Democrats & Liberals Archives

Why Sarah Palin is Getting Hammered

Some of the Republicans who support the ticket wonder aloud about Democrats perhaps being scared of her. Scared why? We really started with no idea who she was. They bring dark umbrage upon the Democrats for being so aggressive in their scrutiny. What were they expecting, though, dropping an unknown in our laps? They accuse us of sexism. This is rich, this insult hurled at the party that actually came close to electing a woman, rather than just selecting her for gender appeal.

Why is she getting hammered by the liberals?

First, the part about her being an unknown, dropped in our laps. She was not a candidate, nor a longtime respected official, but a blank slate on which the McCain campaign wrote the words Maverick, Reformer. Just what McCain was expecting the modern Democrat to do is beyond me. This isn't the party of old, largely unmotivated, easy to bowl over with lots of news coverage painting a certain picture. The Democrats have learned to be aggressive, and their aggression combines with their edge on using information technology. Democrats immediately went to work finding things out.

If Palin had been indeed a reformer, a breath of fresh air, a relatively moderate Republican who had refused earmarks and managed things well, there would be little to report upon.

However, you know things aren't going right when even the Mainstream Media knows right off the bat she's under investigation. There was plenty to report upon, plenty to dig up. That contributes to what is probably the next factor in the intensity of the hammering: We view Palin as a vulnerability.

It's not because she's a woman. We just went through an intense, difficult campaign with one, so we know that in politics, there's no such thing as a weaker sex. That's not it. It's because she's such a rich treasure trove of hypocrisy and double dealing. Even before that Trig Palin sideshow, it had become quite obvious that few if any of her claims were true. Here's an example of her abject hatred of earmarks. In this photo, she proudly displays her affection for the Bridge to Nowhere, back before she didn't support it.

A police chief claims she fired him for not doing the will of her contributors. She has been associated with, and her husband has been a member of an anti-American Secessionist political party in Alaska whose founder said:

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government," Vogler said in the interview, in which he talked extensively about his desire for Alaskan secession, the key goal of the AIP.

"And I won't be buried under their damn flag," Vogler continued in the interview, which also touched on his disappointment with the American judicial system. "I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

Just to show you how fringe this group is, the founder was murdered, apparently, in a C-4 deal gone wrong

Republicans would like people to believe she rejected and renounced that party, But she seems to be on friendly terms with it., and perhaps more. . The less scrupulous Republicans talk about Obama being some secret sleeper agent, But listening to this, you might very well have substantive reason to be concerned about Palin conflicts of interest.

Sarah Palin, for Democrats, is the gift that keeps on giving. Why should we look a gift Macaca moment in the mouth?

It is unfortunate that her family life got involved, but I think, logically speaking, the secret of Bristol's pregnancy was never going to be a secret for long. They'll tell you we're responsible for forcing their hand, but in fact, the enquirer did that. The irony is that the Republicans rush to validate the Enquirer's story on John Edwards may have made this harder to deny.

Ultimately, the reason we go after Palin is that knowledge is power. We make choices as a voting public that are pretty much ours to make. The trick is, our choices depend on information. Those who control that data hope to control the meaningful information, so that we don't have the ability to judge things with our own critical faculties. Just dropping her in our laps was a way of gobstopping us long enough to shake things up. His problem, and that of the Republicans is that Democrats and Independents shook right back, and took a hard look at what he was offering. Republican hardliners and enthusiasts may be enchanted with her, but that's for a really simple reason: she was their pick to begin with.

Leaders within the party nixed anybody who Didn't combine supply side tax policy with hawkishness on the war, disdain for diplomacy, a full Republican pedigree, wen to a hard right church, etc, etc. Palin was the last of many choices, and it wasn't one the Republicans really let McCain make for himself.

You can't become the Republican nominee without satisfying the defenders of its status quo. Anybody who fails to pay homage is likely to lose the campaign, unless they turn around and run an insurgent campaign.

Which McCain didn't do. If McCain was truly the maverick in this field, he would have gone more the Ron Paul route. Instead, he ran as a Bush Republican, making nice with the religious right, loudly proclaiming the virtues of the war, pushing the Bush Administration's gilded age economic policies, taking his marching orders from the Club For Growth on taxes and fiscal policy, and so on and so forth.

The more we find out about Palin, the more she does seem like McCain: a talker, not a doer, an uninspiring, sometimes mean-spirited player of the game as it is who use isolated incidents in their careers to hide generic, sometimes extraordinary depths of corruption.

I have a feeling the reason they hate Obama so much is that he manages the feats they aspire to in their words in real life, but has the gall and temerity to be a liberal and a Democrat while doing it.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at September 4, 2008 3:39 PM
Comments
Comment #261519

Of course, if Palin were a Democrat, the GOP’s attacks would be quick, brutal, and dismissive, and they wouldn’t accept any complains of sexism.

In fact, they already did that.

(cross-posted)

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 4, 2008 4:50 PM
Comment #261529

Obama on Economics

Last night, 37 million American’s hear Gov. Palin’s speech in spite all the Obama and Obama media promoters. All day today Senator Barack Obama stated that last night Governor Sarah Palin did not discuss economics (CNN and Fox News, 4 Sep 08). Today on all major networks, Senator Obama economic expert spoke about Palin’s economics comments suggesting that Palin did not go into enough detail when talking about economics. It seems that Obama needs to get with his experts so that they can brief them on basic economic doctrine. The following web address is for Sen. Obama to learn a bit about “Economics for Dummies”:

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/economics_primer.html

Finally, Senator Obama today stated that during his convention that no one attacked McCain. Again, Obama lives in denial or perhaps does not understand the unethical individuals that support him. It seems Obama has forgotten his own negative speech in spite of his Lincoln, JFK and MLK entries by this community organizer. Maybe if Obama wrote his own speeches, then he would understand or recall its contents.

Posted by: Dr Hubert, Lt Col, USAF, Retired (2005) at September 4, 2008 5:18 PM
Comment #261530

stephen

Say what you want, but yesterday, 37,000,000 plus saw with their eyeballs an emerging star.

That number is better that Hillary’s night at the DNC, and is a shade under Barry’s big night with those styrofoam columns of his.

So, as Stephen says: ‘Who are you gonna believe? Me or your eyeballs?”

Groucho was a Republican you know.

Last night we saw the birth of the Reform Republican movement…and if McCain wins or not, Sarah will still be a player in the ‘12 election.

In sports terms, the first round draft choice threw 4 touchdown passes last night.

This morning, Blowhard Joe looked older that even John. He must be crapping in his undies over that October 2 debate, no?

Here’s the point: There is no way Jose that Barry, Harry, Ted, John Kerry, Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi represent the essence of what America is all about.

This race is far from over in a year which the Dems should have cracked 60 percent with ease.

By the way old fried, my president, who did a good job this time around, is experiencing an upturn in the polls…and now has a 10 point lead over that Democratic controlled Congress of yours that did zero…the same number as Barry’s accomplishments…when they had the chance.

hate to say it old friend, but another case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is unfolding right before your eyes.

If you want a Sarah button (it’s hot), let me know. :)

Posted by: sicilian eagle at September 4, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #261534

Here’s Ben Stein on Palin’s economic experience:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-most-pecula.html

Posted by: Max at September 4, 2008 5:31 PM
Comment #261535

I can’t stand Ben Stein because of the Expelled debacle, but that’s quite a harsh (and accurate) indictment.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 4, 2008 5:37 PM
Comment #261536

SE-
The question is not how many watched, but how many liked what they were seeing. You may be enchanted with the sarcasm and the red meat, but you were her target audience. Palin was a pick for your folks. She may not have gone over so well with the millions of curious and committed watching. Also, don’t forget: Obama got over 80,000 people to show up in person. And yes, they were Americans, who do count as voters.

You want to believe the other side doesn’t represent America. There are a s***load of Americans ready and willing to disagree with you on that count. You’ve got no special claims on America, least of all by way of a moose-obsessed Separatist.

You’re not satisfied until we break sixty, but any number over fifty and your goose is still cooked in any state. There are states that haven’t gone blue in generations that are polling with Obama in the lead.

I can’t help but feel a great swell of pity for a party that was running a campaign on experience, relishing the beating they were going to give the poor inexperienced Obama, and then turns around and screws their only big argument up by picking somebody with the exact same problem.

I don’t need buttons. I’ll have a real life president soon enough with my candidate’s name on him.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 4, 2008 5:42 PM
Comment #261537

sicilian eagle, another GOPAC star like GW Bush we don’t need for leadership of this country.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 5:43 PM
Comment #261538

It reminds me of Bush in that it was fairly clear he was an inexperienced lightweight without credibility. Did Republicans care? No.

They won’t care about Palin either. They don’t even know her, and they’re willing to cheer her on and make ridiculous claims.

It happened a long time ago. Republicans stopped caring about reality. The only thing that matters is that they have the right story.

Posted by: Max at September 4, 2008 5:54 PM
Comment #261541

Some more things that are shaking out of the far-from-honest claims Sarah made last night.

From: FactCheck.org
Date: 9/4/2008 10:23:26 AM
Subject: New FactCheck Article: Maverick Misleads

Maverick Misleads
September 4, 2008
A McCain ad comparing Palin to Obama isn’t all above board.
Summary
McCain’s campaign launched a TV ad touting his running mate, Palin, and offering a comparison to Obama. Some of its claims are off the mark:

It says Obama “gave big oil billions in subsidies and giveaways,” citing his votes for a 2005 energy bill. But the bill slightly raised taxes on the oil industry overall.


The ad plucked a positive blurb about Palin from an Associated Press article that, in fact, was very much a mixed review. The AP said she “brings an ethical shadow to the [Republican] ticket,” for example.


The ad says Obama is the “most liberal” Senator. But the National Journal rated him the 16th most liberal in his first year and the 10th most liberal in his second. It rated his votes “most liberal” only in 2007, when he was busy campaigning and missed one-third of the votes on which the rating is based.

Posted by: janedoe at September 4, 2008 6:09 PM
Comment #261546

I saw @ 21 million tuned in last night. What is the source for 38 million?

Posted by: phx8 at September 4, 2008 6:40 PM
Comment #261547

Another revealing Palin fact check

Posted by: RickIL at September 4, 2008 6:42 PM
Comment #261548

David

Sorry…but for the next 60 days, we will take the war head on…..a war WON by the way.

A war won despite the best efforts to subvert it by the left and “independant” pols and bloggers.

Back in ‘05, when things were grim, McCain was screeching about more boots on the ground. Back then, with the civil war in virtual full bloom….and aided by windbags from Congress like Kennedy and Murtha, a message of encouragement was constrantly send to the enemy…..”hold on a while…America hasn’t the stomach for war”

Guess what? We won. We won despite every obstacle thrown our way by every liberal worth his salt..including up to today…an abject refusal by Barry to admit it.

The word “won” can’t come out og the guys lips.

George Bush has gonads. He efficerated the enemy where ever he could find them.

He did this knowing full well the consequences here by hynias of the left.

Don Rumsfeld was a patriot. Today he is vilified by the left. He was responsible for destroying Saddam and his sons completely.

The trouble with you guys is that you did not hear the call that democracy takes time to root.

Look at our country…what did it take? How many years did it take to ratify our own constition?

A democracy was born. In the most dangerous place in the world.

Today, Iraq is pumping 2.4 million barrels a day.

Two years ago, when I wrote that they will get up to speed, I was attacked as a neocon.

Today, 14 of the 17 provinces are under Iraq security control.

Two years ago, I wrote that the Iraq security force needed a mid-level officer corps befofe it could mature…and that is happening now.

365,000 Iraqi patriots are now protecting a nacent democracy.

Three years ago, there was almost no securtity force to speak of.

Today, Petreus…who Move On called Betrayus…announced a troop withdrawl in Baghdad.

Had Kerry won, Iraq would have been lost.

No, David. I still back Bush…and the war.

Any there are plenty of us out there who will fight you tooth and nail these next 60 days.

Unlike the Dems, however, if Barry wins I will support him. That will not be the case if McCain wins. The day after the swearing in, the attacks will start again.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at September 4, 2008 6:48 PM
Comment #261550

Janedoe,

I want to address that last one if I may. In 2007 Obama was rated the most liberal senator. Why is that ‘unfactual’? It is misleading, of course, but so is Obama’s claim that McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time (he does change it to 90 from time to time, which is still misleading). In fact, he voted with bush 67 percent of the time in 2001 and 77 in 2005. Obama was close to that 67 with 49 percent…

The claim by your party that McCain is ‘McSame’ (god I hate namecalling) is no different than what was done by the McCain campaign in that ad.

Which begs the question, what is the real difference between the two parties?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 7:03 PM
Comment #261554

Sicilian Eagle, we won the war on terrorism? WoW, how did I miss that? Invading Iraq was just a battle in that war, or so, Republicans told us.

Gee. I will google the victory in the war on terrorism, since I missed it.

As for Iraq, that war ain’t over until our troops are no longer being fired upon. Mission Accomplished is a phrase Republicans and your comment, apparently, just don’t comprehend the meaning of.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 7:09 PM
Comment #261558

MSNBC was just showing the clip from Palin’s speech about how, as a parent of a disabled child she would be an advocate of family’s of disabled children. What I want to know, exactly what does that mean? Is she going to be an advocate for more services for parents and children? Or is she going to “feel their pain” while leaving them on their own?

My youngest sister was born 2 1/2 months premature due to an error by the army medical staff where we lived in Germany. She did not breathe for her first five minutes of life and suffered severe brain damage. My mother and sister both spent more than 2 months in intensive care and thanks to the US Army and the German health care system they both survived and the bill of close to $1,000,000 was covered. She never walked or talked but was the sweetest little angel that ever lived. My parents were determined to keep her as part of the family and not institutionalized in the horrendous conditions of many state run facilities - especially in the 80s when Reagan slashed the budget for these facilities. So my mom stayed home and did not work until my sister was in her teens. My parents were extremely lucky to have good federal health care once we moved back to the states as her condition required multiple surgeries, medication, and more doctor visits than I can count. My mother’s health was never the same either as she suffered from respiratory issues from her more than 2 months on a breathing machine that required constant care. Kathleen, my sister was lucky. Not only did she have the advantage of great health care and incredible parents but she was fortunate that a relative left her some money to help pay for her care. My parents did all they could to care for Kathleen and keep her at home but the expense of having to hire a care giver to help out after my mom had to return to work as she had three children in college at the same time on top of caring for my sister. If we hadn’t had government health care and a very nice rich aunt - I don’t think they would have made it. Kathleen’s prognosis was that she would be lucky to live into her teen years. She made it way past that. While my father’s insurance, while by comparison, was better than most. They dropped Kathleen’s coverage automatically when she turned 23. After fighting with them they reinstated her coverage but tried to deny payment on anything related to her disability since it was a pre-existing condition and her coverage had a 2 week or so gap when they dropped her. It took a lot of yelling and heartache to get her coverage fully reinstated. In 2000, her health started failing. She was 28. She went through several more surgeries and was finally put into a nursing home just before her 30th birthday. My parents, who were now in their 60s, visited her almost daily but after her admission she started to really slide and would catch pneumonia every other month. About a year after being institutionalized she passed away. My mother’s health declined steadily after my sister’s death and she passed away a year and a half later, ironically in the same ICU ward where my sister passed.

The point of this long story is that our government doesn’t do enough to help families with disabilities and families who aren’t as fortunate as mine are forced to make the very difficult choice to have their children institutionalized. The doctors told my parents that keeping Kathleen at home as long as they did prolonged her life considerably and certainly made her quality of life a lot better. Sarah Palin is just embarking on this journey and she certainly has my prayers and support in this journey. At the point where her son is now, it isn’t that much different from taking care of a baby without the issues that her son has. She will soon realize the hard, but very rewarding work she has in front of her.

What is she going to do as an advocate for families like mine? Or was this just a line to tug at our heart strings and get a sympathy vote? Is she an advocate for universal health care so families can make the choice to keep their kids at home? Or will she spearhead legislation closing loopholes allowing HMOs and insurance companies from denying care to people as they tried with Kathleen? Will she increase spending in our permanent care facilities? Will she do anything other than express her support?

Posted by: tcsned at September 4, 2008 7:13 PM
Comment #261561

David:

You said; Sicilian Eagle, we won the war on terrorism? WoW, how did I miss that? Invading Iraq was just a battle in that war, or so, Republicans told us.

I say: We WON in Iraq.

You say: As for Iraq, that war ain’t over until our troops are no longer being fired upon

I say: How silly.The contry is nearly completely pacified. More people were killed in Chicago, Barry’s home city, than US forces in Iraq for months now.

Maybe we should invade Chicago then.

Why don’t you give the guy a little credit, for Pete’s sake?

Posted by: sicilian eagle at September 4, 2008 7:23 PM
Comment #261562

Stephen D, since you’re into posting gossip lately, here’s a forum you will enjoy:
www.jossip.com/us-weekly

I guess it’s too bad that you’ll have to wait 2 more months for election results, and then another month for the electoral college. The level of antagonism towards Palin looks like frustration or anxiety. You aren’t as interested in hearing from the Enquirer when they are writing about your guy, but the foo is on the other shoot now.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 4, 2008 7:30 PM
Comment #261563

The questions asked in this article from Townhall.com remain. When will Obama answer?

http://townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/04/17/airing_the_ayers-obama_connection

Posted by: Jim M at September 4, 2008 7:32 PM
Comment #261565

All I have to say is GOD! I wish someone would post another topic unrelated to Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Carolina at September 4, 2008 7:40 PM
Comment #261568

Perhaps the “base” of the Republican party enjoyed Palin’s sarcastic, mocking, chest thumping acceptance speech. I, for one, found it offensive. Trash talk and taunting. Great! What a wonderful vehicle for determining the future leadership of the U.S.

Posted by: Rich at September 4, 2008 7:49 PM
Comment #261571

I agree with Carolina. This stuff is getting like a broken record. Anyone who would believe the SH__ that’s in the enquirer, I got ocean front property for sale in Arizona. And Rich the other party is doing about the same thing so welcome to the world of politics.

Posted by: KAP at September 4, 2008 7:58 PM
Comment #261573

KAP - you just might have ocean front property in Arizona after the sea level rises from the lack of action of climate change if McCain/Palin manage a miracle and win the election. Hold on to it and buy a beach ball.

Sarah Pain has really overshadowed McCain since her nomination in a way that didn’t happen with Joe Biden. Maybe that’s because McCain is such a poor candidate for president that anyone looks exciting by comparison. It appears as if the GOP wishes she were #1 and McCain was #2. Let’s see if McCain can do better at delivering a speech tonight as according to the Repubs Palin set the bar pretty high. Let’s see how he reads someone else’s words on a teleprompter.

KAP - if the GOP had made her available to the press to answer questions things might have calmed down. Nothing starts a media feeding frenzy more than silence - silence looks like hiding something. What could it be? Lack of intellectual capacity? Lack of basic policy understanding? Corruption? The more you hide the more people will fill in the blanks for her.

Posted by: tcsned at September 4, 2008 8:10 PM
Comment #261574

tcsned

What is she going to do as an advocate for families like mine? Or was this just a line to tug at our heart strings and get a sympathy vote? Is she an advocate for universal health care so families can make the choice to keep their kids at home? Or will she spearhead legislation closing loopholes allowing HMOs and insurance companies from denying care to people as they tried with Kathleen? Will she increase spending in our permanent care facilities? Will she do anything other than express her support?

I think most of us have had to deal with coercing our insurers to pay. My oldest son worked the phones for an HMO as a person who handled complaints. He said it was pretty standard procedure to delay people in hopes that they would eventually give up the fight. It is wrong but I guess we just have to be persistent. Here is a little info that I found. The link to this and a few other facts is a few posts up.

Palin: “To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.”

Sarah Palin might have changed her mind on this one recently. However, a comment here notes that Palin actually slashed funding for schools for special needs kids by 62%. Budgets: FY 2007

Posted by: RickIL at September 4, 2008 8:11 PM
Comment #261578

tcsned
Why should the Republicans have made her avaliable to the press? The majority of the press is pro Obama. All they would have done is turn everything she said around so the liberal wing of the Dems would have something to blog about. IMO the radical left wingers are the ones who are going to hurt BHO in this election. People are watching and reading some of the trash that is being peddled in these blogs, just like the far right radicals of the rep party, will hurt McCain.

Posted by: KAP at September 4, 2008 8:35 PM
Comment #261579

KAP:

Anyone who would believe the SH__ that’s in the enquirer, I got ocean front property for sale in Arizona.

You do realize that The Enquirer broke the John Edwards Affair story, right? That rag seems to love digging into those affair rumors more than anything else — and they don’t seem too bad at it either.

the other party is doing about the same thing

No, you’re wrong about that. Obama doesn’t see any reason to talk about Palin.

tcsned:

if the GOP had made her available to the press to answer questions things might have calmed down. Nothing starts a media feeding frenzy more than silence - silence looks like hiding something. What could it be? Lack of intellectual capacity? Lack of basic policy understanding? Corruption?

How about all of the above? :^)
Btw, thanks for sharing your family story with us. I agree that we need universal healthcare for all Americans.
Since McSame has no real plan to change healthcare, Palin was selling nothing more than rhetorical support for children with disabilities and their families last night.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 4, 2008 8:40 PM
Comment #261582
and they don’t seem too bad at it either.

? 40 years and they got 1 right?

Yeah, not too shabby there… :/

No, you’re wrong about that

Except everyone else besides Obama is.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 8:45 PM
Comment #261587

KAP - c’mon you gotta have a better line than it’s all the “liberal” media’s fault, it’s so 80s. That is one of the biggest straw men out there. She hasn’t even done an interview with the GOPs own news outlet - Faux News. Palin tried to attack the Washington Media last night and it was weak. The reason so many rumors have been flying around is that she won’t talk. Nothing shuts up the rumor mill quicker than getting straight from the horse’s mouth (or the other end for her).

There seems to be enough for us on the left to go after that has nothing to do with her daughter, her personal life, or the rest of her family that if she will just tell us what she is for and against we will commence to attack her on her misguided, naive, and 2 dimensional political views.

If someone won’t talk to the media there is usually a good reason - we will eventually find out that reason but too bad for McCain it will be too late to replace her with one of the more qualified candidates he could have selected. That’s the problem with Hail Mary passes - there’s usually not enough game left to do anything when you come up short and McCain is doing with Palin. As I said before, he should have selected Michael Palin - he’s smarter, funnier, albeit British.

Posted by: tcsned at September 4, 2008 9:18 PM
Comment #261588

VV I didn’t mean it for Obama I meant it for certain people on this blog and elsewhere who just want to dig up dirt and think it cute. And tcsned I did include the right wing reps. See liberal jump to defend while I blame the radicals of both sides.

Posted by: KAP at September 4, 2008 9:32 PM
Comment #261592

Stephen Daugherty,

But the media wasn’t discussing any of that stuff were they? They were too busy ripping on her daughter for being pregnant. They were too busy asking the campaign for DNA tests to prove that the baby she had was actually hers!
The “issues” you raised decidedly took a back burner.

As for your charges themselves, pretty weak.
Secessionists? I remember many leftys seriously discussing seceding some states after the last election. Normal people ignored them, of course.

Troopergate? Not really a big problem. You might want to try reading up on it instead of posting a link that says next to nothing about it in order to make her look bad.

And yes, the Democrats are scared, and they are in damage control. According to polls, Obama’s small bump has disappeared. The people liked what they saw in Palin even before last night. It’s going to be pretty hard for Obama to catch up from the bump McCain will get from the convention.

I have a feeling the reason they hate Palin so much is that she manages the feats they aspire to in their words in real life, but has the gall and temerity to be a conservative and a Republican and a woman while doing it. Makes more sense this way doesn’t it? After all, you guys think people shouldn’t be able get anywhere in life without permission and help from liberals, especially not women or minorities! Unlike Obama, Palin didn’t need a political machine to pull her up; Palin fought against them.

Posted by: Republicwin at September 4, 2008 9:58 PM
Comment #261601

KAP, your comments in the archives here read like a defender of the Republican faith. Where did this apparent sudden insight and conversion to non-partisan independent evaluation occur? There are others I would like to tell about this place where miracles appear to happen. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 10:26 PM
Comment #261602

Carolina, see my article in the Center column about the changing economic fundamentals. Won’t lift your spirits, but, Palin can’t be found in the potential solutions anywhere in the article. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 10:28 PM
Comment #261603

SE-
I hate having these arguments. I really do. Because most people on your side don’t have any serious notion of victory beyond what you see in the movies. Big body count, violence goes down, we’ve won, haven’t we?

We set one slate of goals after another. We tried to keep the peace in Iraq, post-war (when that term had meaning), and failed. We tried to keep the insurgency contained, and we failed. We tried to keep the country from splitting apart along sectarian lines, and we failed.

Then, and only then did Bush depart from both Rumsfeld and the current strategy that he both insisted was going to work, and browbeat the rest of the nation about. America didn’t lose its stomach, it lost its patience with failure, and not merely failure, but the stubborn resistance to correcting its mistakes as well.

So what do they do? They take an already strained army, which through five years of neverending war they had never thought to add to to absorb the greater burdens, and they went for a surge, despite what most people in the country wanted. And really, despite the best efforts of our soldiers, it did not work.

You say, oh, the violence is down. It wasn’t us beating them into submission, though. Al-Sadr and his people made a cease-fire with the Iraqi government. The Sunnis made their temporary peace with us, and decided to start taking our money in exchange for not killing American soldiers. And we give them weapons. And so on, and so forth. We decided not to dispute the fiefdoms or disarm the militias. As a result, many of the insurgent groups are now stronger.

And we no longer have the soldiers to keep the peace should anything go wrong. That much was evident in the spike of violence and troop deaths after the temporary lifting of the ceasefire.

I don’t call this years long degeneration a victory. Our enemies are basically getting what they want at our expense, growing stronger, while our forces weaken. And weakening they are. Bush’s deployments have been corrosive to our readiness. We literally cannot fight any other wars, given our forces state of disrepair.

Why am I supposed to call this good for our country, much less Iraq?

I once thought we could win this. At no time have I wished for things to get this bad. I cannot say that Kerry could have won this war, but at the very least he could have broken the string of destructive mistakes and confronted the issues with something more than desperation and political calculation. The Republicans lost this war, and now they’re trying to scapegoat the failures of it on those who had little control over the events in question.

What I believe is this: Republicans and Neocons drew the wrong lessons from Vietnam and recent history. They put together a strategy that was so politicized, so centered on whitewashing the war, and preventing events in Iraq and dissent at home from compromising morale, that they missed a crucial truth.

That truth is this: if you screw up the war, and keep it screwed up, You’ll lose both the war and the morale. The Republicans think Vietnam was lost by a lack of will on our part. It was lost because the success of the war depended not on us, but on them. That complicates the notion of winning by body counts and perseverence. We lost the strategic war long ago, because we never got full control of Iraq, nor established real power in our occupational efforts. We devoted too few troops at the critical beginning stages, and too many after having squandered our readiness.

And it will not matter if the warring parties decide to go at it. That’s how I can say we’ve lost: we have no control, and our objectives at all kinds of different stages have consistently fallen short. And I don’t point this out as a pessimist or as a person unsympathetic to our nation’s needs or triumphs. I point it out as somebody who has better standards for what constitutes victory than simple political convenience, or whitewashing of dark truths.

These are not troublesome millstones, which threaten to drown some victory, but challenges for us in a situation where we must acknowledge defeat without making things worse. It’s not tricky to run the bus into the ditch. It’s pretty simple. Getting out is the difficult part of such a fiasco, and many let fear cloud their rational minds.

American needs to climb out of this hole, and quit digging deeper. Some Republicans go into doomsayer mode automatically when somebody else gets their turn at making policy. But you know what? Americans can hardly distinguish the promised consequences of Democratic failures from the actual consequences of real Republican ones. If things are going to be this bad with the Republicans, many people are thinking, we might as well see if the Democrats can do better.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 4, 2008 10:31 PM
Comment #261605

republicwin

After all, you guys think people shouldn’t be able get anywhere in life without permission and help from liberals, especially not women or minorities! Unlike Obama, Palin didn’t need a political machine to pull her up; Palin fought against them.

And you don’t see any contradiction or irony in the fact that she has now joined those people she supposedly has fought against? She is going to have a tough time continuing in that tradition now that she works for them.

As for the women and minority thing well it seems you may be thinking backwards on that one. The GOP only gives lip service to those folks. If it was up to the GOP only the wealthy would have rights and if the lower class are lucky they will throw them a few scraps now and then. What a gullible lot the blind right are. Just a little faith and four more years of conservatism and all will be good with the country they have so irresponsibly diminished. Keep those blinders on, because if McCain should be lucky enough to pull this off, ya’all aint gonna like what ya see.

Posted by: RickIL at September 4, 2008 10:33 PM
Comment #261612
I hate having these arguments. I really do. Because most people on your side don’t have any serious notion of victory beyond what you see in the movies. Big body count, violence goes down, we’ve won, haven’t we?

That’s an interesting comment because I think you have at least a partially valid point about the public’s ideas of war being shaped by Hollywood and the movies.

You’re wrong, though, about the movie version of war being that violence goes down and that means we’ve won. What movie would that be? That doesn’t make for a good script at all—in the Hollywood version of war, everything gets resolved in two hours. Usually with a good guy who races through a hail of bullets without a scratch while the bad guys all die. Justice is restored, the soundtrack soars, the credits roll.

The Hollywood version of war is what HASN’T happened in Iraq, and what Hollywood war movies don’t prepare us for is the long fight, perseverance, steadfastness and resolve.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 4, 2008 11:28 PM
Comment #261616

Carolina,

I’m sorry, but Palin is the soup du jour, and this cafe doesn’t serve any other soup.

Besides she’s so pickable, i.e., a hypocrit, a liar, and a Hillary wannabe.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 4, 2008 11:34 PM
Comment #261618

I’ve got to throw this in here real fast,,,,,or I’ll forget it ;)
Chris Matthews, I believe, was talking to Tom Ridge after the fol-de-rol was all over, and the absolute best Freudian slip ever took place……Ridge referred to McCain as John Bush !
It wasn’t scripted, planned or anything, and you could tell that. Funny how he agrees with us…just more of the (Mc) same.

Posted by: janedoe at September 4, 2008 11:38 PM
Comment #261625

Republicans are saying Palin was slammed because of Left Wing Media conspiracy, because that’s there excuse for everything. This whine never stops.

I saw her speech. She attacked OBama, laughed at community organizers, stretched the truth, and mentioned no solutions of her own - at all. The vast majority of Americans seem to understand she’s an empty suit and is being used by McCain for token purposes.

Her speech was the highlight of an otherwise drab and completely mundane convention. It seemed like a replay of RNC talking points of ye olde. Also, it was very schizophrenic - clearly McCain really believes in bi-partisanship, but his base does not. How sad that he must pander to them.

Also, she took credit for ending the bridge to nowhere… again? What is this the third time she’s publicly peddled that lie? This is a woman who clearly has no problems stretching the truth when needed. I wouldn’t be surprised if she believes her own fabrications.

Posted by: Max at September 5, 2008 12:43 AM
Comment #261626

Palin hasn’t even appeared on the GOP’s Faux news. Why? She hasn’t been programmed yet. I wonder if we will ever hear her unscripted take on issues during what’s left of this campaign?

Posted by: Max at September 5, 2008 12:46 AM
Comment #261632

LO-
I would say that the difference is that in most movie warfare, things run very superficially. Large visible battles and the spectacle thereof are the focus.

The Resolution in two hours is a general given. The question is how everything’s presented. I think Republicans wanted the Iraq war to be like Stargate, where US soldiers cross over an ancient, reactivated portal to find an enslaved nation, and bring them freedom in a war whose finale ends in the villain’s death.

The thing about the Iraq war that confounds such expectations is that people don’t turn out to be closet Americans on the inside, waiting for our liberated spirits to set them free, but complicated people with their own cultures, their own motivations, their own views of things that we can only influence, not force. The Republicans were expecting flowers at their feet when the invaded. They expected to be greeted as liberators.

I watch a lot of movies, and saw plenty of movies with the same kind of plot, replayed over and over again.

The Trouble with Hollywood movies is often that the fights get treated as arbitrary set pieces, and the notion of greater strategic cause and action is not properly fleshed out. You can kill everybody in a battle two thousand miles away from the capital, but if their intent was to draw your army out and occupy it while they, perhaps, attack a lightly defended but important target elsewhere, you’ve lost nonetheless.

I think there are plenty of movies with those virtues you listed in them present. The reality is, though that writing complex, realistic scheming into war is a challenge. Hopefully, when you’re seeing my movies, they’ll have better emphasis in such matters being accurately presented.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2008 1:05 AM
Comment #261633
Also, she took credit for ending the bridge to nowhere… again? What is this the third time she’s publicly peddled that lie?

Actually, she DID end it. After she became governor, she killed the project and discontinued any further efforts to get additional federal funding for the project.

It would also be accurate to say, however, that she’d voiced support for it earlier, so there IS some justice to the claim that she was “for it before she was against it.”

I have to wonder, however, if this is anywhere near as important a flip-flop as Barack’s Obama’s opposition to the surge in Iraq, his declaration that the surge was a failure. All followed by his most recent announcement that “it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

What’s really more important, after all? Palin’s initial support for something she reversed herself on in due time, once all the facts became clear, or Obama’s lack of judgment when it comes to military matters?

The thing is that with budgetary debates, further reflection and changing one’s mind can be done without harm. No harm, no foul. The bridge ain’t being built. When it comes to military matters and national security questions, however, the kind of bad judgment Obama displayed can be deadly. This is not somebody who can be trusted to make important military decisions—not somebody who can’t tell the difference between failure and success beyond our wildest dreams.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 5, 2008 1:15 AM
Comment #261638
“Why Sarah Palin is Getting Hammered”

Well, we shall see how “hammered” she gets by the viewers; the total was more than 40 million. That’s more than Obama had and he’s running for Prez! And, he had more networks (4) that covered him; Sarah(cuda) didn’t!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 5, 2008 2:00 AM
Comment #261666

Alaska Gov National Security Experience


Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. Itʼs on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.
As governor of Alaska, unlike nearly all other States, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. She’s also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security’s counterterrorism plans.

Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country’s defense. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.


Posted by: pom pom girls for Palin at September 5, 2008 8:10 AM
Comment #261678
Actually, she DID end it. After she became governor, she killed the project and discontinued any further efforts to get additional federal funding for the project.

Sorta true, but not really in a helpful way. After it was clear that the project was going to die (and after she had campaigned for it), she said “fine, if this bridge is controversial, we won’t make it. But we’ll keep the earmarked money, please.”

And she did.

So, she killed a dead project and kept a huge earmark. So, how is this a feather in her cap?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 5, 2008 8:50 AM
Comment #261699

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/files/FH000020.jpg

I don’t know how much more evidence we need than this photo. She was all for the bridge.

In the end, the fact that she doesn’t believe global warming is man made and that she thinks intelligent design is an academic alternative to evolution tells me everything i need to know about this wahoo.

She also has the most annoying voice i have heard from a politician’s throat since Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: removeTheWool at September 5, 2008 11:06 AM
Comment #261705

Bottom line, a person with her total political experience as the mayor of a podunk town of about 5,000 people (a very small rural town which she got 909 votes to win - can I get a Hee-Haw salute?) and then for less than two years being governor of a state with an entire population that is less than that of the city of Memphis, TN hardly gives me comfort that she should be the VP.

Add in that McCain is 72 years old and has a history of cancer, the “heartbeat away” issue looms very large.

She read a nice cutting, partisan speech with a great sarcastic style. But “leader of the free world?” Hardly qualified to be the leader of a good-sized PTA.

Posted by: boomxtwo at September 5, 2008 11:40 AM
Comment #261728

Remove, it’s already acknowledged that Palin supported building that bridge before she became governor and actually went over the numbers. Beyond that—something everybody knows—I’m not sure what that photo really means. It shows a t-shirt, and it’s really not all that clear what sentiment the t-shirt is trying to communicate. Since “Nowhere” is not an actual place name, it’s some of ironic joke. If you saw somebody wearing that shirt, what would you think they were trying to say?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 5, 2008 1:26 PM
Comment #261730

Not much LO, which pretty much sums up all that she had to say so far, but you must be missing the tongue-in-cheek geographical direction.

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 1:34 PM
Comment #261735

LO,

Zip Code 99901 is for Ketchikan, Alaska, the home of the infamous bridge. It doesn’t see too ambiguous to me.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 5, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #261736

Janedoe, I don’t think I’ve missed the-tongue-in-cheek quality at all.

What I’m saying is that photo of the t-shirt which I’ve seen all over the liberal blogs lately and which was just linked to here is not something that really captures any kind of political point. It certainly doesn’t show anyone demanding a bridge.

If anything, it pokes fun at the idea of “Nowhere” being a place with a zip code. What does that mean besides the joke that it appears to be? I’m not trying to be partisan here. I really just don’t see what point is being made by that photo and why liberals are touting it all over the internet.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 5, 2008 2:02 PM
Comment #261743

wool

She also has the most annoying voice i have heard from a politician’s throat since Joe Lieberman.

I might suggest that is the result of a lifetime of us men being put in our place by the women we do and don’t love. That tone is annoying as hell but there is no way in hell we will tell them that, lest we suffer at the wrath of the source of that annoying tone. ;-) Just a little fun.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 2:19 PM
Comment #261748

LO

The t shirt is a symbol which represents the deception Palin presents in being less than honest on the manner.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - It garnered big applause in her first speech as Republican John McCain’s vice presidential pick, but Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s assertion that she rejected Congressional funds for the so-called “bridge to nowhere” has upset many Alaskans.

During her first speech after being named as McCain’s surprise pick as a running mate, Palin said she had told Congress “‘thanks but no thanks’ on that bridge to nowhere.”

In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere,” political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska’s Congressional delegation during her run for governor.

The bridge, a span from the city to Gravina Island, home to only a few dozen people, secured a $223 million earmark in 2005. The pricey designation raised a furor and critics, including McCain, used the bridge as an example of wasteful federal spending on politicians’ pet projects.

When she was running for governor in 2006, Palin said she was insulted by the term “bridge to nowhere,” according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin’s campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city.

“People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I’m for this’ … and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting,” Weinstein said.

Palin’s spokeswoman in Alaska was not immediately available to comment.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 2:34 PM
Comment #261752

LO, I think it’s pretty sattiracal, due in large part to the fact that the funding on the bridge was going to immensely swell the local coffers……of this already glutted budget. It’s no secret that people now are very much aware of the fact that Palin was for the bridge as long as it met that criteria, which in and of itself is commendable, I guess, that she be looking out for the welfare of the State. It’s just too bad that she didn’t apply the same principles to the little town she left so deeply in debt!

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #261755

Rick, you know we can’t rely on stature and physical strength, so the application of toned vocal chords and that LOOK…serve us well….. ;)…a little more fun

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 2:51 PM
Comment #261762

LO-

Actually, she DID end it. After she became governor, she killed the project and discontinued any further efforts to get additional federal funding for the project.

She never gave the money back, and it wasn’t killed on her initiative. Additionally, requests for earmarks did not go down. If we are to put forward a rational test for support of earmarks, return of the money and refusal of the earmarks would be reliable indicators of her true attitudes. Alaska still ranks first in the nation for federal dollars spent on them.

That’s not change.

We also know from recent reports that she actively sought out earmarks for her town, retaining a lobbyist who we’ve found out was associated with Jack Abramoff.

She’s not even telling us the whole truth on plane she put up on E-Bay. Turns out the damn thing didn’t sell, and they had to sell it elsewhere to a millionaire.

Barack Obama has remained consistent in saying that the surge didn’t work. Again, if we apply the rational tests that were set out for it, including political reconciliation, that’s not happened, and peace in Iraq depends heavily on the ceasefires, on Anbar province Sheikhs staying bribed, and Al-Sadr’s militias remaining under the cease fire. We’ve essentially reinforced the bad situation which even with the surge we didn’t have the soldiers to actually fix. That is not a recipe for victory. It means we’re simply appeasing these people as long as we can to avoid further violence.

The test of all this is a simple set of questions: if we stopped paying the Sheikhs their bribes, would Iraq remain peaceful? If Maliki ticked the Anbar sheikhs or Al-Sadr’s militias enough, would he or us have the power to get things back under control, or would they be able to tip the balance into chaos?

If you can’t tell us that these problems are resolved, then the surge didn’t work. And arguably, if our goal was to create a functional, American style Democracy that compared favorably to the near first-world country Iraq once was, we’ve failed miserably, and the chance for victory went by the wayside long ago.

Rahdigly-
She only has over 40 million if you include PBS viewers. But, if you include them with Barack Obama’s numbers, he gets 42 million.

Additionally, ratings only tell you how many are watching, they don’t tell you what people thought afterwards.

PPGFP-
First, that ballistic missile system is under federal control, and she’s not going to be briefed on that.

Second, I have heard absolutely no reports of Governor Palin actually having to engage with a foreign power in some kind of important incident. Her counterpart on the Democratic ticket stared down Slobodan Milosevic and called him a butcher to his face. Just what has Sarah Palin done? She’s been out of the country once in her life. Even Obama’s done better than that

Getting information does not make you an expert. It’s how you use it that establishes your credibility.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2008 3:06 PM
Comment #261772
Turns out the damn thing didn’t sell, and they had to sell it elsewhere to a millionaire.

Erm, did she SAY she sold it on ebay or that she put it up on ebay? And she did eventually sell it and put the money back into the government, which I think is a great move, irregardless of whatever else she did or didn’t do. If only our current government, McCain and Obama and Biden included, would do something like that, it might start to make a little bit of a difference.

Additionally, ratings only tell you how many are watching, they don’t tell you what people thought afterwards.

Agreed, so then why did so many people on here use it to explain how great he did and how he was going to win in a landslide because of it?

I even think I remember hearing talk of double-digit polling leads by the middle of the month. Today’s numbers don’t seem to back up that trend…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 3:25 PM
Comment #261782

Stephen,

For what it is worth, a died in the wool Democrat friend of mine watched the speech and came away with “I liked her. Not enough to vote for McCain, but I liked her.”

In terms of first impressions, it seems to have been pretty good with Democrats, especially women, in my neck of the woods based on the water cooler reviews. I was pretty unimpressed with the selection and missed the speech as a result. Kinda wished I’d wathched it after the water cooler reviews.

Posted by: Rob at September 5, 2008 4:10 PM
Comment #261785

You can still watch it, I believe.

http://video.ap.org/v/default.aspx?mk=en-ap&g=b63a1563-0acd-4133-bf7c-17738ab2c9b6&f=WVHUN&t=s1179980883147fg=tool

is one such place, though they do have a commercial before it plays. :/

Posted by: rhinehold at September 5, 2008 4:22 PM
Comment #261792

Rhinehold-
Time and time again, we’re not getting the whole story from her. She makes it sound like a real clever move, when in fact it was a dead-end, little better than a PR stunt.

As for the questions as to Obama’s lead? He’s ahead, virtually every time people poll, and we literally have the general election campaign ahead of us. The fact that you folks are actively going to keep her away from Q+A sessions with journalists demonstrates her weakness for that campaign. Biden, for his bluster, can actually handle a press conference. Obama’s no stranger to them either.

Do you want the people who have to be coddled by the media and their party to appeal to the public, or do you want the people who can stand out their on their own and actually deal with the press?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2008 4:56 PM
Comment #261798

It’s being reported now that there are multipe witnesses in the “Troopergate” issue, who initially agreed to an interview and questioning session, changing their minds and will have to be subpoenaed.
Wouldn’t one think that if this was just a nonsensical thing, that all would be willing to respond to questions? But now with them refusing to voluntarily respond, it just opens the door to more suspicion of wrongdoing.
Also just more stalling to give the handlers additional time to indoctrinate Palin and possibly avoid any dirt (if existant) to become a serious concern rather than mere speculation.
Campaign is also saying that she won’t be ready to face the press for two weeks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does nobody see how carefully orchestrated this whole BULLS**T thing is?! Two weeks before the elections is when they are saying that they will let her vetting process proceed. No wonder so many of us think the Republicans stink!

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 5:20 PM
Comment #261802

DRR
I like you, vote for who I think will help this country more no matter if he or she be dem or rep or ind. I voted for Clinton when he ran because of his talk about medical ins. Today I like McCain because I know more about him than I do BHO. The thing I can’t stand is the Radical liberal or the radical neo con agendas and yes I did vote for Bush because I thought Gore and Kerry were both idiots for lack of a better word.
And I honestly cannot stand the way the media is hammering Palin and her family they have no business getting her family involved. I praise Obama for his comments about the media coverage of Palin.

Posted by: KAP at September 5, 2008 5:27 PM
Comment #261808

janedoe

Rick, you know we can’t rely on stature and physical strength, so the application of toned vocal chords and that LOOK…serve us well…..

Yes that look that has turned many a man to drinking in the garage and slinking away in complete an utter humiliation. Damn you women are hard on us poor defenseless souls. Makes me cringe just to think about it. ;-)

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 6:06 PM
Comment #261810

janedoe

Campaign is also saying that she won’t be ready to face the press for two weeks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does nobody see how carefully orchestrated this whole BULLS**T thing is?! Two weeks before the elections is when they are saying that they will let her vetting process proceed. No wonder so many of us think the Republicans stink!

This is the result of the knee jerk response with respect to her selection. She has to be trained in GOP etiquette and the ways of federal government. As far as I am concerned it reveals the truth of her credibility with respect to the job at hand. The longer they hold her out the more obvious that reality becomes. She is for all intent and purpose in job training at this moment. Just think about that for a minute. A person picked to step in for the number one spot in the world, should occasion arise, only having two weeks to take a crash course for that position. I have always been of the notion that if someone must be trained to do something that probably suggests that they did not know how to begin with. Is my logic failed here?

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 6:17 PM
Comment #261812

RickIL,

I would rather see her out there now, but I understand that she most likely should make sure the campaign is getting the message that they want to get out to her, what John wants out of her for the campaign, etc.

I have been a manager and even when going to be a manager at a new job, I always took some time to get the requirements of the company I am going to work for under my belt before I started making big sweeping PUBLIC displays.

Even now, as a consultant, I know a LOT about the systems I work on, but that doesn’t mean I know how the people who have been running them have them set up or what policies they have in place. I have to take some time to learn that information before I go in and start moving things around.

In this regard I don’t know how much of a big deal it is, though I think that they are shooting themselves in the foot by not having her out there right away. If she is what the potential for her to be is, they are losing the advantages that she would bring on the campaign trail by not having her campaigning.

I’m sure by the beginning of November we’ll be saying we are tired of her, and the others, and ready for it all to be over with. At least we will have enough to decide upon then, or not, in which case she would have lost her chance to do any good for the ticket.

But the outrage at this point seems a little premature.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 6:46 PM
Comment #261823
Yes that look that has turned many a man to drinking in the garage and slinking away in complete an utter humiliation. Damn you women are hard on us poor defenseless souls. Makes me cringe just to think about it. ;-)

Maybe that explains all those brandy bottles I used to find under the tool bench…. ;)

And regarding the two week delay on her public vetting process: you’re right on ! The two of them are out “stumping” a bit today, and she is reading from some prepared speech in front of her. She is going to be watched and controlled like you wouldn’t believe.


Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 7:03 PM
Comment #261824
She only has over 40 million if you include PBS viewers. But, if you include them with Barack Obama’s numbers, he gets 42 million.

Why don’t you read my response again. I said: And, he had more networks (4) that covered him; Sarah(cuda) didn’t!! You (somehow) didn’t factor that one in. Remember, she’s running for Vice President!

And (don’t miss it this time), one of the four networks (telemundo) is owned by NBC. Hmmm…it’s still backfiring though b/c the RNC drew more hispanics than the DNC on Palin’s night. Ha! That was (also) the night the crowd chanted “NBC,NBC,NBC” in response to the “Bias” media comment.

One more thing, looks like McCain had more viewers than Obama
(Double) Ha!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 5, 2008 7:04 PM
Comment #261827

My outrage, Rhinehold, is certainly not that the public is going to be deprived of her sarcasm and cute little digs, but that the campaign feels the need to protect her from the press and the public. Neither one of those justify her not being able to answer some questions that the press, and the public want to know, and indeed, are entitled to know. Everyone has shown so much pride and certainty that this lady has what it takes to hit the ground running. Wellll…their actions appear to be louder than their words.
And since elections are just shy of a month away, how do you consider the outrage to be premature?

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 7:27 PM
Comment #261828
And since elections are just shy of a month away

Last time I checked, the elections were in November? I admit, if we get to less than a month away and she still isn’t out there, I’ll join your outrage.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 7:31 PM
Comment #261831

Rhinehold, I bow to your correction….. I must be more tired of this than I realized and in a hurry to be done with it.
Regardless, this all does nothing to quell the rumors that she was not vetted, as is being stated.

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 7:41 PM
Comment #261842

Rhinehold

But the outrage at this point seems a little premature.

I would agree with your assessment here to a degree. I for one feel no real outrage. As I said to jane I think it benefits the blue side.

Sounds like you were a good manager. I retired from the state and can attest to the value of a boss with the insight to feel his way around before becoming too assertive. The nature of politics within state agencies often leaves a little less than is to be desired when it comes to capable management. Our bosses tended to come and go as often as the politicians who placed them. A few were seasoned and like you, knew how to approach the situation. The rest were obnoxious asses who wanted to step in and make it known that they were the boss and knew more about a job than those of us who had been doing it as a career. They in general did not last long.

The real issue I have with this Sarah sequestering is it indicates that she is indeed not immediately up to the task at hand. That being, it seems a little ridiculous that they would pick a person who is so unfamiliar with national level politics that she can not be trusted to speak on her own. This does not seem to me to be a position that can simply be filled by any Joe off the street. A seasoned national level candidate should be able to step off the stage and go to work unaccompanied by handlers. I can not think of any other VP candidates that had to go through a training process after the selection process. I think it indicates that they do not trust her to say the right things. And that she simply is not knowledgeable enough to step into the big arena. Which of course brings us back to the original gripe. Lack of experience and little knowledge of how things work at the national level.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 9:56 PM
Comment #261843

Rah

One more thing, looks like McCain had more viewers than Obama
(Double) Ha!!

Who really gives a rats ass? You don’t suppose that had anything to do with the fresh new rock star on the scene do you? Hell people are hungry for new celebrities. They eat them up like hamburgers. I would suggest that a good majority of those people tuned in to get a glimpse at the new Alaskan Queen. I would imagine she will be the toast of the town for awhile. All new novelties take a while to wear off.

Double triple backwards somersault Ha!!!! back at ya ;)

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 10:07 PM
Comment #261848

Rhinehold-
Oh, she’s campaigning. Just not answering questions from the press. Everythings going to be nice and hermetically sealed. They’ll unzip the top of her bag to bring her out for rallies and town halls where they’ve only let in the supporters, then put back in the bag and reseal it to preserve her freshness. Apparently, if she’s left out on the counter of public scrutiny, she might spoil.

Rahdigly-
He beat him by half a million. And you know how many people have watched Obama’s speech on Youtube? Last I checked?

685,622. That’s folks willing to watch a forty-five minute speech in a small window in a compressed format.

McCain’s still is in the tens of thousands.

Oh, but it must be because he’s a celebrity? You know, really, you should just admit it: you can’t match Obama’s ability to intellectually and emotionally engage an audience, so you’re going to dump on him.

A person watching his speech doesn’t have to worry about operating heavy machinery afterwards. That’s because he’s got more to his speeches than the standard Republican lecturing about what we Must And Must Not Do. He’s actively trying to reach the audience on their terms, with language both conversational and high toned. And more to the point, he actually mentions the economy, and mentions the war to talk about it honestly, rather than claim, with a hundred thousand soldiers still in Iraq, that we’ve won. He’s willing to acknowledge America’s general disgust with Washington in a way that goes beyond the fingerpointing of McCain.

Obama is engaged with this reality, rather than the cocooned reality of the GOP, which is apparently the one that Sarah Palin’s going to remain in until they can get some interviewer to throw her softballs. It’s amazing how the Republican get so outraged about even the slightest bit of perceived chauvinism, yet essentially put Palin back up on the shelf like some delicate crystal the guests are not supposed to handle.

This is a Vice President you can take off the shelf and share with company.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2008 10:33 PM
Comment #261852

Rahdigly: One more thing, looks like McCain had more viewers than Obama
(Double) Ha!!

RickIL: Who really gives a rats ass?

Well, apparently you do! Here’s what you said after Obama’s speech! Did you see the numbers for the convention last night. 38 million viewers. Almost double Kerry’s acceptance speech. Pretty incredible if you ask me.

What?! McCain’s #’s (better than Obama’s) not “incredible” enough for you anymore?!!

My (original) point was to the title of this post: “Why Sarah Palin is Getting Hammered”. To which I said: “let’s see how “hammered” she gets with the viewers”. Also, I touched on the “bias” media angle, as well. 4 less networks for both Sarah(cuda) & McCain and they still had more or (a tad bit) less than Obama; you know, the one running for Prez. Telemundo didn’t air for either of them and she (Cuda) still had more hispanic viewers. That is laughable! The media is trying desperately (IMO) to win this for Obama and, at the same time, they’re trying to sabotage her; all to no avail. The people will decide!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 5, 2008 11:54 PM
Comment #261860
Rahdigly- He beat him by half a million. And you know how many people have watched Obama’s speech on Youtube? Last I checked?

685,622. That’s folks willing to watch a forty-five minute speech in a small window in a compressed format.

McCain’s still is in the tens of thousands

That’s pretty silly point of comparison, considering that Obama’s speech has been up—well, seven times longer and McCain gave his speech just last night. And you don’t actually have to watch the entire 45 minutes for it to count as a hit anyway.

In any case, I think that the number of viewers says absolutely nothing about whether those viewers actually like or agree with what they’re watching, and it portends virtually nothing about what will happen in the next two months. We’ve still got all the debates to come, and a million twists and turns before it all comes down to the wire.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 6, 2008 12:26 AM
Comment #261862

LO-
Nearly a hundred thousand views a day. Still more than what McCain’s Video has gotten in the single day since, which is 39,167.

But you’re right, it will come down to the debates, the campaigning. But I’m pretty confident in my candidate’s ability to encourage people.

Rahdigly-
Comparing your candidate to a vicious scavenger. I guess if thats what floats your boat. You’re missing one important thing here: this was her intro, for many people, her first primetime performance. At the end of the day, most people think Biden’s much more qualified to do the job.

And for some reason, apparently, your party believes this new savior needs to be hidden from all interviewers or press conferences where she might have to face a reporter who may ask inconvenient questions.

It will be an interesting question of whether Sarah Palin will be able to successfully acclimate to a political environment where Republicans don’t dominate. Does she have any clear idea of who not to piss off?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2008 12:47 AM
Comment #261863
At the end of the day, most people think Biden’s much more qualified to do the job.

Not according to the polling I’ve seen. Though I suppose qualified wasn’t the word used. She is liked more than the other 3 candidates, especially Biden, that we know.

Do you have any polling to back up your assertion?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain

Posted by: rhinehold at September 6, 2008 12:55 AM
Comment #261864
Forty percent (40%) now say that Palin is ready to be President, if necessary. That’s up from 29% last week. Forty-nine percent (49%) say the same about Biden.

However, following the Wednesday night speech, voters are fairly evenly divided as to whether Palin or Obama has the better experience to be President. Forty-four percent (44%) of voters say Palin has the better experience while 48% say Obama has the edge. Among unaffiliated voters, 45% say Obama has better experience while 42% say Palin.

It’s nice to know that the POTUS candidate on the left is neck and neck in perceived experience as the VP candidate on the right…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 6, 2008 12:59 AM
Comment #261866
It will be an interesting question of whether Sarah Palin will be able to successfully acclimate to a political environment where Republicans don’t dominate. Does she have any clear idea of who not to piss off?


Oh, you mean the “Do nothing Congress led by Reid and Pelosi”?! Or, the Washington fatcats & insiders that have their own interests in mind (rather than the people of this country)?!! Yeah, I concur, it will (definitely) be “interesting” to watch this unfold. Though, not as interesting as watching the bias media and the femminist movement; they are digging their own grave and it’s unfolding right before my very own eyes. Great stuff!

And, by the way Stephen, how you went from Nieslen ratings to youtube, just tells us all we need to know about your debating skills. Again, it’s unfolding right before my eyes and I’m enjoying that one, too! :o)

Posted by: rahdigly at September 6, 2008 1:15 AM
Comment #261894

RAh

The media is trying desperately (IMO) to win this for Obama and, at the same time, they’re trying to sabotage her; all to no avail. The people will decide!!

I said that the numbers were pretty incredible. They were. They were also pretty incredible for Queenie and McCain. People who analyze such things for a living also agree that it is pretty incredible. I have heard that they believe it may reflect a quickly growing interest in politics by young people. I don’t think the amount of viewers reflects anything more than curiosity combined with concern. It is god that these people actually watched. Maybe it means that voters are actually concerned and want to be able to form an educated opinion of who is best on their own, instead of relying on smear ads to form that opinion.

I sure am sick of the liberal media crap. What a bunch of bunk. If McCain or Obama have to rely on the media to win an election I think that reflects more on their individual actual ability to convince the public rather than the opinion of the media. I personally listen to the candidates to form my opinion. All the rest is creative and controversial sensationalism to draw people like yourself into the fray. Yes, the people should decide. As I said before, Who really gives a rat’s ass ?

By the way I haven’t seen you around for awhile and am curious if you are still a devout minion of our bum in chief. If so what do you think of all this talk by McCain about promising to repair all the ills of the Bush presidency. Which man has it right, Bush or McCain?

Posted by: RickIL at September 6, 2008 11:51 AM
Comment #261925
Yes, the people should decide. As I said before, Who really gives a rat’s ass?

And as I said before, apparently you do! Your “rat’s a$$” comment was to the fact that McCain had more viewers than Obama; to which, a week earlier you had praised Obama’s speech for having 38 million viewers as “incredible”.

So (again), why would you say “who really gives a rat’s a$$” to McCain’s 38.5 million viewers and “incredible” to Obama’s 38 million viewers?! Looks like you’re the one that would fall into the “minions” of ( a wanna be) chief! :-}

Posted by: rahdigly at September 6, 2008 3:30 PM
Comment #261938

Jossip went down yesterday, so I thought I’d post the pertinent part of the story for S.D.

“During our spirited office debates, it’s up to me (along with the office’s outnumbered Republicans — hey, it’s New York City) to defend the old man from Arizona, while the Democrats cheer for Barack Obama like he’s a Jonas Brother. For months, I’ve touted McCain’s vast experience and his economic policies without a trace of postmodern irony. (The credit — or, uh, blame — mostly lies with my parents, the only conservative Jews in Detroit). My take on his VP pick? “I think she’s fascinating!” I chirped to my editor in chief early on September 1. “She’s a mother of five and she hunts!”’
That’s Mara Reinstein, the Us Weekly writer behind the “Babies, Lies & Scandal” cover that, some might argue, was part of Jann Wenner’s master plan to elect Obama and stunt McCain. Reinstein’s (and Min’s) insistence that because she is a McCain supporter, this week’s issue is not a Jann Wenner-ordered hit job on McCain remains a, uh, ridiculous argument, because Reinstein almost certainly wasn’t asked, “Could you whip together a Palin story please?” — she was told want slant to take.”


rahdigly!!!, where have your exclamation points gone???

Posted by: ohrealy at September 6, 2008 5:05 PM
Comment #261957

Rah

And as I said before, apparently you do! Your “rat’s a$$” comment was to the fact that McCain had more viewers than Obama; to which, a week earlier you had praised Obama’s speech for having 38 million viewers as “incredible”.

Could the reason I said incredible to Obama’s numbers and not McCains have something to do with the fact that McCain had not had his convention yet or any subsequent numbers when I made that post? This whole thing is a bit absurd. I did not even pontificate at the time on the significance of those numbers. I merely felt that was pretty incredible for any political event. Which indeed it was. ONCE AGAIN: WHO GIVES A RATS ASS!!!!! I certainly don’t. ;) I am still curious about that GW , McCain thing.

Posted by: RickIL at September 6, 2008 6:41 PM
Comment #261982

Rahdigly-
That Congress has done plenty. The Republicans have also done plenty in the Senate, surpassing all previous records on filibustering. If simple majorities were still in style, simple up and down votes, this Congress would have passed a lot.

But I digress. My main point would be that it’s not them, Palin has to worry about, although I don’t envy her the task of trying to get the people she pissed of in Congress to pass her favorite legislation. No, it’s the people out there that your party is afraid of.

Is it that she’s so radical and politically incorrect, that without constant supervision and scripting, she’s cruising for her own Macaca moment? Does she have a bad temper which might show itself under the wrong circumstances? Is she just that bad under unscripted circumstances? Or are they worried that she might accidentally shed light on some of these not so savory scandals around her?

Whatever it is, it does not speak well to her strength as a candidate that you folks will not allow her to be interviewed by anybody seriously looking for the answer to the questions swirling around her.

As for going from Neilsen Ratings to Youtube, here’s the main difference: Much of the time, people seek out videos on Youtube. There is an active choice, rather than a passive default. The difference in viewership is not so cut and dried.

More to the point, what I’m hinting at is interest beyond the numbers simply watching. I’m pointing towards interest. Even two days after wards, McCain’s speech has yet to break 100,000 on Youtube. Obama’s had about 100,000 viewers per day. I think half the people tuning into McCain were tuning in to see what McCain could do to compare with Obama and Palin. Do the high numbers mean they were in pressed? What the Youtube numbers tell us is that interest in Palin, and even more so for Obama, remained high after their speeches. But Obama’s numbers leave theirs behind in the dust. McCain is the guy whose speech you watch because you have to. Palin’s might be one you might watch once or twice, and then let collect dust.

Obama’s speech is the kind you tell your children about. But of course, you care more about McCain having 21 people watching that night for every 20 that watched Obama. Or, five more people for every hundred Obama brought.

Give me a break. I’ve got a candidate I don’t have to fake excitement about.

Ohrealy-
Yeah. It’s all one big conspiracy to elect Obama. I guess on election day you’ll want a recount.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2008 10:33 PM
Comment #262014

Stephen D

I was listening to NPR yesterday and one of the NPR people was doing an interview on a college campus about the significance, if any, since Palin had entered the fray. One of the questions was to a female republican activist. When asked if requests for McCain info or new republican campus registers had gone up since the advent of Palin, her answer was simply no. On the other hand a person representing the dem side of things on campus said that actually the rate of new registers had increased since the advent of Palin.

I go to breakfast most every Sunday morning at a little restaurant here in town. I should tell you that this is a university town in the middle of corn country about 60 miles west of Chicago. Northern IL university where the shootings took place last school year. It is a relatively large school population in the 25,000 range. The result is that we get a rather diverse group of political leanings, especially during the school months. I like to listen to the people around us and here what the new buzz is each Sunday. This morning I heard the usual Obama haters and a bit of excitement over Palin from those same people. I did however notice that there was a little larger buzz coming from the campus crowd about Obama. They seemed to feel that bringing someone from such an extreme right position was almost offensive to them. Non of this of course is scientific but considering my geographical location and the respective diverse mixture of rural, urban and city population I think I am getting a pretty fair assessment of what this all means so far. I think it has done little more than excite the republican base and has helped to re-energize Obama supporters. These young folks seem to be even more motivated to get out and vote now than they were pre Palin. It is as though they see even further cause now than they did before.

Posted by: RickIL at September 7, 2008 11:43 AM
Comment #262028

That is good to hear RickIl, and maybe goes to show why the Obama campaign has not gone balistic on all this Palin outing. (They have left that up to us..) ;)
Seriously though, I think this all goes a long way to show that Obama is even-tempered and stays pretty cool in the middle of really nasty and offensive hate mongering and smearing. Qualities that outshine McCain’s nasty temper and Palin’s vicious need to “get even”.

Posted by: janedoe at September 7, 2008 3:52 PM
Comment #262030

“It’s all one big conspiracy to elect Obama.” Except that I doubt it will work, S.D., and you’ll be demanding a recount after you manage to get JMcC elected instead. I’m amazed that people are so enamored of the Enquirer when it prints something that they like. That’s the measure of your value of any media now, the degree to which they are perceived to help BHO.

“Outing”, Irony Much.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 7, 2008 4:19 PM
Comment #262056

Rick, face it, you’re busted! You interjected with my quote “One more thing, looks like McCain had more viewers than Obama”; to which you replied “who gives a rat’s a$$”. Then, I (cleverly I might add) posted your response the day after Obama’s speech where you said “incredible” to his 38 million viewers; which (apparently) you did give a “rat’s a$$”. So, you don’t give a “rat’s a$$” about McCain’s 38.5 million viewers (with 4 fewer networks carrying him), yet you do with Obama. And, then you want to bring up Bush and McCain’s diff/sim. Whatever, dude! As John McEnroe has said: “Just answer the question, Jerk!” :o)


Stephen,

That Congress has done plenty.

Yikes! The fact that you believe the (democrat-led) congress has done plenty sums up why congress has had the lowest approval ratings for the past few years. Yet, if you believe that’s the way to go; then, by all means, vote your heart out.


I’ve got a candidate I don’t have to fake excitement about.

(Double) Yikes!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 7, 2008 9:23 PM
Comment #262066

Rah

Once more Rah, I really without a doubt, no fingers crossed, do not give a rats ass!!!!!! And I have to tell you that I am laughing my ass off at the absurdity of this argument. But in an effort to entertain your need for a recognition of some sort of affirming conquest I will once again argue your rebuttal.

I do not believe that I gave a suggestion that the 38 million viewers were a declaration against McCain. Though in reality that is probably what it was. Of course I felt it was a good thing for Obama and democrats world wide. However nowhere in that post did I indicate that it is somehow evidence that Obama has a wrap on the election. Which actually I do personally believe is the case. Once again the Obama acceptance speech was a week before McCains. I pointed out to a fellow blogger that the nielson rating numbers were pretty incredible. That is all that was said. How in the hell you can use a simple observation as proof that I am passionately concerned about that observation is beyond me. Those numbers really meant little other than a lot of people tuned in to watch. Those people could have been mostly old, mostly young, mostly dem or repub, black, white, yellow, red, fat, lazy, sleazy, charming, you name it. There really just is no way to determine exactly what those numbers mean other that a whole lot of people are paying attention this year. You have my sincerest apologies for not immediately posting an incredible declaration for McCain upon learning of his viewership numbers.

This liberal jerk has now answered you on three different occasions to the same post. You still have not given me a hint as to how you justify that whole McCain tearing down GW thing in an effort to repair eight years of self implied republican malfeasance. You owe me one dude. ;)

Posted by: RickIL at September 7, 2008 10:40 PM
Comment #262105

It’s rather trolly out tonight…

Posted by: janedoe at September 8, 2008 4:14 AM
Comment #262228

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!…Yes you do care…Ha! Ha! Oh man, this sh*t is hilarious. Dude, I’m done with this thread; I’ll have to catch you on another one. Yet, don’t come with the weak stuff if you actually want to debate or have a discussion.

You owe me one dude. ;)

I don’t owe you Jack dodo! You owe yourself. You owe manhood; that’s right, you need to “man up” with your own words. Run around and try to deny one thing (that you said), then change the subject and expect to get answers. Fat chance, dude!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 8, 2008 8:16 PM
Comment #262233

Rah

Just as I thought.

Posted by: RickIL at September 8, 2008 8:35 PM
Post a comment