdain for neg ads juxtaposed against McCain's attack ads. Ouch. Desperation.

Tomorrow's town hall style debate could be quite interesting.

"we'll just look at things from a maverick point of view, and think of how a maverick would fix 'em, and ...do that."
 
519Perm Dude
      ID: 5791469
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 15:20 		Did a lot of canvassing yesterday here in NE PA. Still a good number of undecideds, but running into virtually no one who is willing to say they are voting for McCain (we aren't doing any persuasion work right now--when we run into a McCain or Barr supporter we thank them very much and move on).

About the only one was a disgruntled Hillary supporter. I did press her a bit to see if she wasn't going to vote or planned to vote McCain, and I'm not sure she's made up her mind yet.

Typical is my field guy, who talked to 35 people and 32 said they were supporting Obama. It's turning into a real wave here. This is a county which went for Bush by less than 25 votes in the whole county 4 years ago, and it looks like Obama will win without much difficulty.

Kinda sucks, though. 4 years ago when there was a real contest here, we had Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Edwards (and their wives) coming through about every week.
 
520Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 15:20 		Have you noticed the discussion has boiled down to Palin and the subprime thread?

She's a magnet I tell ya. Even Russia draws close. 8]
 
521walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 17:56 		Very cool, PD. My wife was asking me if we wanted to go to PA and knock on some doors. Where you are, which is where we play in the summers as you know, sounds pretty Obama-like. Where in PA is it not?

Boldwin, LOL. Very good.
 
522Perm Dude
      ID: 45918617
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 18:18 		You guys should seriously come out. Bring the kids--they can stay here during the day. I've got three myself, and the basement is like a pinata post smashing.
 
523walk
      ID: 5292522
      Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 19:29 		Another NYC Obamaite couple has asked us to maybe do this with them. I'll let you know if we go through with it. We should; I know. I appreciate the offer, too...very nice!
 
524walk
      ID: 5292522
      Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 06:30 		NYT, Friedman

Whether or not I agree with John McCain, he is of presidential timber. But putting the country in the position where a total novice like Sarah Palin could be asked to steer us through possibly the most serious economic crisis of our lives is flat out reckless. It is the opposite of conservative.

And please don’t tell me she will hire smart advisers. What happens when her two smartest advisers disagree?

And please also don’t tell me she is an “energy expert.” She is an energy expert exactly the same way the king of Saudi Arabia is an energy expert — by accident of residence. Palin happens to be governor of the Saudi Arabia of America — Alaska — and the only energy expertise she has is the same as the king of Saudi Arabia’s. It’s about how the windfall profits from the oil in their respective kingdoms should be divided between the oil companies and the people.
 
525Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 14:29 		Fox News goes for the humour..whether they mean to or not...

the world's economy is collapsing...and we're worried that Sarah Palin's photo wasn't retouched on the cover of Newsweek!!!
 
526Boldwin
      ID: 40850297
      Thu, Oct 09, 2008, 00:13 		Do the Remmington pump, Sarah, do the Remmington pump.
 
527Tree
      ID: 14942910
      Thu, Oct 09, 2008, 13:02 		glad to see someone who could actually be president one day worrying about late night television parodies of her.
 
528WiddleAvi
      ID: 323531619
      Thu, Oct 09, 2008, 15:35 		Gotta love Fox News.
Dems taking bad pics of Palin #1

Fox Blasting Newsweek cover of Palin

 
529Perm Dude
      ID: 41935913
      Thu, Oct 09, 2008, 15:41 		Heh. When you stick the press into a large hole behind the stage, what kind of pic did they expect would be taken?

Looks like that dude isn't looking high enough, however. "Hey buddy, my winkin' eyes are up here you betcha!"
 
530Tree
      ID: 14942910
      Thu, Oct 09, 2008, 16:09 		somewhere - maybe this thread - i thought i provided a link to Faux News covering the whole Newsweek cover.

it was a good debate. one typically hot and brainless young, female republican pundit was blasting newsweek for their sexism with some of their phrasing, and the other one was like "come on now, this is her in her natural beauty! it's a great photo!"
 
531Boldwin
      ID: 5937910
      Thu, Oct 09, 2008, 19:40 		You are probably destroying another forum.
 
532Tree
      ID: 14942910
      Thu, Oct 09, 2008, 20:53 		talking to yourself again? hmmm, add that to the list of things that make you out to be a total whack job...
 
533Boldwin
      ID: 5937910
      Fri, Oct 10, 2008, 05:59
 
534Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Fri, Oct 10, 2008, 11:07 		That is quite possibly the least funny cartoon ever, Baldy.

Palin's ascension shows GOP's lack of interest in governing
Palin's star will shine even brighter in defeat than in victory, and that would not bode well for her party. The GOP's political problems have many causes, but distilled to its essence, it can be stated in one sentence: The Republican Party hasn't taken seriously the responsibilities of governing.

In fact, if the Republicans could govern as expertly and as diligently as they campaign -- if they simply cared as much about governing as campaigning -- the country might today be reaping the benefits of great prosperity and global respect, and the Democrats would have gone the way of the Whigs. But look around: That's not exactly how things are.

The foundations of Republican success on the campaign trail have been appeals to tribal politics -- "they" aren't like "us" -- and the easy answers of ideology. But once in power, tribal politics, fixed ideology and a disdain for the hard work of governance have proved disastrous.

Unfortunately, Palin epitomizes that mindset. Tribal politics, easy ideology and disdain for governance define her as a candidate. In the wake of Tuesday's debate, Joe Biden was making the rounds of the morning talk shows, chatting up his candidate's performance, while Sarah Palin was nowhere to be found. Why? Because she is an icon incapable of conversing as an intelligent adult on the issues of the day. Yet the Republican base loves her anyway, as a symbol.

In response to such criticism, Palin's defenders point out that Barack Obama is also short on experience. It's a legitimate point -- it is certainly fair to question whether Obama has the experience to do well as president of the United States. However, there is no question whatsoever that Obama has studied the issues and knows them backward and forward. He takes the job seriously. You may disagree with the conclusions he has reached, but as the campaign has demonstrated, he knows the issues and has thought them through.

Palin can't even make a good pretense of that.
 
535Boldwin
      ID: 5937910
      Fri, Oct 10, 2008, 13:38 		not funny

You had to be there. It's a running series of about about a week's arc in that comic strip.

In fact, if the Republicans could govern as expertly and as diligently as they campaign

Unfortunately they govern like Nancy Pelosi lite [ever since they could slip out back and ditch the 'Contract with America'] but campaign like Ronald Reagan, the latter point explaining why you cannot even yet admit you are a liberal in public.

The Republican Party hasn't taken seriously the responsibilities of governing.

This from the party whose response to 9/11 would have been to call interpol and plead like a woman for someone to make some arrests.

This from a party who never or hardly ever ashcans a program that doesn't work or doesn't work efficiently. Who doesn't even care if their programs work at all.

the country might today be reaping the benefits of great prosperity and global respect

You mean like a 'great society'? Didn't work. You mean like the 20 year Reagan bull market? Yeah that worked but that was a conservative triumph. You mean like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Not so good.

and global respect

This from the party just dying to see America lose it's superpower status.

and a disdain for the hard work of governance

From Chicago all that reminds me of is double-dipping beneficiaries of nepotism with their feet up on the desk and eight guys standing around a manhole all day without lifting a shovel. Yeah, with my own two eyes.

If the private sector can do it they can do it more efficiently.

while Sarah Palin was nowhere to be found

Actually she was on the campaign trail tearing Obama a new one in ways McCain did not have the stones or political shrewdness to use.
 
536Perm Dude
      ID: 19929108
      Fri, Oct 10, 2008, 15:05 		Just who is Sarah Palin?

If the far right fringes (including our own representative, Baldwin) were to apply even a small percentage of their own research time and apply the same standards to Palin as they do to Obama, their pretty heads would explode.

Can't have that, can we? The pick of Palin was made by the Great Leaders and we cannot question that, can we?

The quickness with which the members of the far right ditch their own political "convictions" for the sake of party loyalty is a sad commentary on the future of the GOP as a viable political entity.
 
537walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Oct 10, 2008, 15:22 		Just read that article, PD. Ugh. I hate the smears that are being portrayed, now daily, about Obama and Ayers, and Obama and Osama, and Obama and Hussein, and yet we have a doddering old fool who was implicated in the Keating 5 and an ignorant idiot who "pals around" with other ignoramuses as as the alteranatives.
 
538Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Fri, Oct 10, 2008, 15:28 		plead like a woman

how wonderfully sexist of you...is that why you like Palin so much? because you think she'd look on her knees...pleading?

Actually she was on the campaign trail tearing Obama a new one in ways McCain did not have the stones or political shrewdness to use.

the truth be damned! as long as the asses in the masses believe the lies and distortions, then by god, gun, and bikini, let's do it!
 
539Boldwin
      ID: 5937910
      Fri, Oct 10, 2008, 17:21 		PD

Conservatives only wish they could flip the ticket to put Palin at the top. Believe it.
 
540Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Fri, Oct 10, 2008, 17:27 		Conservatives only wish they could flip the ticket to put Palin at the top. Believe it.

i believe. conservatives haven't shown a lick of sense in quite some time. why would they start now?
 
541Perm Dude
      ID: 209151019
      Fri, Oct 10, 2008, 23:36 		Trust me Baldwin: Liberals and moderates wish she was at the top as well.
 
542walk
      ID: 5292522
      Sat, Oct 11, 2008, 09:48 		Troopergate: Palin Abused Powers

The conclusion by the legislative body does not have any direct consequences, but it is a bi-partisan legislative panel review, and one that makes her moral authority a joke. She's got to explain this, and explain how she can legitimately make attacks on anyone's decisions and judgments in light of her own. Not good for the McCain campaign.
 
543Boldwin
      ID: 5937910
      Sat, Oct 11, 2008, 15:48 		1) The elites in her own party have it in for her, as every Alaskan knows. So any claim that she automatically had friends on that panel is a joke. Bi-partisan but so what.

2) All she has to do is explain what sort of person was fired. She may not do this because the person who was fired isn't even making a big deal out of it.
 
544walk
      ID: 5292522
      Sat, Oct 11, 2008, 15:59 		Panel was 10-4 republican vs. dem. There are no "elites," just folks with brains vs. dumbasses.
 
545sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, Oct 11, 2008, 16:06 		roflmao at 543. So the elites of the Rep party, have a conspiracy goping, against their own VP Candidate, and only Baldy and the Republicans in Alaska know about it?

Thats one hell of a potent defense there Baldy.
 
546Boldwin
      ID: 5937910
      Sat, Oct 11, 2008, 19:59 		Sarge, you haven't been following along. She upset the apple-cart there in Alaska with the GOP higher-ups on the take from big oil, retiring rich and undermining the cut that the state citizens were supposed to be getting.
 
547sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sat, Oct 11, 2008, 20:41 		All of whicch Baldy, has nothing at all, to do with the simple and clear fact, that her firing in 'troopergate' was driven by personal vendetta on her part and not by professionalism or lack there of on his part.
 
548Perm Dude
      ID: 23946119
      Sat, Oct 11, 2008, 21:33 		Read the report, Baldwin. Then comment. Regardless of what she was or wasn't doing with other people, she abused her power (and, in fact, has a history of doing so). The fact that her johnny-come-lately supporters feel vindicated in doing so simply makes her Cheney 2.0.
 
549Tree
      ID: 12938521
      Sun, Oct 12, 2008, 01:12 		Baldwin no longer reads...
 
550walk
      ID: 5292522
      Sun, Oct 12, 2008, 09:24 		Read that Palin was booed quite mucho at the outset of the Flyers - Rangers hockey game last night (she dropped the ceremonial opening faceoff for the first flyers' home game). Penn is a swing state...does this give us an idea which way this state is swinging? I dunno, but am glad that they, hockey fans and an alleged kindred hockey mom, see through the facade.
 
551walk
      ID: 5292522
      Sun, Oct 12, 2008, 09:26 		For once, this NYR fan says: Flyers do NOT suck...Palin Booed
 
552Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 10:16 		hard to tell in that picture, but is she not wearing a hockey sweater?

nice job. if you're gonna drop the puck, support the home team with their colors.
 
553Perm Dude
      ID: 169101214
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 10:52 		I believe that many of those people booing we're doing so because they don't support Palin (after all, hockey draws from the white, mostly-Republican suburbs outside Philly). But many people booed her because they are tired of politicians running for office inserting themselves into everything. It is bad enough with all the commercials (especially during sporting events).

Sometimes you just want to kick back at a hockey game.

It might even be different if she was already elected (or, if she wasn't running at all). But she's not. She's only there because she's running for office.
 
554walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 10:58 		Max Blumenthal: Break the Enemy's Back
 
555Perm Dude
      ID: 169101214
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 12:41 		Anyone know who Palin supported in the Republican primary? (Ron Paul?).

As we lurch to a finish, I'm wondering if Palin's skindeep support for McCain will generate visible fracture lines.
 
556walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 12:55 		Is that right, Palin supported Ron Paul in the primaries? I did not know that. Interesting. There should be quotables from her about why Paul and not Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee (my guess), or McCain.
 
557Boldwin
      ID: 44916136
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 12:58 		I'm wondering if Palin's skindeep support for McCain will generate visible fracture lines.

You mean like the difference between playing softball and playing hardball with Obama?
 
558Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 13:00 		I doubt I'd boo, but that announcing that Palin is "America's #1 hockey mom" is so lame. Could they just shut up with that hockey mom crap already? How many people can even relate to that anyway? There was no hockey of any kid where I grew up, and that's the case for 75% of the country.
 
559Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 13:02 		Boldwin, you are even more delusional than you appear on these boards if you believe Palin with her idiot "hardball" strategy could come within 10 points of Obama. There are more people who are less likely to vote for McCain because of Palin than the other way around.
 
560Boldwin
      ID: 44916136
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 13:08 		As if letting Bill Ayer's soulmate get away with painting himself as middle of the road is a winning strategy?
 
561Perm Dude
      ID: 169101214
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 13:15

Baldwin: No, not at all. I doubt Palin supported McCain in the primary (just as her base rejected him), and have found there to be some differences in strategy and policy already. I'm sure much of her signing on was from the belief that they would win (with God on their side!). Now that they are going down it'll be interesting to see how well Palin holds up the facade of supporting McCain.

Democrats always felt that McCain was this election's Bob Dole. The fact that McCain is taking down a Christianist with him will make it all that much sweeter.
 
562Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 13:15 		You've been in your Hail Mary offense for a couple of weeks now, but you're down 2 scores with 2 minutes to play.

It'd be nice if there were some conservatives on this board who occasionally wanted to levy some legitimate, non-conspiracy theories about Obama's policies. Madman was the only one who even attempted.
 
563Boldwin
      ID: 44916136
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 13:17 		So we agree Palin's campaign strategy is better than McCain's instincts.

Isn't harmony a beautiful thing?
 
564Perm Dude
      ID: 169101214
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 13:27 		Do we agree? McCain/Palin has tanked, far lower than McCain alone. In fact, my post was whether the two will become increasingly disharmonious.
 
565Boldwin
      ID: 44916136
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 13:54 		As if letting Bill Ayer's soulmate get away with painting himself as middle of the road is a winning strategy? - B

Baldwin: No, not at all. - PD

Do we agree? - PD
 
566Perm Dude
      ID: 169101214
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 14:09 		I'm saying I do not agree, Baldwin, despite your specious claim that we are in agreement.

Palin has helped fracture the race for the Republicans, just as her kind has helped fracture the GOP despite record approval and support of President Bush immediately post-9/11.

When success at the polls brings about policy failures the response should be to change the policies being advocated. Instead, we're getting more of the same.
 
567Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 14:13 		But many people booed her because they are tired of politicians running for office inserting themselves into everything. It is bad enough with all the commercials (especially during sporting events).

Sometimes you just want to kick back at a hockey game.

It might even be different if she was already elected (or, if she wasn't running at all). But she's not. She's only there because she's running for office.


Man, do I ever agree with that.

Huckabee (my guess),

To the degree that she has a coherent poltical philosphy, I'd be shocked if Palin supported a big government meddler like Huckabee. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be very surprised ....

walk, you may well surpass Zen for having the board's poorest insticnts/grasp of what people not living on a coast are thinking; a badge I suspect you'd both wear with pride. :)

 
568Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 14:35 		walk, you may well surpass Zen for having the board's poorest insticnts/grasp of what people not living on a coast are thinking; a badge I suspect you'd both wear with pride. :)

Nah, I know what "they" are thinking, I just don't like it.
 
569walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 14:46 		Thanks, mbj. What can I say? I have lived on the non-coasts before, and "have many friends on the non-coasts." I do realize that there are many differences between what the coasters want & prefer and what the non-coasters want. I would have guessed Palin and Huckabee cos of the religulous thing, not the libertarian thing. I don't think my guess reflects on what other middle Americans are thinking though...cos I don't think they are thinking along the lines of Ron Paul.

So, does that make you the winner of the poorest instincts/grasp of what people living on the coast are thinking? ;-)
 
570Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 17:00 		No, actually just the opposite walk, as I surmised you would put, incorrectly, Huckabee and Palin together because of their strange belief (you know, the whole God thing) instead of realizing that those crazy people who believe in Jesus actually have thoughts independent of that.
 
571walk
      ID: 5292522
      Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 18:58 		Thanks...I just don't get that impression that Palin has independent thought. I don't care if she's a believer or not. "I have plenty of friends who believe in god who are smart." I swear.
 
572walk
      ID: 559391320
      Tue, Oct 14, 2008, 08:31 		Biden - Palin Analogy
 
573astade
      ID: 2896519
      Wed, Oct 15, 2008, 00:48

Birds of a feather...

 
574Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Fri, Oct 17, 2008, 15:20 		Government declares beluga whale endangered, despite Palin's insistence otherwise.

i'm sure she counts them daily while look out across to Russia.
 
575WiddleAvi
      ID: 323531619
      Tue, Oct 21, 2008, 19:06 		Boldwin - Maybe you can explain this to me.

Palin supports amending the constitution to ban gay marriage and not have it dealt with at the state level.
Palin Supports Federal ban on Gay marriage

Yet at the same time she wants Roe V. Wade to be overturned and have Abortion dealth with on a state level.
Palin on Abortion

Can she make up her mind and decide if issues should be dealt at the state level or not ? Or is this a pick and choose ?
 
576walk
      ID: 559391320
      Tue, Oct 21, 2008, 19:16 		Yeah. Nice one WiddleAvi. Palin and McCain explicity say they are Federalists, who want Roe v. Wade overturned so the states can handle, yet these Federalists I guess want an exception for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Fcuckin contradictory righteous fraidy cats.
 
577Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Tue, Oct 21, 2008, 20:50 		If they pass an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage then the 10th amendment would not apply. If they overturn Roe v. Wade (don't know how they could overturn that specific case) then the 10th amendment would apply and it would be up to the states. As it was before Roe v. Wade.
 
578Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Tue, Oct 21, 2008, 23:13 		and here's another fun thing from Palin...

AP INVESTIGATION: Alaska funded Palin kids' travel

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Gov. Sarah Palin charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business.

The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel.

people lose their jobs for fudging expense reports...yet a whole segment of population want to elect her to Vice President?!?!?!
 
579Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 09:22 		She sold the governor's jet that wasted more than that idling on the tarmac.

This is SOP in every head executive's family. Chelsea Clinton was ferried all over the country without a peep out of anyone.

You agree to hold everyone's feet to the fire if you are going to push this ridiculous 'scandal'.
 
580Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 09:36 		Wasn't Palin's calling card battling party leaders for ethics violations and power abuses?

I really don't understand how Palin has not been laughed off the ticket. She seems to be either a hypocrite or embarrassingly ignorant on every issue.

Thankfully, her 15 minutes of fame have only 15 days left.
 
581Perm Dude
      ID: 5293228
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 09:52 		Back to the Clintons again?

I think this is a small deal. Worth publicizing simply because of the fact that it highlights the Palins as petty small-time politicians.

Meanwhile, the RNC springs for a shade under $50,000 in clothes, hair, makeup, and accessories for Palin & her family. I'm sure this is all to help her connect with the average American household.

 
582sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 12:37 		Wasnt it the rightwing that was all over Edwards for his $700 haircut? Where is their outspoken outrage over this stuff re Palin and her $50k in accessorizing?
 
583walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 12:43 		Baldwin, is it an issue for Palin because she talks mostly about "reform" and reforming corruption as what she brings to the table. I think that's the point, not whether others do it. In other words, her few "strengths" may not be strengths at all if she does things counter to the stance.

More disturbing, however, is Palin's response to what the VP does, which she claims inaccurately is the "leader of the Senate...who can really get in their and make policy." Like the way she took the one little line out of the Troopergate results and hung on that to proclaim her vindication, she hangs on to the one line in the Constitution that says the VP is the President of the Senate. However, the rest of the constitution says the VP can only partake in a Senate vote if there's a tie, and there is no legislative role for the VP. Palin has at times admitted there is no legislative role for the VP, and yet, more recently said that the "constitution is 'flexible' with regards to the VP role, and that the great thing about the role was how flexible it can be." Scaaaaaaary Halloween talk.
 
584sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 12:51 		as the rightwing tries to move closer and closer to a theocracy....the rest of the free world begins to move further and further away from them.
 
585walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 13:06 		Sure hope so, sarge33rd..."free world moving away," cos I am of the Bill Maher "religulous" view.
 
586Great One
      ID: 389281515
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 13:08 		State of Alaska paid for Palin's kids travel...
 
587walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 13:18 		Sullivan on Palin's Anti-Intellectualism

Now I aint sayin' that if a leader is smart, they are in, but I am sayin' it's a prerequisite. Cheney is smart. He aint no good.

What we do need are smart, intellectually curious leaders who do not assume that they know it all, but have done a tremendous amount of research, and yet still ASK QUESTIONS. Leaders who have the confidence yet have the modesty to question their assumptions and reach out to others who think differently to get their points of view...who are not afraid to do so. I think Obama, and to some extent, McCain do this...although I think Obama is more modern, more current, more well-versed and more relationship-oriented than McCain to be better able to reach out to others with divergent views.

I think Palin can do none of the above, and more so, seems to have that god over science view, that ignorant "the polar bears will adapt view," the stupid knowledge of the constitution, the sheer lack of education, and the ignorant "I'll say whatever they tell me to say" (Obama pals around with terrorists" and then try to earnestly regret it later if her comes to harm). McCain is sliding down this path, too.

Bush preached and lived it, Palin embodies it. It's scary. Our forefathers did not express a desire for this kinda leadership for our new country. No way.
 
588Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 13:36 		I can't believe that for three elections in a row, the GOP has trotted out at least one buffoon on their ticket. What's worse is that a frightening number of people stick up for their buffoonery.
 
589walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 16:00 		Another Example: In god's hands

This thing with Dobson, and the changes that Palin says are right for America at this time, and somehow god has a say in this...it's this religulous speak that, and I know I may be in the minority, is like: "just stop it."
 
590sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 16:11 		sooooooooooooooo, if God doesnt deliver the day to the Republicans, will their faith be crushed?

Honestly, how egotistical can they get? The thik that (assuming such a being exists), said being would find it worthy of their attention, to *direct* the outcome of something like an election?????? What of this "free will" they like so much to speak of?
 
591sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 16:33 		Palin-Courin interview interrupted by protestor
 
592Perm Dude
      ID: 5293228
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 17:39 		Heh. Saved Palin from an embarrasing answer, too.
 
593Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 17:46 		Sarge! That was AWESOME! Damn, I love Terry Tate, his services have never been better used.
 
594Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Thu, Oct 23, 2008, 21:16

Hey, I object. That cartoon was not touched up, you can see her pores. She's much hotter in person.

And you paired her with a very popular pit bull, typical MSM balderdash.
 
595Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Thu, Oct 23, 2008, 22:30 		Highest ratings in 14 years.
 
596Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Thu, Oct 23, 2008, 23:44 		Highest ratings in 14 years.

Amongst white men over 40 who said "Strongly Agree" when polled: The End Times have already begun, the godless MSM is covering the story up, she's the Highest Rated Vice President in 14 years! (even though presidential elections are held ever FOUR years, why were polling in 1994?)
 
597Perm Dude
      ID: 449352322
      Thu, Oct 23, 2008, 23:48 		He was referring to SNL
 
598Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 08:30 		the REAL sarah palin....
$150,000 Wardrobe for Palin May Alter Tailor-Made Image

and from the same article, the REAL "elite" michelle obama...

Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, have been described as elitist by both Republicans and Democrats at times, and so much was made when she appeared on “The View” in June in a black-and-white patterned dress. Turns out it sold for $148 at an off-the-rack store.
 
599Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 17:39 		When in doubt, lie.

“Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin misrepresented to a campaign audience Thursday what her Democratic counterpart Joe Biden has said about Barack Obama's ability to handle a foreign crisis. ‘Sen. Obama's own running mate, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has informed us that a serious international crisis is certain if Obama is elected and that he is not ready to deal with it,’ Palin told thousands of supporters at a rally in this western Ohio city. That is not what Biden told fundraisers last weekend. Biden did say, ‘Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.’ And he asked his audience to be ready to display public support for Obama during such a crisis. But noting that President John Kennedy faced similar early foreign tests, Biden predicted Obama would fare well because he's ‘got steel in his spine.’” [AP, 10/23/08:
 
600Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 17:56 		waiting for Baldwin to come into this thread to explain that Palin didn't lie, but that the liberal MSM totally invented what she said.
 
601Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 18:23 		Biden said Obama's poll numbers were gonna plummet because he would 'appear' to missplay these inevitable crisis arising from Obama's own youth, innexperience and perceived weakness. Have fun, all you Obama supporters who are so in love with poll numbers.
 
602Perm Dude
      ID: 449352322
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 20:26 		Link?
 
603Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 20:33 		you'll need one of these PD...

 
604Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 20:39 		PD

You are infinitely more invested in Obama and Biden than I am. If you can't find links to what your candidates say or keep up with what they say, I don't know what your excuse is.
 
605Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 21:39 		604,

IOW, I made it up, just like Ashley Todd.

And here's something 'fair and balanced' from executive VP of Fox News, John Moody.

If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.
 
606Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 22:49 		PV- police are already saying she made it up...

kind of like most things Baldwin says these days...post 601 for example...
 
607Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Sat, Oct 25, 2008, 03:44 		"Mark my words," Biden warned Sunday at a Democratic fund-raiser. "It will not be six months [after the inauguration] before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy."

Then he added, "Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Obama's "gonna need your help to use your influence within the community to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

-----------------------------------------------

For those who don't recall, it was a scant five months after JFK became president that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev took his measure.

Kennedy had just bungled the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, then went off to a summit in Vienna - where Khruschev determined that the rookie chief executive could be had.

Two months later, construction began on the Berlin Wall, precipitating a crisis that nearly led to a US-Soviet shooting war in Europe.

And 14 months after that came the Cuban Missile Crisis - when nuclear Armageddon was only barely averted. So Biden guarantees world leaders will take one look at Obama, feel this is someone they can have their way with, and Obama is going to appear to handle it badly aka his poll numbers are gonna plumet, please please you Obama supporters, back him up during these dark days ahead.

Foreign leaders perceive they will get their way with him? Way

 
608Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Sat, Oct 25, 2008, 10:29 		the quotes in 607 from Biden and the mis-truth in 601 don't say the same thing. nice try though.

you took what someone else said - perhaps your own unethical self - and applied it to Biden.

 
609biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Sat, Oct 25, 2008, 10:39 		This election reveals who is driven by hope and who is driven by fear.
 
610Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Sat, Oct 25, 2008, 10:59 		I like it when the driver has his eyes open. That hope evaporates somewhere before you hit the bottom and the fear evaporates after you make the turn.
 
611Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sat, Oct 25, 2008, 11:06 		So, when Sarah Palin says,

"the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hardworking, very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."

using the Baldwin/Palin extrapolation technique we can conclude that the 70+% of people who live in metropolitan areas of the country don't live in the real America, aren't hardworking, aren't patriotic and are anti-American.
 
612Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Oct 25, 2008, 11:33 		Palin patter punctuated with piano playing
 
613Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Sat, Oct 25, 2008, 12:03 		lol. i dont know why i found that funny, but i did.

pretty peppy party, aye pal?
 
614Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Sat, Oct 25, 2008, 12:24 		Your second link in post 607 is awesome. It's a home video of Gene Simmons decked out in a silly navy admiral hat speaking passable Arabic, a skill I had no idea he possessed. My favorite part is where he cleans his sunglasses with his tongue... while he is still wearing them, like a windshield wiper.

Oh, I agree with him that I don't want Obama to feel like he has to "out-white" the white guys. Good stuff, but he shouldn't have let the cat out of the bag regarding that certain day in Dallas in 1963.
 
615Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Sat, Oct 25, 2008, 14:02 		more of the REAL sarah palin...

AP INVESTIGATION: Palin pipeline terms curbed bids

her honesty and ethics continue to shine through...
 
616walk
      ID: 559391320
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 08:00 		NYT, Judith Warner

NYT, Maureen Dowd

Good reading from two smart women. Warner is particularly interesting.
 
617Perm Dude
      ID: 49910278
      Mon, Oct 27, 2008, 14:24 		Palin looks forward to working with the Jewish Agency.

I bet she does.
 
618Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Mon, Oct 27, 2008, 15:58 		Palin: Dems will punish "hard work"...

i like this part too:
Palin was introduced to the crowd by Tito Munoz, a small business owner from neighboring Prince William County, whom Palin referred to as "Tito the Builder." He wore a yellow hard hat and drew chants of "Tito, Tito."

good lord. "tito the builder"??? are we dumbing it down now where McCain's constituents are a bunch of kindergartners!?!?!?
 
619walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Oct 27, 2008, 17:16 		"Tito the builder"...? It also aint working...the polls have not changed since McCain & Palin went on this Joe the plumber campaign. It's inaccurate and repetitive. They do not seem to be effectively getting more than base support.
 
620Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Tue, Oct 28, 2008, 21:34 		The former editor in chief of Ms. magazine (and a Democrat) on what she learned on a campaign plane with the would-be VP.
 
621Tree
      ID: 219262723
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 00:16 		being smart, and being able to run the country are two entirely different things baldwin.

lots of people are smart. LOTS.

very few could run this country.
 
622Razor
      ID: 529382710
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 01:03 		Well, I guess that settles it. A consultant for the McCain campaign has confirmed that, despite appearances, Palin really is smart. Thanks. Good link.

 
623Astade
      ID: 29572120
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 01:11 		I appreciated all of the facts put forth by the 'consultant'...it helped change my mind.
 
624Perm Dude
      ID: 179362822
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 01:12 		But she's a socialist!!!
 
625Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 04:32 		Democrats really have no shame. What sophmoric fun it must be to give the Dan Quail treatment to everyone on their right. It's a discredit to a democracy and democracy itself as a form of government.
 
626Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 04:35 		I say that with the proviso that the treatment that Howard Dean got was equally dispicable. It discredits both democracy and the media.
 
627Tree
      ID: 219262723
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 07:39 		Democrats really have no shame. What sophmoric fun it must be to give the Dan Quail treatment to everyone on their right. It's a discredit to a democracy and democracy itself as a form of government.

1. spell the man's name right if you're going to invoke it.

2. you post an article with a bit of a dishonest headline that ignores the fact the writer is a consultant for McCain, and expect no criticism.

3. you accept very little blame for the party you support for this nation's woes, despite the fact they ruled unchecked for more than half a decade, and chide Dems for having no shame.

4. you are willing to go back 15 and 30 and even more years ago to assign blame - you still invoke the Clintons, despite the fact Bill was elected into the office over 15 years ago.

5. no one in the recent posts insulted her. heck, i didn't even question her intelligence - just said being smart wasn't a qualifier to be president - no more so than any other single characteristic.

6. you also forget that with all your tin hat posts over the last several months, you've done a good job in people not taking you seriously.

7. and you telling people they have no shame is ludicrous, considering all your "OMG! Obama is a muslim, he's not american, and he hangs out with arabs and terrorists" posts. not only is that shameless, it's downright disgusting.



 
628Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 08:13 		Seven flavors of rasbery that anyone who has been following along and who doesn't need a troll for backup will admit aren't worth the time and bandworth answering.
 
629Tree
      ID: 219262723
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 08:35 		Baldwin - you don't bother to dispute anything i said. you just trot out the "troll" comment. or maybe the "liberal" comment. you don't have the wherewithall to even make a decent response, and instead, fall onto your own talking points.

oh, and you pretend you speak for others too. i like that part too.

NOTHING i said was dishonest or mis-representative of anything you have said or representing yourself here on these boards over the last several months.

you are the MASTER of excuses. oh, i'm playing world of warcraft. oh, i need sleep. oh, i have to go door-to-door. oh, you're a troll.

whatever baldwin. keep it up - it just further destroys any credibility you once had here.
 
630walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 08:52 		Yesterday Palin's speech included the comments that Obama's tax plan will is socialist and will impact individuals' freedom. It gets worse and worse, the anti-Obama rhetoric from the McCain campaign, and the rhetoric from some supporters at their rallies. Talk about divisiveness..

I like the excerpt from a recent McCain-Palin interview where the interviewer (forgot who) asked the two what label best describes their platform and Palin said she does not like labels and thinks we need to move beyond labels, that this is what is currently wrong with politics...and then everyday she goes out and calls Obama a socialist. She has no shame, no principles, and I also think, is quite ignorant of facts, insights and law. She's a memorizer where we need thinkers and ideas.
 
631walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 08:59 		NYT, Dowd: Palin Screenplay

This piece of the picture is very unusual for the republicans...typically so tight. Palin is really trying to make her mark now and her views are similar to much of the base, but not to McCain's. It's just weird.
 
632Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 09:02 		Could I ask why anyone would expect anything other than divisiveness between friends of Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, etc and friends of Ronald Reagan?

There is virtually no common ground.

Neither can bear the thot of living in the america of the other's dreams.
 
633Perm Dude
      ID: 159182913
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 16:50 		I love the mouthed "thank you" at the end.
 
634Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Wed, Oct 29, 2008, 21:39 		Presidential race goes high tech. He may not be able to outspend Obama but those clones can sure get around.
 
635Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 20:07 		Since I'm not in a swing state I missed this ad. But, of course, I highly approve, and it's apparently doing real harm to the Sarah Palin pro-life claim.

Palin wolf ad
 
636sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 23:11 		saw this posted on another forum:

"Sarah Palin, is proof that even McCain wants Obama to win."
 
637Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 23:19

BOO!
 
638walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:37 		Palin: Media Criticism of me Threatens my First Amendment Rights

I need a drink to believe that anyone at this level of the hierarchy (candidate for VP) could either be that stupid or ignorant about the constitution or that bold to say such trash to the public.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
 
639Perm Dude
      ID: 52943015
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:38 		When her husband gets his way and Alaska is a separate country, you betcha the media will be controlled by the government! No critizing there, no siree!
 
640Razor
      ID: 529382710
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:46 		She's got to be the dumbest person I can remember seeing run for a federal position.

It's unbelievable that anyone would consider her competent. Let's hear what former Ms. Editor Elaine "I will support any woman!" Lafferty has to say now.
 
641Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:49 		you guys are forgetting one thing...

she's HAWT. paris hilton HAWT. she's masturbatory material for the Right...
 
642walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:51 		I believe that quote is about as good as it's gotten from Palin. I mean, are you kidding me? Can you possibly be that dumb/ignorant? The only other explanation is a very cynical one which would be that she knows such comments are woefully inaccurate, but if she says them (in this case, playing the victim of media bias), and her constituents are presumed dumb, she rallies them more. So, then it's one of three things: stupidity, ignorance (correlated with stupidity but not the same thing), or she's very unethical (knowingly lie).
 
643sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:52 		I dont recall reading where the 1st Ammendment grants one the right to slander and malign half the country, by questioning whether or not they are "real" Americans. Or to slander your political opponent. This b*tch is so full of herself, she HAD to be Republican. No one else could possibly be THAT self-centered.
 
644walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:53 		Or (the first amendment) grants one the freedom from being criticized, which is her main point.
 
645Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 15:51 		I believe that quote is about as good as it's gotten from Palin. I mean, are you kidding me? Can you possibly be that dumb/ignorant?

dude. come on. get with the program. how DARE you?!?! i mean, for pete's sake, she's all mavericky. She's intelligent and has the instincts of Reagan.
 
646sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 16:33 		well, she MIGHT have the instincts that Reagan has now.
 
647Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 17:48 		Of course there is nothing Orwellian about ruling out of bounds any questions about the other side's background and philosophy.
 
648sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 17:53 		Palin essentially says, the 1st Ammendment only applies to me and those who agree with me, cause if you dissent then in voicing that dissent you are violating MY rights which we all know trump YOUR rights, so shut the hell up.....and Baldy you defend that?

And you wonder why some question your sanity.
 
649Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 19:03 		Of course there's nothing Orwellian about claiming you're an energy expert when your husband is busy racing snowmobiles around Alaska. Nothing says conservative like driving around in circles at high speeds for hours at a time. Drill, Baby Drill!!! There's another race this weekend.
 
650Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 19:08 		Built any pipelines or faced down the oil industry and beat them at their own game lately, PV?

Of course we leave that sort of thing to idiots these days. /sarc
 
651Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 19:12 		Built any pipelines or faced down the oil industry and beat them at their own game lately, PV?

No, and neither has Sarah Palin.
 
652Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 20:00 		Next you'll be claiming she's never been in Alaska. Yeah, she's done exactly that. Ask the oil companies who had a fatter deal worked out with the previous corrupt governor.
 
653Perm Dude
      ID: 52943015
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 20:29 		She hasn't built any pipelines.
 
654walk
      ID: 139332920
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 20:58 		Right, she has not built any pipelines...that stuff is 10 years off...

She also has spearheaded a revenue sharing plan with the oil companies and the public. A plan that I would have thought a socialist might implement. Could be a good plan, but I have not seen the judgments of its success. Does sound exactly like a socialist policy. Just sayin'.

What does that make of her socialist branding of Obama's tax policy?

Revenue Sharing in Alaska

The Palinites say this is okay cos it's not taking the $ from one guy, say Joe, and give it to another guy. However, that's not what Obama's tax policy does, and the oil revenue sharing policy in Alaska, where citizens have a partial ownership of the company is, by definition, socialist.
 
655Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 21:11 		Next you'll be claiming she's never been in Alaska.

Let me take a page out of your book. With a sledgehammer I proved that the pipeline proposal with TransCanada is in serious trouble and may never be built. In order for it to be built, Palin will need to go to ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhilips with her tail between her legs so they will provide product for the pipeline. Additionally, the producers are using an end run strategy around Palin to build their own pipeline.

Conoco CEO Jim Mulva indicates that Conoco is working towards the day when ExxonMobil joins the Alaska Gas Pipeline, dubbed "Denali Pipeline" by partners ConocoPhillips and BP.

When Exxon joins the project it will pretty much rule out other project possibilities and start driving the forward with the momentum of all three major North Slope Producers.

With all three North Slope Producers on board the final key to the project will be some sort of partnership with TransCanada.

So, when Palin proclaimed at the RNC,

I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.

And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly 40 billion-dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

We began? Not one shovel of dirt has been moved for the project.

Your retart is embarrassing...for you.
 
656Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 22:03 		A. She did not spearhead revenue sharing. Alaska citizens have been getting a cut of the resources being mined in Alaska forever.

B. Yes I knew the oil companies were fighting her pipeline. When it is built they will use it. That is just a natural fact. And the deal cut between the oil companies that the former corrupt governor has been killed. Those oil companies will not get that enormous tax exemption for decades, for the low low price of paying off a few corrupt Alaska politicians. Instead the oil companies will be sharing those revenues.

Considering oil companies just registered some of the biggest profits in the history of earth, I really have no problem with that.

Alaska citizens have no problem with that. Which is why she has an 80% aproval rating and the corrupt Dem governor of my state has the lowest aproval rating ever recorded for an Illinois governor.
 
657sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 22:16 		roflmao...cept for that pesky little HALF BILLION dollar deal she cut with the company, following a flawed bidding process.

Right Baldwin. She's on the 'up-n-up'.


Can you at LEAST man up and admit..she's Republican, therefore you defend her every action.
 
658Perm Dude
      ID: 52943015
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 22:27 		Now it is "her" pipeline?

So now we're to give her credit for a pipeline which doesn't exist, was first proposed more than 30 years ago, won't get built for ten years (if it is built at all), and will cost the State of Alaska $500 million in "seed" money? This is the high point of Palin's executive experience?

And her "standing up" to oil companies? She thought they were "taking too long" on their own gas pipeline projects (which might proceed anyway) and signed the contract with TransCanada to investigate doing one.

While she did enjoy very high ratings, her current approval has dropped quite a bit and is rather pedestrian from what I see. But I'll grant it to you--she should stay where she is popular. After all, it probably won't be too hard to continue to head a small state with a negative income tax.
 
659Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 23:22 		her pipeline

Sheeesh. Queen Sarah.

When it is built they will use it. That is just a natural fact.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that the pipeline to be built may not be hers and the entire structure of the deal could change radically. The possibility of long, drawn-out lawsuits and appeals could go on for so long that Bristol Palin might be governor by the time the dust clears.

Her 80% approval rating had plunged to 68% on October 1. That was before troopergate verdict; kids travelling on the state dole; $150,000 wardrobes and $22,000 makeup artist(the highest paid person in her campaign in October), her current approval rating has probably dropped below 50%.

But she hasn't built any pipeline. She re-negotiated a deal, a deal that will probably be re-negotiated several more times before the first dirt flies at the project, and not necessarily under her stewardship.



 
660Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 23:45 		PD,
Sorry for the repetitive post. I had started it when a gang of trick or treaters invaded and I chatted with their parents for a bit. I posted before reading yours. But you know, great minds...
 
661Perm Dude
      ID: 52943015
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 23:52 		Heh.
 
662Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 09:56 		I just can't believe why you all can't just look at how bad the previous deal was, how superior the current deal is, recognize the previous bad deal was on greased skids and would have been a done deal without her very unlikely apearance on the scene, and yes, oil producers are going to use the nearest pipeline, natural fact, no matter how much they kick and scream for the old deal and four decades of tax shelters they were thiiiiis close to getting.
 
663walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 10:22 		Maybe the new deal is better than the old one, but that is different than your initial credit that she has built a pipeline. When you stick to known facts that support your view, your arguments become stronger and are less distracted.
 
664Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 10:31 		Let's declare a bit of a compromise. Palin standing up to big oil was a bold and gutsy move(even mavericky), though it could eventually blow up in her face. She should be commended for cutting the best deal she can for the citizens of her state, and I wouldn't question her motivations beyond that.

I find it ironic though that two elements of her policy were promoted by Democrats last summer and roundly criticized by Republicans and conservatives pundits nationally - windfall tax on profits and rescinding of leases on land not being exploited(Point Thompson).
 
665Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Sat, Nov 01, 2008, 22:31 		Also fair comment.

I am often reminded of Toral's comments lately. I asked him why rugged individuals with the guts to live in the far north in isolation are such suckers for the nanny state and not the rugged individualists you would expect. His answer was that living so close to the edge of survival, you tend to look to and expect support from the few people who actually are nearby.
 
666walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sun, Nov 02, 2008, 17:00 		So, if Obama's a marxist, what label do you apply to McCain or Palin?
 
667Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Sun, Nov 02, 2008, 19:39 		Media whore and Reagan in a skirt.
 
668walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sun, Nov 02, 2008, 20:29 		Reagan, really? Before or after he got alzheimer's? ;-)
 
669Perm Dude
      ID: 55101729
      Sun, Nov 02, 2008, 23:56 		"Maxist" has now been diluted by the Right to include people who want to allow the top marginal tax rate to rise from 36% to 39.5%.

Never mind this whole "government control of good and services" definition. That's so restricting!
 
670Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 04:27 		You'll have to do the research yourself but Obama himself in an audio I heard [reading from a book of his I believe] said that he deliberately only associated with professors in college who were marxists.

It is not some semantic stretch to call him a marxist. His mother was a marxist. Why is it so hard to believe he fell close to the tree? He taught marxism in college and then to Acorn radicals. He bemoans the fact that students after college often go off, start making a living and forget their radical indoctrination.

He is a capitol M Marxist thru and thru.
 
671Mith
      ID: 148402816
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 06:41 		You understand that his book Dreams From My Father chronicles his development as a person, including various character pitfalls he he slipped into during his college years, including drug use and questionable associations and political opinions. In the book he also details his awakening from this period in his life.

Funny how often I've seen the right cite excerpts from the college years portion of that memoir and presented them as his current opinions. I don't think I've ever seen a public figure so consistantly and eagerly taken out of context as Obama. With the constant sabatoging of his character and the shameless agenda to fully dehumanize him at any cost, it's simply amazing that he has any chance to win this election at all, much less a good one.

Were you the same man in college that you are today, B? My recollection of your old posts is that you were something of a political moderate and a religious agnostic. How would you like it if you penned a memoir that included the transformation of your character from those days and half the country chose to sabatoge you by citing those admissions about your darker earlier life as your current life perspectives?

At some point don't you ever take a step back from yourself and realize how unsavory your OMG!OMG!OMG! eagerness to discover and spread terrible rumors about this man with so few standards for truth is?

I know, I know, that is a political rally, bro.
 
672Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 08:20 		MITH

1) No I have not become more conservative.

2) I was never agnostic when you knew me.

3) I'm not as easily convinced as you are by, 'That's not the _______ I used to know.'

4) Quote to me where he says, marxism has been a dehumanizing, oppressive, dictatorial, genocidal, failure of an economic model and I renounce any association with it. You are not going to find that quote and he does not share my view of that.

5) I have told you exactly what I believe to be the truth about Obama. As usual I am as offended by the 'stealth' nature of his candidacy as I am by anything else. If americans want to veer into marxism at least they should do it with open eyes and not have the truth of it obfuscated and denied every step of the way as you are doing.
 
673Perm Dude
      ID: 50103337
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 08:38 		Quote to me where he says, marxism has been a dehumanizing, oppressive, dictatorial, genocidal, failure of an economic model and I renounce any association with it. You are not going to find that quote and he does not share my view of that.

Ha! I haven't seen Baldwin denounce bestiality on these boards. He must be boffing his puppy.

Baldwin is a stereotypical wingnut these days, whose argument has been distilled to: "I don't believe anything Obama says he will do, nor his detailed plans, and will substitute my own theories. With that I'll try to scare people into my version of the 'truth.'" [Don't forget the dollop of MSM slams for not giving more credance to this version].
 
674walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 08:52 		#673, right on...call it like you see it. Incredible distortions and inferences we've seen drawn - using that logic and hyperbole.
 
675Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 09:07 		Out of curiosity, are you two already daydreaming of what you are going to spend your Obama tax cut on? Lol...yeah, that'll happen.
 
676Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 09:20 		1) I recall you explaining that your political opinions changed during the coverage of Watergate. Perhaps it was just your opinion of the media that changed during that time? But I also recall you saying that JFK was your sencond-favorite President. For the life of me I don't see how the 2008 Baldwin would support JFK running for president today.

2) No, but I remember your writing here that you were agnostic once. That's what I mean.

3) That's only because I'm not as easily convinced as you by the unsubstantiated guilt-by-association propaganda that requires him to distance himself from ___________ in the first place.

4) Case in point. You'll eagerly latch on to whatever rabid anti-left propaganda you come across and push the burden of proof away from establishing a supporting context to those who point out to you that no context exists. If you cared about the truth you'd thumb through a copy for yourself to find out. But you're just fine with the version of events as you currently know it, ignorant or not.

5) Well, you have told me exactly what you have chosen to believe and let offend you, anyway. I'm not interested in the rantings of someone who can't even be honest with himself about what is before him.

In fact it is simply unbelieveable the extensive compilations of evidence I have at times piled up in direct contradiction to some of your more absurd claims here over the years, only to have you stick out your tongue in defiance of flat-out proof that you were wrong. I couldn't possibly be any less interested in your opinion of just how open my eyes are.
 
677Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 09:25 		Reagan in a skirt

decaying and hangs out with a chimp?

Ha! I haven't seen Baldwin denounce bestiality on these boards. He must be boffing his puppy.

i've been saying this about him for months. i'm pretty sure he's banging virgins on blood-stained alters, then gutting them and eating their entrails.

either that, or he's the lead singer in a scandinavian death metal band.

 
678Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 09:43 		JFK was a hawk who cut taxes. What about him (besides his religion) wouldn't Baldwin like?
 
679Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 09:46 		don't speak for me, Sarah Palin...

 
680walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 10:12 		#675: My taxes will increase under a President Obama. I am okay with that.
 
681Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 11:57 		Many times on this board Baldwin has been characterized as out of touch with the reality of modern politics.

The reality I see is that he's not any more out of touch, or more bent on distortion than a huge contingency of modern self-identified conservatives. Yesterday I cut and pasted some posts from TownHall, posts so filled with seething hatred for Obama that distortions and flat out lies of his positions and history are presented as facts, and generally agreed upon by the vast majority of contributers.

Longtime conservatives like
George Will are excoriated for offering any type of moderate opinion., such as All Shall Not Be Lost if Obama and a Democratic surge in Congress proves to be the result of tomorrow's elections.

For example:

Reply #2
George, The Traitorous One
It will not bother George one iota if Obama cheats his way into the White House. Georgie,you are one despicable 'moderate'.

Reply #7
I thought this was a website for Conservatives. How did George Will get in?

Go back to your Georgetown cocktail parties George. You have no "street cred" with us.

Reply #9
Mr. Will...
you continue to be a disappointment.

Reply #11
I used to read you religiously, when you were a conservative. Why did you change?

Reply #12
Mr. Will lives in a bubble and always has.Its revealing to note that Mr. Will frequently displays the liberals most impotent attitude- the overweaning need for bipartisanship.


And on and on for over 400 posts. So while it may seem that Baldwin is at the fringe, it appears he's rather mainstream in his positions as it relates to the modern conservative.

I suppose the real question is just how conservative these modern conservatives really are. I see little connection to the conservatism of Ronald Reagan, which promoted a big tent party and cross-over Democrats based on the fundamentals of smaller government and a generally positive presentation of ideas. The modern day conservatives don't tolerate any deviation from the mantra that liberals are traitors and Obama is a Marxist. They don't tolerate any deviation from the idea that the US will be ruined if Obama is elected. They ostracize conservatives unless they speak in the absolutist terms demanded by those who somehow insist that only they are pro-American.

The irony is that while Baldwin and those like-thinkers wish to claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan, they have actually abandoned many of the ideas that made Reagan successful.
 
682Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 12:59 		Rewriting history was always a democrat passtime. Don't worry, we remember Reagan very very well and you aren't fooling anyone but yourselves and maybe a some sleepwalking swing voters.
 
683Perm Dude
      ID: 161040312
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 13:45 		I don't think you remember Reagan well at all. Or, if you do, you've become selective in your memory to where your "new Reagan" was a mean-spirited no-nothing who questioned the patriotism of his political opponents and blamed others for his misfortunes.

Reagan succeeded because he did none of the things that you seem to believe he has in common with Sarah Palin. Reagan was a gracious man who reminded people that politics is best when we cut through the cynicism and sit down with our opponents to find solutions to our common problems.

Sarah Palin would mock Reagan for talking with our enemies and having the failing of not trying to cut the legs out from under Democrats.
 
684Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 13:46 		Rewriting history was always a democrat passtime.

wow, who knew...i always thought you leaned more to the Republican side of things...

but with your penchant for rewriting history, you're obviously a dem, at least by your own standards...
 
685Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:31 		PD

Reagan would not have spent the first half of the campaign chastising his own side [no enemies on the right] for pointing out Obama's communist friends.

Reagan was sorta anti-communist, or didn't you know?
 
686Perm Dude
      ID: 161040312
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:46 		One becomes anti-communist by recognizing actual communists.

Democrats in the 70s were, by and large, far to the left of the current Democratic Party. Reagan never called any of the "marxists." Nor did he point out false associations.

You do a serious disservice to Reagan's graciousness, which was his means to getting elected in the first place.
 
687Razor
      ID: 141049220
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 17:22 		Thankfully, there are enough people in this country who can make the distinction between actually being a bad guy and merely having crossed one at some point in your life. Sure, there are conspiracy theorists like Boldwin who believe the worst, but there numbers are very limited, rightly so. But it was the ignorant and gullible who the GOP used to win elections, but that well is drying up for them as Americans are becoming wise to the smear tactics used by some on the Right. That crap that Bush pulled in South Carolina in 2000 against McCain and that Chambliss pulled on Max Cleland is being trotted out in this election, but it's not working. McCain, Palin, Elizabeth Dole and the rest of them are about to get their comeuppance.

See you at midterms, GOP. Hope you've got something for the American people by then besides scare tactics.
 
688Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 17:40 		Razor, just admit it. You don't think Ayers, Alinsky or Gramsci are bad guys.
 
689sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 18:06 		Sarah Palin on Obama PRIOR to be named as VP candidate

 
690Building 7
      ID: 1103028
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 18:37 		But it was the ignorant and gullible who the GOP used to win elections

Actually, the more education you have, the more likely you are to vote Republican. Up until the Ph.D. level, where they are more likely to vote Democrat.
 
691walk
      ID: 139332920
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 18:45 		Interesting, when I got my master's, I voted for Reagan...when I got my Ph.D, Clinton. True, but definitely a correlational thing.
 
692Building 7
      ID: 1103028
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 19:26 		I rest my case.

So, you have a Ph.D.....that explains a lot of your posts lq. I have to work with a bunch of Ph.D's. Fortunately, most of them are fairly normal.
 
693Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 23:30 		Actually, the more education you have, the more likely you are to vote Republican. Up until the Ph.D. level, where they are more likely to vote Democrat.

Wrong! Where did you hear that clap-trap? Any graduate work and above is Democrat. Business majors vote Republican.

And that's all in the past, who knows what the break down will be in 2008. From what I gather, Palin supporters will be dragging the overall education levels way down.
 
694DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 00:15 		For your viewing amusement

It's interactive! You know you want to.
 
696Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 09:23 		For your viewing amusement

It's interactive! You know you want to.

haha..saw this a few weeks ago - looks like they've expanded it.

you can click on some things more than once to get different things - like the closet door. it gets better and better each time you click it...ka-pow!
 
697Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 09:27 		It came from that clap-trap known as Wikipedia:

women with 4-yr college degrees or more

men with 4-yr college degrees or more

I could post similar information for high school graduates, also.

In summation, less educated people vote Democrat and they always have.
 
698Razor
      ID: 141049220
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 09:52 		That Palin as President link is hilarious.
 
699Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 11:13 		Building 7. This is probably not the best time to whip out Wikipedia, not when there is tons of evidence that it is seriously WRONG!

link

In 2006, Some College (31%) Dem. 51% Rep. 47%
College Graduate (27%) Dem. 49% Rep. 49%
Postgraduate (18%) Dem. 58% Rep. 41%

This study says that education levels and party voting patterns depend on the region. Thus, college and post grads vote Republican in Louisiana and Ohio, the opposite is true in the Northeast and West. Overall, though, the more educated, the more likely to vote Democrat.

Click on the "since 1972" link on Krugman's blog and you'll see that in 2004, "college grads and more" is a wash, but "post graduate" is 55-44 Democrat and has been heavily Democrat since Dukakis.

It took me a few minutes to disprove your clap-trap, if I didn't have to work, I could get even more proof. Again, where did you hear that untruth, B7?

 
700Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 11:37 		If you can't follow the link, I can't help you.
 
701Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 11:38 		Actually that is a better measure of exposure to radical indoctrination rather than knowlege, intelligence or wisdom.
 
702sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 11:42 		speaking of 'exposure to radical indoctrination', how are you today Baldwin?
 
703Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 12:34 		Actually that is a better measure of exposure to radical indoctrination rather than knowlege, intelligence or wisdom.

using your "if it's true for one, it must be true for all" mantra, i think you're a pretty good indication that a certain building in Brooklyn is the true home of any sort of "radical indoctrination"...
 
704Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 14:24 		Building 7

I don't think the reason Seattle Zen asked you where you git your figures is that he is unable to click your links. It's more likely that he recognizes bullshit when he sees it and wanted to see the actual questions posed in this survey.

And in that case, he'd be right. The graphs you linked most certainly do not show, as you claim, that less educated people vote Democrat. It shows that between Dems and Republicans, a higher percentage of Republicans have 4-year college degrees. Since well under a third of registered voters happen to be registered with with the Republican Party, your graph is largely useless in determining voting trends of the entire electorate based on education.
 
705Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 14:25 		Almost forgot, I found a source for his graphs. Start on page 72.
 
706Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 15:50 		Odd that you should say that Tree, as that building in Brooklyn doesn't care an iota about politics. My interest came from two areas. Watching the news as a child with my parents to see bible fulfillment of prophesy in front of my own two eyes. Also overlearning. I felt the need to verify what I believed from every possible angle of human knowlege before subjecting myself to the exceedingly bumpy ride I felt was coming for Bible believers.

Political indoctrination occupies not a second of their time and I would not even dare to raise the issue in private conversation with anyone in my religion as they would look at me like I had two heads for even having any interest in it.
 
707Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 15:57 		Odd that you should say that Tree, as that building in Brooklyn doesn't care an iota about politics.

i didn't say anything about politics. i was referring to "radical indoctrination", which of course, also has nothing to do with politics.

of course, i don't believe that about that building in brooklyn, but i was just using your ludicrous measuring cup to make a point.
 
708Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 16:06 		Almost a fair comment then. 'Really' believing the Bible puts us in a whole nuther category from christendom these days.
 
709Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 16:43 		Re: #704 Mith......Are you the poster formally known as mattinglyinthehall? What, did you finally give up on that quest?

That link in #705 seems to support my case. Readers can view pages 79-84 and the conclusion on page 88 and form their own opinion.

Readers can also see where you refer to my link as bull**** and form their own opinion.

I'm not going to argue semantics or spin or word-games with you two. I've made my point and I'm not wasting anymore time on it. It's not a topic I care much about, anyways.
 
710sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 16:44 		Mattingly
In
The
Hall
 
711Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 18:16 		I've made my point

The point is, "I will hold onto unpopular, untrue, and sometimes outright crazy ideas regardless of the amount of contrary evidence shown to me".

We've known that for some time.

 
712sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 13:52 		roflmao...from another forum:


Sarah Palins next job:





Tina Fey impersonator on SNL.
 
713sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 14:34 		NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

A Palin aide said: "Governor Palin was not directing staffers to put anything on their personal credit cards, and anything that staffers put on their credit cards has been reimbursed, like an expense. Nasty and false accusations following a defeat say more about the person who made them than they do about Governor Palin."

McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request.
 
714Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 15:07 		How did the George Soros branch of the Republican party ever manage to hold their contempt for conservatives under control for a whole election?
 
715Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 16:52 		More to the point, how did the Wasilla Hillbilly branch of the Republican Party ever manage to convince anyone that they were reformists?
 
716Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 16:57 		Ask the previous governor.
 
717walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 17:13 		"Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," LOL!!
 
718sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 19:21 		and Baldwin defends her status as a "reformer". Anyone (other than you Tree. lol You'd be too acidic I fear), care to postulate what Baldwin would post had McCain won the election and the story above were about Obama and buying clothes for Michelle?
 
719Razor
      ID: 141049220
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 23:53 		Fox Reports on Palin

Hilarious details coming out now about Palin. Some nuggets from this report:

- Refused interview prep before Couric interview
- Did not know which countries are included in NAFTA
- Did not know if Africa was a continent!

O'Reilly, clearly trying to take Palin's side, suggests that she could be tutored on the basics of, you know, the world before assuming the role of Vice President.

Palin is a total joke. And so is anyone who supports her.
 
720Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 06:16 		Her problem in the Couric interview was clearly trying to regurgitate her handler's talking points instead of being herself. A fact lost on the fired incompetent handler who is stirring this crap.
 
721Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 07:07 		Baldwin - we're talking about a woman, when asked what magazines she read, responded with "all of them"...

but, as has already been established, she's fodder for your fantasies, so if your fantasy has her being the most intelligent woman on earth, by all means, enjoy...
 
722Razor
      ID: 141049220
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 09:41 		Her problem in the Couric interview is that she is an idiot.

This story came from Fox so it must be true.
 
723DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 09:53 		"Anyone (other than you Tree. lol You'd be too acidic I fear), care to postulate what Baldwin would post had McCain won the election and the story above were about Obama and buying clothes for Michelle?"

Over/under on the number of times the word "elitist" was used: 3.5.
 
724Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 10:49 		"Anyone (other than you Tree. lol You'd be too acidic I fear), care to postulate what Baldwin would post had McCain won the election and the story above were about Obama and buying clothes for Michelle?"

Over/under on the number of times the word "elitist" was used: 3.5.

or socialist. or communist. or marxist. or whatever buzzword has Baldwin pooping in his pants with fear that day.
 
725walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 11:16 		Did not know if Africa was a continent!...? No freakin way. I mean, that's 3rd grade social studies (I know, cos I just graduated from 3rd grade...I mean, my daughter who is in 5th grade, well, you get it).

I do love #722...it's just obvious. She's an idiot. Either too idiotic to care (to prep; care about impressions), or just a plain ol idiot. I think the latter.
 
726C1-NRB
      ID: 17101168
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 11:32 		I do love #722...

You're burying the lead here. I think this is the line you meant to refer to:

This story came from Fox so it must be true.
 
727Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 13:47 		I do not watch Fox news, so the video from post 719 was interesting to me. I remember that the right was anti-McCain during the primaries, then rallied behind him when he became their candidate. I would guess that O'Reilly and others were gaga for Palin, am I right?

So I would guess that the talking heads would like to blame McCain for the loss and deflect it from Palin - you know, they mishandled her, they tried to keep her from the spotlight when she should be let loose as she really was the star, etc... In that regard, I completely understand the coverage on "internal strife".

What I don't understand is why they really made Palin look awful. If they wanted to maintain the luster on Palin's star, they could have left the actual accusations unsaid. Instead, what I saw was Fox news giving McCain's staff their seal of approval by not scoffing at the outlandish charge that Palin thought Africa was a country.

In short, why did Fox throw Palin under the bus with that report? Are they saying other things about her that are also not flattering?

By the way, I have no doubt that she will contemplate running for President in 2012. Remember, Dan Quayle ran in 2000.
 
728Perm Dude
      ID: 35103878
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 13:52 		My guess is that the lying liars from the McCain side are "leaking" all sorts of stuff at this point about Palin. The usual sore loser crap.

Palin was (and is) terrible. But this additional dirt throwing by the McCain people just turns her into a stupid martyr.
 
729walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 13:56 		A scenario that is not without precedent:

Stevens is expelled from the Sentate
Palin steps down as Alaska gov
Lt. Gov names Palin as Senator to replace Stevens
 
730sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 14:26 		Their flawed logic being....1 term in the Senate was enough for Obama, it will be enough for Palin come 2012.

What they are missing, is that Obama is a charismatic, articulate, intelligent, well informed, statesman. Palin OTH, is a self-serving far right wingnut.
 
731Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 14:30 		My guess is that the lying liars from the McCain side are "leaking" all sorts of stuff at this point about Palin.

Of course, but my question is why is O'Reilly and Fox acknowledging it and giving it credibility if they are Palin supporters after all?
 
732Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 14:51 		Carl Cameron is the straightest shooter you'll find appearing on FNC. Shep Smith might be the third-straightest shooter. Take whatever you will from that assessment.

Since Cameron filed that report to Smith and then to O'Reilly, other FNC talking heads have been falling over themselves to dismiss the claims and charge the McCain aides with covering for themselves (while being sure to always commend Cameron for his impeccable sources).

I have to believe that some of these claims are exagerated. But only the most blinded partisan would insist that the list of public foibles she committed in a very short period of time doesn't lend some credibility to the liklihood of those claims being at least partially true.

I wrote the following in response to a post and some replies at AZDBacker's blog:
Well really even if they are just partially true they bear out the numerous public examples she's given us on her own to support a lack of intellectual curiosity:

She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was - you might argue that Charlie Gibson didn't quite grasp it either, but she clearly had no concept of the term. She didn't even know that it refers specifically to foreign policy.

Stating that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers” suggested that she believed that they are taxpayer funded institutions.

Falling for that ridiculous fake Sarkozy phone call prank certainly doesn't help her foreign policy credentials, much less her reputation as an intellectual. When I first heard that audio, I didn't think it possible that the clip was real - how could she have really fallen for that accent?

And with her knowledge of energy issues supposedly being her strongest suit, how can one reconcile the absurd claim she repeated throughout the campaign that Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy". Not only is it not true, it's not even close to true.

Then there was the Couric interview, in which she failed to name a single Supreme Court case that she disagreed with, aside from Roe v Wade. I'm aware that she claimed later that she simply rejected the question. But for the life of me, why would a politician disqualify a question about Supreme Court cases she didn't like? I just can't believe that. In the first place there's absolutely nothing wrong with that question. In fact, its a softball. Hell, it would be a softball for me and I'm not close to knowledgeable enough of constitutional law to be Vice-POTUS. Second, even the greenest rookie politician would know the importance of performing well in that interview, especially after all of the criticism about her being sheltered from the media and the campaign's need for her to improve on her showing in the Gibson interview.

I do suppose it's possible that she simply froze up on the SCOTUS question, like I believe she did with the question about what magazines she reads. But still, there is a clear pattern here - one that established itself in a very short period of time.

I suspect there are some exaggerations in the McCain aides' claims, but they do very much fit in with that pattern which Palin established for her.

My more extensive thoughts are here.
 
733Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:40 		Mith

Attacks at Sarah from neocons are really their way of saying 'go to hell, Ronald Reagan'.
 
734sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:48 		Attacks on "Sarah", her lack of public skills, her lack of knowledge, her lack of effort in coming up to speed, her cavalier attitude....are entirely justified.
 
735Perm Dude
      ID: 35103878
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:48 		Because Palin is Reagan in a skirt, yes?

If there is one Republican Democrats are absolutely not afraid of, it is Sarah Palin. The ethically-challenged reformer, the folksy woman with $400 eyeglasses and dresses worth thousands, the intellectual heavyweight who doesn't read.

The candidate who stated she was pleased to be in "real America" in a county which voted for Obama.

You want to put your party's eggs into that basket, Baldwin, the Democrats would be very pleased.
 
736DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 18:04 		I think the word you were looking for is "hypocrite", PD.

And anyone supporting her isn't willing to do even the slightest bit of introspection about the matter. All they see is the (R) and know that that, inherently, has to be better than anything with the dreaded (D).
 
737Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 19:07 		And with her knowledge of energy issues supposedly being her strongest suit, how can one reconcile the absurd claim she repeated throughout the campaign that Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy". Not only is it not true, it's not even close to true.

As I've mentioned before, her husband is a champion snowmobile racer, a sport which, at it's core, wastes energy resources and pollutes a land blessed with the most pristine natural wonder there is to find in this nation. And Sarah Palin supports this endeavor 100%. She proudly boasts of his accomplishments and even takes the kids(at state expense sometimes)to various competitions around the state.

Now, people can recreate how they wish, and I wouldn't suggest that Todd Palin be denied his perverse recreational gig, but ask yourself this:

Would you consider a person an expert on health issues if that person's husband smoked cigarettes, pot, ate mostly junk food and drank a 12 pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon a day, with her approval and support? If that person's mantra was Smoke! Baby! Smoke!

You'd probably think her position on health issues irresponsible.

 
738Mith
      ID: 148402816
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 19:43 		Attacks at Sarah from neocons are really their way of saying 'go to hell, Ronald Reagan'.

You see no that's funny because it's the neocons I see who are defending, coddling and jockying for position to shape her in their image.

Have you really not noticed that Bill Kristol is by far her biggest cheerleader? And how, exactly, is John McCain all that different from a neoconservative? McCain's foreign policy advisor was Randy Scheunemann, reportedly the outspoken Palin supporter in the campaign and a well established neocon.

Is Pat Buchanon an authority on neoconservatism? He thinks palin is a blank canvas who the neocons are itching to get their paws on to mold as one of their own. A blank canvas she might be. But one thing she is not is a serious, much less disciplined (laugh) conservative.

Who, exactly are her detractors on the right? They are the likes of Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, Chris Buckley and Richard Brookhiser.

I'm aware that Brooks and Buckley are not your favorite Republicans but to the point you'll note there isn't a neocon in that group.

Reagan in a skirt? You're living in dreamland.
 
739astade
      ID: 23100322
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 00:02 		...or just in dreamland over Palin in a skirt.
 
740Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 01:58 		Palin is just a symbol of Reagan and that is why the various factions are using the tactics they are on her.

Really conservatives need to cede the party to the trotskyites and globalists and start fresh.
 
741Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 06:32 		Palin is a liberal erotica fantasy of "What if". What if liberals were able to go back in time and stop Reagan from becoming Reagan? They can't do that, but they can certainly stop the sequel.

This election was over once Obama got the nomination and McCain was the Republican nominee. Why not grab a Republican that excites the base and give her national experience that she otherwise wouldn't have had?

There is no one that McCain could have nominated that wouldn't have gotten their own hate thread in this forum or hate threads throughout the internet. At least he had the vision, or the party had the vision, to do a political version of a September call up to see what the rookie has.
 
742Mith
      ID: 148402816
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 07:57 		that is why the various factions are using the tactics they are on her

Yes by all means explain the "tactics" Noonan is "using on her".


At least he had the vision

You're wrong about that. She wasn't McCain's "vision" at all. In fact it's widely known that she was McCain's third choice at best. No, if you insist on crediting someone with the "vision" of turning out Sarah Palin, that honor goes to the man who went to AK to recruit her, open and proud neoconservative, William Kristol.

What if liberals were able to go back in time and stop Reagan from becoming Reagan? They can't do that, but they can certainly stop the sequel.

The erotica fantasy belongs to the neocons and ther favorite non-neocon constituancy: Republicans who are so lost that they can't even see the party's desperate need for serious, credentialed conservatives to fill the leadership roles in the GOP - or they can't tell the difference. these are the same dolts who are duped into fawning over these romantic regular guy/gal charicatures like Palin and Joe the Plumber instead of truly sharp and savvy conservative political thinkers.

To compare Ronald Reagan (circa 1968 or later, anyway) to a moldable "clean slate" is nothing short of an insult to the standard-bearer of modern American conservatism. Reagan had established a principled philosophical depth by the time of his governorship that Palin has displayed she simply lacks the intellectual curiosity to be capable of.

You think that at any point during his governorship, Reagan would have answered any question about Vietnam with an explanation that he really hasn't been paying much attention to it and then wrpped up the statement with one of the anti-left talking points?

You think that Reagan would have expanded Alaska's socialist Permanant Fund fund program? Rather than fight to deregulate the oil industry in AK and let the free market have at it?

Perhaps Boxman is right and the paleoconservatives will get to Palin before Kristol and his minions and Palin will grow into a figure with the principles of Reagan. Who, exactly, are these paleos who will be competing with Kristol for her ear?

4 years out from the next presidential election and you've already anointing the charismatic empty shirt, on the hope that she can be molded into Reagan. For the sake of the GOP (you know, the conservative, serious party - remember?) I sincerely hope the serious conservatives prevail over such nonsense.
 
743Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 08:09 		Mith: Perhaps the neo-conservative virus has spread so far that my party needs to go as far out to Alaska to find someone, anyone, who isn't infected.

Reagan was a once in a lifetime President Of Presidents. But that is what we need if we are to unseat Obama in four years, kick the neo-conservatives out, and send Alinsky and Ayers to the curb.

It's worth trying. It's worth reducing the Republican party down to nothing and completely rebuilding from the ground up if needs be. A Reaganesque Republican Party is the only thing that will stop the Marxists now. The neo-conservatives will only enable it, or worse, give it ideas.

To compare Ronald Reagan (circa 1968 or later, anyway) to a moldable "clean slate" is nothing short of an insult to the standard-bearer of modern American conservatism. Reagan had established a principled philosophical depth by the time of his governorship that Palin has displayed she simply lacks the intellectual curiosity to be capable of.

Who else do we have? Give me names. Preferably a woman or minority in an effort to bring diversity to the party.
 
744Mith
      ID: 148402816
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 08:13 		A Reaganesque Republican Party is the only thing that will stop the Marxists now.

I just remembered why I left the forum.
 
745Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 08:54 		their own hate thread in this forum

Hate thread? Since I started the thread, I suppose I should respond to such allegations.

Let me preface my response by saying I think Sarah Palin is an extraordinary woman who has accomplishments that should be admired, and stands as a mostly positive role model for young women. My 13 daughter thinks she's great, so whatever one thinks about the media coverage, it didn't permeate as negative as far as my teenage daughter is concerned. Granted, she doesn't examine the nuances of a political candidate as to their ideology and achievements, but she is exposed to enough media to form an opinion.

I don't hate Sarah Palin. I'm adamantly opposed to several of her core positions. In some respects, her claims of being a maverick are countered by documentation of her own brand of cronyism which indicates more of a politics as usual philosophy than a rogue reformist.

In the title post, I brought up the subject of her and her husband's relationship with the Alaskan Independent Party and their founder's anti-American sentiments. True, she was never an actual member of that party, but Obama was never a member of the Communist Party, the Weather Underground or the Muslim religion, yet he was daily tied to these organizations during the campaign. Was Sarah Palin's association with AIP turned into a daily claim of her as a recessionist?

If we're going to talk of hate threads, in this thread and on the internet in general, nothing concerning Sarah Palin rises to the level of hate targeting Barack Obama. Not even close. If memory serves, it was you, Boxman, who consistently referred to Obama as "The Chosen One" or "The Messiah" or some similar disrespectful term. To your credit, you generally deal with facts and established information in making your arguements.

Baldwin, on the other hand, has used every bit of propoganda, innuendo and flat-out lies in an attempt to paint Obama as a resurrection of Josef Stalin or Mao. Conversely, he's refused to acknowledge any flaws with Sarah Palin, elevating her to heights that border on hero worship.

I've tried to deal with facts to back up my opposition to Sarah Palin. Even when I referenced the National Enquirer expose of her infidelities and her childrens' out of control behavior and drug use, it was to point out that Ann Coulter had lent credibility to the publication with her public support of their expose on John Edward's adultery.

So I dispute the claim this is a hate thread. We already have many words that are so abused as to have virtually no meaning any more. Let's not add hate to that list.
 
746Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 09:30 		Oh no, the left hasn't diluted the meaning of that word any. ROTFL.

While I will agree PV was originally only following the format the board was using to introduce discussion of a candidate and there was no flaw there, the media quoted and otherwise was over the top in regards to her. She definately got a unique level of vitriole.

Obama is not getting a unique level of vitriole. He has a unique habit of chosing associates who have a uniquely anti-american and marxist view of things, a uniquely hardcore communist father, a stated life-plan of following his father's dreams...

How is it hate rather than an obvious duty to point out such amazing things? How could you possibly think the public or the board didn't have a right to that information?

And I hasten to add the public largely are still unaware of these facts due to a media in the tank for him.

 
747Perm Dude
      ID: 171049717
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 09:37 		Hahaha. Good stuff. The "media" did it all. Damn them!
 
748Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 11:41 		the left hasn't diluted the meaning of that word any.

I'm not obsessed with a left/right dichotomy as you are. Nowhere in my post did I even refer to left or right. Actually, I said Let'sthe contraction for Let us, meaning all of us , not us leftists, or us independents, or us moderates.

How is it hate rather than an obvious duty to point out such amazing things?

Because many of the amazing things you point out are radical personal interpretations(a uniquely hardcore communist father, a stated life-plan of following his father's dreams...)
or unsupported and thoroughly rejected claims(insert anything James Corsi and his enabler WND claims here).

facts due to a media in the tank for him.

My feeling is that using a media as an acceptable term is a fallacious attempt at finding a scapegoat instead of an honest analysis of the election cycle.
There is no a media. There are thousands of media outlets where information is disseminated, which covers the entire political spectrum. It seems you wouldn't have been satisfied unless CBS Nightly News would have opened with:

"Marxist candidate Barack Obama explained his communist platform today at a speech in Denver."

or

"Suspected Muslim candidate B Hussein Obama, likely an Arab and not even an American citizen, called for the destruction of Israel today during a speech in Charlotte."

I also dispute the assertion that

the media quoted and otherwise was over the top in regards to her[Palin].

Palin got rock star treatment, and more media exposure than John McCain, seemingly to her and her suppoters delight. When you say over the top, I'd need specifics instead of generic accusation. I don't remember once any mention of Thompson Point, Bristol Bay or predator control and wolf bounties in what could be considered the mainstream media, issues that only resonate positively with the conservative wing of anti-environmentalism, which I realize includes you.

It's not a fact that the media was in the tank for Obama. It's an opinion and a commonly advanced opinion from the fringe right who continually whine about not being represented or under-represented. Part of the reason for that is tendency to dismiss people as RINOs, not 'real' conservatives, Trotskyites, Rockafeller Republicans, globalists, etc.

Once you've thrown all hese out of the mix, what do you have left? Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin?







 
749Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 12:21 		Palin is a liberal erotica fantasy of "What if".

i'm pretty sure it's not the liberals around here who are blowing copious loads over Palin.
 
750Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 16:40 		Sarah Palin - the opportunist of all opportunists...

Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday that she would be honored to help President-elect Barack Obama in his new administration, even if he did hang around with an "unrepentant domestic terrorist."

 
751Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 16:54 		I stand by my statement that Palin and her supporters are total jokes. Liberals will be laughing for the next 8 years if she decides to run in 2012. I seriously doubt she will. Her 15 minutes are up. She may try, but I think there are a few conservatives left that are smart enough to know better than to put her at the top of the ticket, even if that group is not represented on these boards.
 
752Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 08:35 		so, here's a beaut...

remember that whole thing FOX NEWS REPORTED about Sarah Palin not knowing the countries in NAFTA or that Africa was a continent and all that business?

A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence

Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

seems that Fox News got duped. And here comes the NY Times to report that dupe. AND, here's MSNBC admitting it got duped, and issuing a retraction...

and back to the first link, here's Fox News continuing to stand behind its story.

i like the irony in Fox News "breaking" a story about its preferred candidate, that story turning out to be hoax, the NY Times reporting the story of that hoax, and Fox, in turn, continuing to stand by its reporting.

they keep eating their own.
 
753Frick
      ID: 3410551012
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 08:47 		There is no way that Palin get's elected as President. I'm an independent, but typically vote Republican. One of the biggest turn-offs from voting Republican this year was the possibility that Palin could become President if McCain passed away during his term. That possibility weighed heavily on my final decision.

People who decide public policy based on their religious beliefs have no place in public office.
 
754Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 08:58 		Frick, you are not only in being terrified of Palin as President. Welcome to the crowd of people with either no political philosophy or an evil philosophy, so says Baldwin.

I am so disappointed that the Palin info was not true. That's okay. We'll always have the Couric interview.
 
755WiddleAvi
      ID: 710271316
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 09:01 		Whats funny is that I thought I remember Faux news saying that their 'source' didn't let them release that stuff until after the election !!
 
756bibA
      ID: 010421015
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 12:51 		Razor - It is not that the story wasn't necessarily true (as to her knowledge of Africa etc.). If I am reading it correctly, the hoax was re the identity of the source, not the original story itself.
 
757Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 16:23 		it's the Sarah Show!

“As far as we’re concerned, the past is the past and we’re all focused on the future,” she said, surrounded by many of her fellow Republican chief executives.

But then, immediately after addressing reporters, she walked across the hall and delivered a speech before a session titled “Looking Towards the Future” that was largely a nostalgic trip back through the last two months, replete with mention of Joe the Plumber and the other memorable campaign trail moments.

She said at the press conference that the GOP governors “want to reach out to the new administration and offer our assistance, our support, offer solutions.”

“We’re here to help,” she said.

Then, opening her speech, Palin offered: "Let us resolve not to be the negative party."

But in the same speech she implicitly offered the same criticism of President-elect Barack Obama that Republicans leveled throughout the fall.

“We are not the many voting yea or nay or present,” she said of her fellow governors, a veiled reference to Obama’s “present” votes as an Illinois state senator.

And, in language that could have been taken directly out of her or McCain’s stump speech, Palin reminded her audience that Congress is run by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Rep. Barney Frank — to a person, the same three stock liberal villains Republicans invoked in the final weeks of the campaign to warn against full Democratic control of Washington.

i REALLY hope Baldwin is correct and she is the new face of the Republican party.

at 44 years old, she really could give us a Stassen-esque run, and really, go for the presidency in '12, '16, '20, '24, '28, '32, and '36, when she'll be the same age McCain was this year when he ran.

GOOOOOOOOO PALIN!
 
758Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 14:09 		Mother of Palin daughter's boyfriend arrested

Sherry L. Johnston (mother of Levi) was arrested Thursday after troopers served a search warrant on a Wasilla home. The 42-year-old Johnston has been charged with six felony drug counts.

Using the Baldwin Theory of Correlation, it seems pretty clear that Sarah Palin is also a drug user and drug pusher. Good thing her ticket didn't win.
 
759Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 15:12 		Since I have been telling anyone who would listen that the Bush dynasty has been involved in the drug trade since the China Opium wars and that they controlled the drug importation states of Texas and Florida [and probably won't pardon Campean and Ramos' convictions no matter how many petitions I sign] for a reason...

...I guess Palin's prospective inlaws selling a few joints is a bit anti-climactic.
 
760Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 16:08 		my guy feeling is that it's not weed, but meth.

good timing though, since her grand kid is due tomorrow.

i like how suddenly you're bringing Bush into this though, and all but ignoring the fact that Sarah Palin clearly condones illegal activities and harbors drug pushers.
 
761DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 16:17 		I could really care less what the third cousin twice removed (or whatever it was) of Palin's daughter does. Tree, if it's stupid when it's done to Obama, it's stupid here too.

That all said, Boldwin, I thought that Sarah was a "true" conservative?
 
762Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 19:06 		I could really care less what the third cousin twice removed (or whatever it was) of Palin's daughter does. Tree, if it's stupid when it's done to Obama, it's stupid here too.

um. yea. that's kind of my point.
 
763Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 19:13 		It remains to be seen what lesson we can draw from Palin's prospective inlaws. I do not agree to being judged by my inlaws to be sure. I'm surprised anyone would seriously do so in this case. More likely tongue in cheek opportunism.
 
764Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 21:58 		for months you've been judging people on much less than the company they keep, never mind people they're about to be kin to.
 
765Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 17:06 		Drug in Levi's mom's case is oxycontin

some of the charges are manufacturing and delivering.

great company there that Palin keeps.
 
766Baldwin
      ID: 1211491020
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 17:19 		That's about as nefarious as black market codene cough syrup. I'm surprised SZ hasn't taken up her cause.
 
767Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 19:23 		That's about as nefarious as black market codene cough syrup.

simply idiotic.

it's one of the most abused prescription meds around, if not THE most abused. many, many, many violent crimes have been committed to obtain it.
 
768Perm Dude
      ID: 811502010
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 19:42 		That's about as nefarious as black market codene cough syrup

I echo tree's statement. Ask MBJ, who is on the front line of this issue, about oxycontin.
 
769Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 23:19 		Well by all means start whacking on Palin early and often because she already cost you a filibuster-proof senate and this isn't the last you'll hear from her by a long shot.

My advice is filibuster long and often.
 
770Perm Dude
      ID: 811502010
      Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 23:32 		Don't forget:

-politicize justice

-celebrate mediocrity as "authentic"

Palin is from overreaching white trash stock. And her 15 minutes are up.
 
771Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Sun, Dec 21, 2008, 00:02 		Well by all means start whacking on Palin early and often because she already cost you a filibuster-proof senate and this isn't the last you'll hear from her by a long shot.

don't really like that guilt by association thing much, do ya? it's ok when you want to accuse Obama of things because he's had casual brushes with people, but when Palin has a relationship with someone who's a bad seed, you like looking past it.

as for Palin herself, I PRAY TO GOD EVERY DAY that we hear from her often. the more she opens her mouth, the more she is on the scene, the more foolish she looks, and i really, really, really want her to run for president every four years for the next forty...
 
772walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sun, Dec 21, 2008, 10:40 		That is one great Freudian slip: "start whacking on [off] Palin early and often..."

That's about all she is good for in the public eye. PD summed it up well in #770. It's okay if you want a conservative in power, but for the sake of our country, please choose someone with a brain for a change. You forget Bush already?
 
773Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Sun, Dec 21, 2008, 14:56 		Tree has made your brain regress, Walk. Not to mention the board.
 
774Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Sun, Dec 21, 2008, 15:00 		Walk

I'd like to believe that we are both above Beavis and Butthead.
 
775Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Mon, Dec 22, 2008, 01:42 		Tree has made your brain regress, Walk. Not to mention the board.

nice unprovoked attack on me again. not entirely unexpected, since you do it with regularity.

you are such a pompous fraud, it's commendable.
 
776Baldwin
      ID: 221172017
      Mon, Dec 22, 2008, 06:58 		Which god do you allegedly pray to every day, Tree?
 
777Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Mon, Dec 22, 2008, 09:53 		Which god do you allegedly pray to every day, Tree?

the same one as you, more or less. my religion, however, is just a bit older than yours, and we use an older book.
 
778walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Dec 22, 2008, 12:22 		Defensiveness is also Freudian, Baldwin.

Lighten up, bro...the quote you made would have been seized upon by someone, anyone. It was just too low hanging fruit not to pick.
 
779Seattle Zen
      ID: 22041812
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 17:38 		The gleam on this Hockey Mom has worn off even amongst Alaskans. Here's a poll taken in December of Alaskans about whom they would support in a 2010 Senate Republican primary:

Murkowski (R-i) 57, Palin (R) 33

OUCH! Twenty four points behind.

link
 
780Perm Dude
      ID: 410112116
      Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 11:57 		Even Newsmax seems to have had enough of Palin being passive-aggressive
 
781Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 23:33 		or not
 
782Baldwin
      ID: 180202819
      Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 05:20 		WTF are you talking about, PD?
 
783Perm Dude
      ID: 55072921
      Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 10:18 		Oh, no, Baldwin's favorite rag gets caught once stepping over Das Party line! WTF indeed!
 
784Baldwin
      ID: 400113011
      Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 12:11 		Nothing jumps out at me in that Newsmax piece that coincides with your description. Please clarify.
 
785sarge33rd
      ID: 240533010
      Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 12:12 		from PDs link n 780 above:

She slammed reports that 18-year-old Bristol Palin and the teen's fiance are high school dropouts. The governor insists the two are not dropouts because they enrolled in correspondence courses.

uhhhhh, did they graduate? No. Are they still in school and attending class? No? Then they dropped out.
 
786Baldwin
      ID: 400113011
      Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 12:15 		Homeschoolers would tend to disagree with that exact terminology. So misleading as to be deceitful.
 
787sarge33rd
      ID: 240533010
      Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 12:25 		OK Baldy, add this one then:

Are they being home schooled? No? Then they dropped out.
 
788Perm Dude
      ID: 55072921
      Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 13:22 		Homeschoolers would not disagree with that terminology, because it is important to note that Levi was described as a high-school dropout for months (because he was and probably is). Only when Palin, in complaining about the press, mentioned he was now supposedly enrolled in correspondence courses did the possibility exist that he was back in the system. But is really is up to Palin to stop whining to the refs and start clarifying what the hell she is talking about.
 
789walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 13:27 		"misleading as to be deceitful" -- I've seen crazier analogies elsewhere...even though I'll go with PD on this one as knows this stuff first-hand.
 
790Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Wed, Mar 11, 2009, 22:19 		didn't see this coming from a mile away...

Alaska Gov. Palin's Daughter, Boyfriend Break Up

Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin, the teenage daughter of Gov. Sarah Palin, have broken off their engagement, he said Wednesday, about 2 1/2 months after the couple had a baby.
 
791Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 10:48 		I really don't see the relevance, except to shove the right's noses in it. Anyone still clinging to Palin as the savior of the GOP is detatched enough that the left does not need to do the I-told-you-so-dance about her family's personal problems.
 
792Perm Dude
      ID: 25219128
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 10:56 		Palin, and the Right, made the Palins' response to Bristol Palin's pregnancy a front and center example of a tough pro-life decision. Sarah Palin's intentional decision to make her children political props in her candidacy makes it all quite relevant.
 
793Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 11:14 		what PD said.

this was a big deal in the campaign, and there were many people who felt that quite possibly Levi Johnston was put up to the task.

because Palin is someone thought of as a front-runner in 2012, issues SHE pushed to media and to the forefront, are certainly still relevant.
 
795Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 11:54 		Honestly I never understood the relevance of Bristol's romantic life. Her pregnancy, as her mother's support reflected on the candidate's pro-life position, ok.

Sarah's position has always been that the baby should be born. She's never offered any indication that the age and/or marital status of the mother is a factor in that position.

So please humor me. What are the relevant political ramifications of the breakup of Bristol and Levi?

Or is it just that Sarah's use of her family as a political prop allows you to claim the right to openly gossip about them?
 
796Perm Dude
      ID: 25219128
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 12:07 		When Sarah Palin made Bristol Palin's pregnancy (and how her family was handling it) an example of her fitness for office, she opened the door to all sorts of questions about that relationship, particularly since her discussions about the whole thing are on-going.

This is, of course, a case file for why politicians shouldn't use their children as props in the story of how the politician is fit for office. This is not a case file of people digging into private affairs.
 
797Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 12:12 		Or is it just that Sarah's use of her family as a political prop allows you to claim the right to openly gossip about them?

i think Palin's use of her family as a prop absolutely allows for them to be news in situations that are relevant to the news story.

as far as i'm concerned, the sick and twisted saga of Bristol Palin and Levin Johnston (and it is sick and twisted, because Sarah Palin should never have trotted her daughter or Johnston out there like she did) is now probably a closed chapter.

unless Sarah Palin trots out Bristol's next beau as an example of real man who will take care of a single mother and her child, whatever Bristol Palin does next, whatever Levi Johnston does next, is their own business, much as this SHOULD have been...
 
798Baldwin
      ID: 10258919
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 12:13 		PD

Trust me PD, you have lost your mind since falling in love with Obama.

Palin didn't go out of her way to bring her kids into the arena. Your side flooded Alaska with muckrakers and dragged them front and center ahead of McCain. Any mention she made of them was damage control, pure and simple.
 
799Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 12:13 		she opened the door to all sorts of questions about that relationship

OK, so your answer is that you claim the right to openly gossip about them... unless you're being coy and can provide some examples of these "all sorts of questions" about Bristol's romantic life that are politically relevant.
 
800Perm Dude
      ID: 25219128
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 12:17 		I don't claim any such right, and I won't be baited into a silly definitional war in which you get to choose what is "politically relevant" and what is meant by "romantic life."

The point is that Sarah Palin believed Bristol Palin's pregnancy and "romantic life" to be politically relevant.

 
801Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 12:17 		there were many people who felt that quite possibly Levi Johnston was put up to the task.

Who are these people?
 
802Perm Dude
      ID: 25219128
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 12:20 		Palin didn't go out of her way to bring her kids into the arena.

ROFL! Did you even see the convention?
 
803Baldwin
      ID: 10258919
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 12:24 		Damage control. That was making lemonade out of the lemons being thrown.
 
804Perm Dude
      ID: 25219128
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 12:28 		Levi didn't have to be there. That was a choice. And passing aroung Trig like a plaque wasn't damage control. It was a prop maintainance.

The problem is that your gal Sarah Palin, who seems to have zero skill in dealing with the media, decided to put her family in the spotlight without thinking through.

Everything after the convention? That was, indeed, damage control.
 
805Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 12:47 		PD - The pregnncy and boyfriend were not made an issue or even mentioned by Palin before the lurid stories (and even more lurid rumormongering about Trig being Bristol's child) were tossed out by creeps on the Left -sur, after the fact, she didn't try to hide her family (they went onto the platform just like the Obama kids and the Bush twins, etc. - but it's extremely revisionist of you to act like bringing Bristol'v love life into the public domain was Palin's idea.
 
806Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 12:51 		Palin didn't go out of her way to bring her kids into the arena.

For the record, Palin issued a press release about Bristol's preganacy before it was reported on any national TV or newspaper media outlet. The pregnancy had already been reported in local media in AK and rumors had made the rounds on the blogs. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to call it damage control but she most certainly did bring her kids into the arena.

That said, I fail to see how that fact qualifies reports of the demise of Bristol's relationship with Levi as anything greater than celebrity gossip.
 
807Perm Dude
      ID: 25219128
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 12:54 		What's with all this focus one "love life" and "romantic life?" You (and MITH) seem focused on this, while others (like myself) are far more focused on the lack of marriage between the two. And no one mentioned Trig's mom not being Sarah here, yes? This aside of yours seems just odd.

 
808Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 13:06 		Was out-of-wedlock pregnancy relevant to any McCain/Palin ticket campaign issues?
 
809biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 13:09 		McCain and Palin appear to disagree on Sex Ed

That said, I think we shouldn't be harping on their breakup at this point.
 
810Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 13:10 		And no one mentioned Trig's mom not being Sarah here, yes?

It was not an aside - it was all part and parcel of the gossip train - and it was mentioned here.
 
811Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 13:14 		Is 809 in response to 808?
 
812Biliruben
      ID: 52052916
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 13:20 		yup
 
813Perm Dude
      ID: 25219128
      Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 13:22 		Clearly what we need is for bili to shoot up to AK and get those crazy kids back together again.
 
814Perm Dude
      ID: 32291914
      Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 10:06 		Palin already stepping over Alaska in her political ambitiousness by turning town some of the stimulus money that she had agreed with the AK Legislature to take.

Among the money refused is the $170 million the Legislature thought they had agreed to take, which is specifically targetted for special needs, rural poor, and other economically disadvantaged kids.

Alaskans, who have a negative state income tax while getting back more money per-capita from the federal government than any other state (by and large, red states feed at the trough much more than blue states) might or might not need the money. But Palin's chomping at the bit to get out of Juneau has some people in Alaska a bit pissed at broken deals.
 
815Perm Dude
      ID: 54242267
      Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 11:19 		Doesn't sound like she has the "talking out of both sides of her mouth thingy" down yet.
 
816Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 12:42 		but she's Ronald Reagan in a skirt, and the savior of the Republican Party!!
 
817Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 18:20 		Allahpundit at Hot Air:
She said she meant no disrespect by it, but it’s hard to see how: “So I’m looking around for somebody to pray with, I just need maybe a little help, maybe a little extra… And the McCain campaign, love ‘em, you know, they’re a lot of people around me, but nobody I could find that I wanted to hold hands with and pray.” She ended up praying with Piper. Maybe she meant there was no one there with whom she felt close enough to share a moment like that?
Anyway, I’m sure it’s all their fault for feeling insulted.
“We all talked this A.M.,” said one former Palin aide in an e-mail. “This set off a nerve for sure with a lot of people.”
“It’s yet another example of the few staff still loyal to Palin questioning their loyalty and ardent defense of her over the several months since the campaign,” said the aide, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about campaign colleagues…
“It’s about us people who were on the plane, who showed extreme loyalty to Palin, continually getting thrown under the bus or slapped in the face by her comments, whether she means it or not,” the staffer said, adding that Palin’s remarks “cause you to question not only your loyalty but her judgment as a leader.”
The former aides said they place part of the blame for Palin’s post-campaign candor on the governor’s staff in Alaska. Several have reached out individually to offer advice or assistance to the governor, but “have gotten only pleasantries in response,” said one aide.
 
818Boldwin
      ID: 392192513
      Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 05:23 		OMG MITH, You can't see what's going on there?

The very people who hated Palin as a choice, who tried to stifle her and stuff her into the McCain box...

The very people who just couldn't contain themselves from muttering campaigns against her on the campaign trail...

The very same people today hoping to get her on the 'dump Rush and conservatism from the party' wing of the party...

They just don't feel the love? Are you kidding me???

Oh, they were loyal to her...

Oh, they've only now started to have reservations about her...

You have to have been born yesterday to buy that stuff.
 
819Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 07:32 		The very people who hated Palin as a choice, who tried to stifle her and stuff her into the McCain box...

Funny how these people keep changing. First it was supposed to be the neocons who wanted to undermine her by planting negative stories. But then it turned out that it was neocons who recruited her in the first place and remain her most loyal supporters. Then it was supposed to be McCain's staffers. But these people were Palin staffers during the campaign - the onese who Palin supporters told us were credible when McCain staffers were went public with some of their gripes.

And of course I pulled that post from Michelle Malkin's blog, Hot Air.

Looks like any time anyone on the right takes an issue with Sarah Palin you'll always be able to dismiss them as The very people who just couldn't contain themselves from muttering campaigns against her on the campaign trail... How far will you be willing to compromise yourself for this woman whom you know so little about. This woman who was recruited by neocoms and has been called a moldable clean slate by Pat Buchanan.

Tell me, do you pigeonhole Peggy Noonam, who didn't like Palin as a choice, into your "'dunp conservatism from the party' wing of the party'? As further and further evidence emerges that Palin might not quite deserve all the conservative cred that the desperate right has attributed her, will you stand with the conservatives who ask the honest questions or will you stand with the cutesy wink and the proud neocons who have molded her into one of their own as you covered your eyes and continued to fawn?
 
820Boldwin
      ID: 392192513
      Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 07:35 		But then it turned out that it was neocons who recruited her in the first place and remain her most loyal supporters.

Wow, you actually were born yesterday. The neocons were just using her as conservative camoflage for their candidate.
 
821Boldwin
      ID: 392192513
      Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 07:44 		Further if you read your own link in it's entirety and carefully you will see they themselves admit to being confused about who these anonymous insiders actually are so I don't know where you get off being so sure.

Peggy Noonan is another matter. I think she has just gotten a bit to cozy with Washington insiders. Happens to the best of them if they are not extremely careful.

 
822Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 08:12 		The neocons were just using her as conservative camoflage for their candidate.

So William Kristol went to Alaska in 2007 to recruit Palin to the GOP presidential ticket that wouldn't be formed for well over a year? Yeah, I guess I was born yesterday to not have figured that out.

if you read your own link in it's entirety and carefully you will see they themselves admit to being confused about who these anonymous insiders actually are so I don't know where you get off being so sure.

HAA! Who's "being so sure"? You're the one who claims to know exactly who these people are - I mean, you did write post 818, not me, right?

Peggy Noonan is another matter. I think she has just gotten a bit to cozy with Washington insiders.

Amazing. You will toss aside a conservativbe with unquestionable bona-fides - one who you are on record here as saying you just might prefer to Saint Ronald himself - for an unproven neocon recruited empty shirt with a flirty smile and for whom questions about what periodicals she reads are not fair game.

Who needs a thread about what has gone wrong with the Republican Party?
 
823Seattle Zen
      ID: 532222711
      Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 13:23 		for an unproven neocon recruited empty shirt

Actually, she turns the "empty shirt" cliche on its head. Her shirt was the one thing that wasn't empty. As she was so proud to point out as a beauty pageant contestant, "I may be broke, but I'm not flat busted..." It should have said, "I may be dim..."

Her fifteen minutes of fame is over, though I could see her begging to be added to season 17 of Dancing with the Stars after getting obliterated in the Alaskan gubernatorial Republican primary in 2010.
 
824Baldwin
      ID: 122332717
      Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 19:52 		Mith

Exactly what is contradictory between my saying 'The neocons were just using her as conservative camoflage for their candidate', and Bill Kristol tapping Palin as cover for the atrocious McCain.
 
825Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 10:29 		The issue isn't one of contradiction, it's that Palin has been the apple of Bill Kristol's eye since the middle of 2007. If you recall, McCain's camaign was in total shambles at that time. His fund raising was in the dumpster, in July he let go of dozens of campaign staffers and his campaign manager, chief strategist, commmunications director and other key figures had resigned and the chair of his crucial FL campaign had been arrested for soliciting a prostitute. At the time - no one was seeking to camoflage the neocon (I can go with that) McCain.

Perhaps it's your opinion that Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee (all of whom enjoyed stints as front--runner between mid 2007 and very early 2008, I believe) are all neocons anyway and that Palin's neocon suitors felt they needed her to camoflage whichever neocon was left standing at the end of the primary season.

Whatever revision you come up with to justify your reasoning here, my point is that when Barnes wrote this column in the Weekly Standard no one thought McCain would be on the ticket a year later.

They fell in love with her because they recognized the potential in her exterior charisma to electrify the base and that her rightist sensibilities were still unrefined enough that she would be maleable. You think other factions on the right haven't realized the same thing?

To the power-brokers on the right, the best thing about Palin is that the base is so taken by her that despite how little they really know about the finer points of her politics (including how much they have even been formed yet) they have already annointed her "Reagan in a skirt"! Talk about setting yourself up for disappointment, not to mention providing fodder for the left when the inevitable letdown comes.

The funniest part of this is that you (the pro-Palin right) have created in her a likeness of your own characature of Barack Obama. A political neophyte to whom you have prematurely (and quite liberally) attributed greatness and even the acclamation of savior of the party. Sound familiar?
 
826Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 11:12 		Perhaps it's your opinion that Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee (all of whom enjoyed stints as front--runner between mid 2007 and very early 2008, I believe) are all neocons anyway and that Palin's neocon suitors felt they needed her to camoflage whichever neocon was left standing at the end of the primary season.

For anyone who believes such, what is neo-conservative about Romney?
 
827Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 11:46 		Boxman

what is neo-conservative about Romney

I've never been given a reason to so categorize him, tho I will admit that I'm not familiar enough with his foreign policy particulars to define him.

But B's definition of neocon is some dumbed down notion of liberal in conservative guise so it's not difficult to imagine him squeezing Romney into that box. Romney's conservative cred is probably most notably challenged by the excessive recent flip/flopping it took for him to win a governorship and execute the office in a northeastern liberal state and then change gears sufficiently to run for the GOP's presidential nomination. Funny thing about that is that the flip flop is a bugaboo created by the short-term-thinking political right to combat John Kerry in 2004. Y'all clearly didn't think your best 2012 (and probably 2008) presidential candidate to emerge in the next 5 years would (really) be a worse flip/flopper than your exaggerations about John Kerry.

But for anyone who knows what the word means, flip/flopping from a handful of more left-leaning positions doesn't make him a neocon, whether or not Baldwin or anyone else would take that tract.
 
828Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 15:44 		Just curious. I think Romney being a GOP nominee sometime in the future is a foregone conclusion. If Obama can't get the economy turned around Romney could very well be the nominee in 2012 and perhaps the next President.
 
829Baldwin
      ID: 122332717
      Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 16:15 		The word RINO would spring to mind when I think Romney, not neocon.
 
830Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Apr 03, 2009, 10:47 		Our would-be vice presodent:
Gov. Sarah Palin and the head of the Alaska Republican Party said Thursday that Sen. Mark Begich should give his Senate seat up to a special election now that prosecutors have abandoned their case against Ted Stevens. "Alaskans deserve to have a fair election not tainted by some announcement that one of the candidates was convicted fairly of seven felonies, when in fact it wasn't a fair conviction," Palin said in a Thursday interview with the Daily News.

The governor said she does not want to "split hairs" on whether Begich should resign or not but agrees with the Republican Party's call for a special election.
!

So now that it's possible that a few thousand Alaskan voters could potentially return to the misconception that Stevens it not a crook - we should void the electiuon we had in November and call a do-over!

Oh and, hey, lets not parse over such trivial minutia as whether the duly elected Senator should resign. It's just not that important.
 
831Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Fri, Apr 03, 2009, 11:38 		Jesus, Palin is a f*$&ing idiot.
 
832Tree
      ID: 24329813
      Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 14:33 		the Palin-Johnston feud...

"I think when (Sarah Palin) got back is when it went downhill," (Levi Johnston) said. "They don't think of me the same way anymore."

Johnston also said he was "heartbroken" when the relationship ended but added "I got an amazing little boy out of it."

Johnston's sister Mercede, also taking part in the interview, was even harsher in her assessment of the Palins, saying they are downright "snobby."

"Look what they are doing," she said. "They are lying trying to save themselves. They are the ones that asked for it. They brought him to the campaign. They should have known what was coming."
 
833Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Apr 18, 2009, 11:04 		One of the right's fastest rising stars, pundit Reihan Salam:
Months before Palin was selected as McCain’s running mate, I told anyone who’d listen that she’d be the shrewdest pick. When she addressed the Republican National Convention in Saint Paul, I was utterly electrified. But during the latter days of the campaign, I started hearing rumors about how top-level McCain backers were shuttling back-and-forth to Alaska to put out various fires, and of course there has been a steady drumbeat of stories about Palin’s low-level abuse of power. Then there is the fact that the national Republican Party has destroyed much of what was great about Sarah Palin, and she let them do it.

For all its virtues, Alaska has a very quirky political culture, one that doesn’t always translate in the lower 48. At first, this was Palin’s strength. She wasn’t a Southern evangelical, a familiar—some would say overfamiliar—figure in Republican politics. Rather, she was a Northern evangelical, with an accent that almost made her sound like a Minnesotan. Despite her meteoric rise as a foot soldier of Wasilla’s Christian right, she also cut a strangely post-partisan figure in her early days as governor. As she told The New Yorker’s Philip Gourevitch long before she was selected as McCain’s running mate, she was actually glad that Barack Obama was polling well in Alaska because it represented a challenge to the status quo. Suffice to say, most rising Republican stars would stick to praising John McCain.

Palin was quirky in another respect: Recognizing that Alaska had to carve out its own path, she broke with Beltway Republicans in supporting a windfall-profits tax on oil companies among other populist measures. But once Palin signed up as McCain’s running mate, she couldn’t talk up the windfall-profits tax, one of her central accomplishments, because the Republicans in Congress bitterly opposed it. Palin also had a gift for communicating policy details in homespun language. Soon after meeting the McCain team, she reportedly pressed for proposals that she could sell to working mothers and small-business owners and other key constituencies. The sad truth is that the McCain platform, a mish-mash that reflected the often-contradictory input of dozens of advisers and donors, didn’t give her much to work with. Sarah Palin thus became red meat for the base—the pitbull with lipstick.

Palin’s campaign antics can be forgiven. What can’t be forgiven is the ham-handed way she’s tried to build her national profile since she returned to Alaska. She’s abandoned the bold right-left populism that won over Alaska voters—and me—in the first place in favor of an increasingly defensive and harsh partisanship. After making her name as a determined enemy of Alaska’s corrupt Republican establishment, she recently called for Democratic Sen. Mark Begich to step down so the hilariously crooked Ted Stevens could get another crack at the seat. She loudly promised to leave federal stimulus money on the table before clawing that promise back with a whimper. One can’t help but get the impression that Palin is a clownish, vindictive amateur.

Now, for example, Palin is raising hackles for naming colorful crackpot Wayne Anthony Ross to be Alaska’s attorney general. It turns out that Palin may have consulted with Ross over a state senate appointment, a move that would have been against state law. As a general matter, state law is something you might want your AG to be on top of.

What I’m wondering is: Has Sarah Palin undergone some kind of secret lobotomy?

 
834Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Sat, Apr 18, 2009, 11:15 		pretty clear that dude is just some kind of RINO... ;o)
 
835Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 08:27 		Ruth Marcus
I'd like to thank Sarah Palin for her bravery in explaining the importance of a woman's right to choose. Even braver, the Alaska governor made her eloquent case for choice at a right-to-life fundraising dinner.

That was not, of course, Palin's intention in revealing that she momentarily considered having an abortion. Twice, actually -- once when she discovered she would be a mother at 44, again several weeks later when she discovered that her baby would have Down syndrome.

I'll quote Palin at length, partly because I want readers to see that I'm not taking her remarks out of context, even more because the account of her anguished choice about whether to "change the circumstances" is so gripping and so genuine. Instead of the Tina Fey caricature, we see a flesh-and-blood woman whose moral certainties are being put to a real-world test:

"I had found out that I was pregnant while out of state first, at an oil and gas conference. While out of state, there just for a fleeting moment, wow, I knew, nobody knows me here, nobody would ever know. I thought, wow, it is easy, could be easy to think, maybe, of trying to change the circumstances. No one would know. No one would ever know.

"Then when my amniocentesis results came back, showing what they called abnormalities. Oh, dear God, I knew, I had instantly an understanding for that fleeting moment why someone would believe it could seem possible to change those circumstances. Just make it all go away and get some normalcy back in life. Just take care of it. Because at the time only my doctor knew the results, Todd didn't even know. No one would know. But I would know. First, I thought how in the world could we manage a change of this magnitude. I was a very busy governor with four busy kids and a husband with a job hundreds of miles away up on the North Slope oil fields. And, oh, the criticism that I knew was coming. Plus, I was old . . .

"So we went through some things a year ago that now lets me understand a woman's, a girl's temptation to maybe try to make it all go away if she has been influenced by society to believe that she's not strong enough or smart enough or equipped enough or convenienced enough to make the choice to let the child live. I do understand what these women, what these girls go through in that thought process."
 
836Baldwin
      ID: 553441513
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 09:02 		Character is doing the right thing when no one else will know or hold us accountable. Of course that situation never obtains since God can and does. But it is simple to fool oneself into forgeting that.

It is one thing to understand the anguish and personal pain experienced by the mother in Small Sacrifices which is not at all the same thing as 'recognizing the importance of a woman's right to choose' murder.
 
838Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 09:07 		Just so I've got you pinned down on this - there is no relavant character assessment to be made from the lucid consideration of murdering one's unborn child, just from the choice made to not do so - which people should never be trusted with in the first place.
 
839Baldwin
      ID: 553441513
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 09:13 		Good people understand the temptation to do bad, as they themselves are of fallen flesh, but they do the right thing even when no one is loooking.

That is the basis for character assessment. That piece of yours is most definately not justification for infanticide from logic or from Sarah Palin.
 
840Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 09:16 		I'll take that as a 'yes'.
 
841Baldwin
      ID: 553441513
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 09:25 		I also expect you to forgive me for the momentary urges to strangle Tree.
 
842Boxman
      ID: 29351011
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 09:40 		You can't fault people for feeling temptation. We are all guilty of that. It's what you do when you encounter temptation that matters. I think Palin can really help young women in situations like these and I hope she continues to do so.
 
843Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 09:46 		That is the basis for character assessment.

All fair enough. I'd only note that you don't believe we should ever be given the opportunity to make that assessment about Palin or anyone.

And I'm not running down that opinion, just establishing it.
 
844Baldwin
      ID: 553441513
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 09:56 		Nor are my comments ever to be construed to support any false but purported 'right to choose' to perform euthanasia upon the mentally and spiritually challenged.
 
845Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 10:04 		...or on those in persistant vegetative states who can be used as a political prop.
 
846Boxman
      ID: 29351011
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 10:10 		...or on those in persistant vegetative states who can be used as a political prop.

Enough about Tree.

I kid I kid. I jest I jest.
 
847Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 10:15 		Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
 
848Boxman
      ID: 29351011
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 10:27 		Mith, what is your opinion about what Palin is doing as laid out in post 835?
 
849Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 10:29 		I'm not sure what you're asking. I agree with Marcus' take, if that answers your question.
 
850Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Fri, May 01, 2009, 20:17 		Governor Signs House Bill - Certificates for Stillborn Babies

i'm very excited to have added Sarah Palin to my Twitter account. i am sure, over time, her tweets will give me joy unbound.
 
851Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Fri, May 01, 2009, 20:31 		That is because you are blissfully free from the ravages of rational thot.
 
852Perm Dude
      ID: 5044818
      Fri, May 01, 2009, 20:51 		Just in case someone wants to check it all out, here's a "spoiler alert":

 
853Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Fri, May 01, 2009, 21:38 		That is because you are blissfully free from the ravages of rational thot.

i'm sure jesus went around insulting everyone too.

you're the biggest fraud around here, troll boy.
 
854Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Fri, May 01, 2009, 22:50 		Know yourself, Tree.
 
855Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Fri, May 01, 2009, 23:10 		i'm sure jesus went around insulting everyone too.

No, not everyone. Only those...

'who were from their father the devil',

'Serpents, offspring of vipers, how are you to flee from the judgment of Ge·hen´na? ',

'“Why are you thinking wicked things in your hearts?',

'Down to Ha´des you will come',

'but the signs of the times you cannot interpret. A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jo´nah',

'“Get behind me, Satan'

'So, after making a whip of ropes, he...'

'and out of his mouth a sharp, long two-edged sword was protruding...'

Not afraid to speak the truth.
 
856Perm Dude
      ID: 25449120
      Fri, May 01, 2009, 23:23 		Jesus never gives you permission to insult others, Baldwin.
 
857Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Sat, May 02, 2009, 00:06 		Someone has to put Tree exactly where he belongs.

It's just good board hygiene.

Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
 
858Perm Dude
      ID: 25449120
      Sat, May 02, 2009, 00:36 		A quote not found in the Bible.
 
859Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Sat, May 02, 2009, 01:10 		Where i belong, Baldwin, is head and shoulders above you as a human being - you, who apparently, now sees fit to judge others.

John, Chapter 11, Verse 35.

If Jesus knew how you acted, that's exactly what he would do.
 
860Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Sat, May 02, 2009, 03:43 		Now Tree, Imagine how you would feel if it took you years to discover that everyone had been too polite to tell you just how abysmally innadequate you were as a poster? This way the news can percolate thru that dense nogin and gradually dawn on you.
 
861Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, May 02, 2009, 08:21 		Doesn't Tree write an online column for a living? People pay for that? I thought I saw something in a thread around here with him writing about hot dogs. Odd that the guy into sodomy also has a "weiner" fixation too and admits to visiting San Francisco numerous times recently, but then gets offended when you point out the obvious.
 
862Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Sat, May 02, 2009, 11:04 		Baldwin - i've got no issues with my posting style, i've got no issues with people like MITH or PD or SZ or anyone else calling me out because they do it constructively, and i don't present myself as anything other than the real me.

you, on the other hand, are the one who tries to present some sort of "image" of yourself as devoutly religious, a man of god, and some sort of pious individual, when you struggle with some of the tenets of your own religion, and you wouldn't know "turn the other cheek" if you were standing there listening yourself to the Sermon on the Mount as it was happening.

Boxman - as for YOU...may i point out you're the one with a fixation for sodomy. you seem to point out my own, often enough. i will hold my tongue in regards to what i truly want to say, but if you're not into sodomy at all, well, you and your wife are missing out, because at least one of the acts of sodomy is a fairly common act between heterosexual partners.

it might also go a long ways toward explaining why you're such a prick.

as for your gay slurs, i expect nothing less from you, because you can deny it all you want, but that post was a good example of the homophobia you display.

sorry you don't like hot dogs. they're good on a grill. perhaps if you didn't have such a fear of dick (perhaps your own?), you might try a grilled hot dog one day. i recommend 'kraut and spicy brown mustard on it.

and why SF for me? because it's a kick ass city where you don't need a car to get around, and my girlfriend at the time was living in Burbank, and well, i'm not fond of Burbank, so SanFran made a great place for us to get together, and commit, well, ya know, sodomy with each other.
 
863Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, May 02, 2009, 11:55 		How's that forum-cleansing endeavor working out for you, B?
 
864Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Mon, May 04, 2009, 09:36 		Worked great on you, Mr. Former Ankle Ferret. 8]
 
865Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, May 04, 2009, 09:45 		As if.
 
866Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Jun 12, 2009, 13:48 		I've done my best to avoid most of the trashy celeb-gossip type coverage of the Palin family, including Letterman's disgusting comments about her daughter (whichever one he was referring to) but I thought it notable that the obstensibly pro-choice National Organization for Women has joined Palin in her public criticism of David Letterman.

Kudos to NOW for their willingness to put political differences aside to join with an otherwise diametric opponent in their greater common cause.