Democrats & Liberals Archives

McCain, a New Name for Cynicism

Out of the blue, John McCain chose Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, someone not well known, certainly not on the so-called “short list,” to be his running mate. Questions about her background have surfaced and the media are busy trying to find out who Sarah Palin is. What they are uncovering shows the degree of McCain’s cynicism.

Evidently McCain was set to pick Senator Joe Lieberman. Some say that he had already asked Lieberman. The Christian Right objected vociferously. To satisfy them and to gain their support, McCain picked Governor Sarah Palin, a person of the Religious Right, ostensibly without much investigation of her background.

Think about this. First McCain picks Lieberman who is not even a Christian - he is Jewish - and then switches to Palin, who claims that U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. From a non-Christian to an extremely devout Evangelical Christian! Furthermore, it appears that she was active in the Jews for Jesus movement which uses subterfuge to convert Jews to the Christian faith.

This is CYNICISM! It shows that McCain does not live by principle. One tack will do as well as another, as long as it works. Straight shooter? Please. All politicians are to some extent cynical. But this cynicism beats any other political move from either Democrats or Republicans.

Evidently Palin is a cynic like McCain. She is against abortion even in trhe case of rape. She does not believe in choice. She wants to strike down Roe vs. Wade. Yet she told her daughter that she had a choice: have the baby or not. Others don't have a choice but she does.

What bothers me most about the Palin selection is that it signals that the Culture War continues. Didn't we have enough of it? Isn't it time to seek what unites us instead of what divides us? For awhile, McCain's pronoucements let me believe that this is so.

I was wrong.

To avoid continuation of the Culture War, or at least reduce its vehemence, don't vote for McCain. Vote for Obama.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 11, 2008 1:34 PM
Comments
Comment #262661

Oh lookey, ANOTHER article about Palin…

certainly not on the so-called “short list”

Erm, wrong.

Evidently McCain was set to pick Senator Joe Lieberman.

Just more rumor that you can’t/don’t back up with fact. It must be nice to be a mindreader.

For awhile, McCain’s pronoucements let me believe that this is so.

Somehow I doubt this from reading through your writings on the subject of McCain over the past 12 months.

To avoid continuation of the Culture War, or at least reduce its vehemence, don’t vote for McCain. Vote for Obama.

Yes, abandon the culture war (whatever that means) and enter into the class war…

Meanwhile, will someone attempt to do something about our spiraling debt and crushing taxation? No? Crap.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 1:48 PM
Comment #262663
What bothers me most about the Palin selection is that it signals that the Culture War continues. Didn’t we have enough of it? Isn’t it time to seek what unites us instead of what divides us?

Say what? So you think Obama unites us, eh? Since he unites left wingers?

You don’t want to fight a culture war, eh? Then don’t. Go along with Sarah Palin.

Or do you just meant that you don’t want the other side to fight back in the culture war?

Posted by: Liam at September 11, 2008 1:54 PM
Comment #262664

All I have to say is “I love Biden, I love Biden, I love Biden!!!!” Lets give him as much time here as we are giving what’s her name.

Joe Biden had an excellent interview on Meet the Press last Sunday. He gave a wonderful answer to the abortion issue much better than the muttering answer Barack gave Rev. Warren.

Obama/Biden-the ticket to win! Intelligence, morals, good judgement-no lies, sleaze, or sexism. Let’s remember who got the domestic violence against women passed in congress-Joe Biden!!!!! He’s our man!!! If only women would realize he is a better friend to us than-What’s her name?”

Posted by: Carolina at September 11, 2008 1:57 PM
Comment #262670

>Meanwhile, will someone attempt to do something about our spiraling debt and crushing taxation? No? Crap.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 01:48 PM

Rhinehold,

Not McPain/Palin that’s fer sherr…

Carolina,

I’m with you…Dems need to stay focused on what we want and how we’d like to get there. McPain and his Rovian a**h***s have distracted us enough with this Alaskan Queen, it’s time we got back to the business of our Democratic Campaign.

Ours is the only party with a positive, issue oriented platform, and here we are still discussing their wrongheadedness. We’ve allowed them to hijack us again…just another ‘swiftboating’.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 11, 2008 2:21 PM
Comment #262672
Not McPain/Palin that’s fer sherr…

Nor Obama, his plan has already been shown to be a deficit increaser as well.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 2:28 PM
Comment #262673
We’ve allowed them to hijack us again…

Maybe if you guys had stayed focused on the issues and not started namecalling, attacking McSame, McPain, etc and his running mate so personally, accusing all republicans of being evil, etc…

It might not have happened… But its never been about ‘unity’ for you guys really, has it? Do I think you’ll see or admit to any correlation or even similarity? Of course not. But it feels good to point it out all the same.

So, are we still thinking a double-digit lead by the middle of September, a blowout election and McCain changing his running mate?

Or, are the odds more pointing to Obama changing his?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 2:31 PM
Comment #262676

Nice try Rhinehold but I’m sticking to what I know is true-No other candidates stand a chance of beating McCain but Obama can. I like the Green party but my country is relying on me to do a smart vote-my country can not withstand another 4 yrs of corporate control, unregulated capitalism and the wealthy pocketing more and more money at my, my family, and my friends expense.

Obama and Biden aren’t perfect but they are better than the other choices. Rhinehold-sit in your little caccoon and hope that McCain doesn’t win-cause if he does our country will slide even further on the path of becoming a second rate power.

Marysdude, I am with you all the way. Let’s have a cheer for our team. We can win this if we stay on message-as polls are showing us. When we get off message McCain moves up in the polls when we stay on message Barack moves up. No wonder Mccain wants to make this about Lipstick.

Posted by: Carolina at September 11, 2008 3:03 PM
Comment #262678

Reagan, Bush(s), McCain, Palin, Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, every evangelical today are all wrong.
The U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation.

Proof exists in the Treaty of Tripoli and the Evangelicals don’t want to talk about it and will lie to claim it is not factual. That’s because Evangelicals believe lying in the name of their religious beliefs to non-believers is not wrong or a sin.

It says: “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Source: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

Posted by: Mike Wrona at September 11, 2008 3:19 PM
Comment #262682

I knew that McCain had “not been able to get who he wanted.” I thought that it indicated poor judgment and a poorly ran campaign. For a campaign not to know who it can and cannot get at the last minute just does not make sense. This makes more sense. He is just pandering to his base.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 11, 2008 3:41 PM
Comment #262683

Ray,

Mind reading again are we? What makes you think that McCain was unable to get who he wanted?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 3:42 PM
Comment #262684

“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

This, this, this.

I cannot stress enough the need to press on candidates and the American people who seem to be veering away from the foundations of this country, that we never were, have been, and hopefully never will be, a Christian nation.

Time and time again, critics have been attacked for going against Palin, but I don’t see how it’s possible to argue that in the whole Republican party, she was the best choice for McCain’s VP.

That’s inexcusable ignorance if she is, and obvious pandering to the base if she’s not.

Posted by: Jon at September 11, 2008 3:45 PM
Comment #262685

Carolina, dude

I agree. She isn’t worth talking about. Personally I think the sequestering of Palin is three fold. It raises suspicions which creates talk and controversy, which in return keeps the talk off the issues. It keeps her out of the bright lights of the big leagues because she is not up to the task. And last but not least, it allows her a little time for a crash course in national politiics. My guess is, in good republican fashion, she is being taught how to avoid pertinent questions.

We have a candidate with a good plan who genuinely wants to help this country. It is time we avoid those Palin posts that are essentially non productive to our cause.

Posted by: RickIL at September 11, 2008 3:46 PM
Comment #262687

Dude:

Ours is the only party with a positive, issue oriented platform, and here we are still discussing their wrongheadedness. We’ve allowed them to hijack us again…just another ‘swiftboating’.

Carolina:

Let’s have a cheer for our team.

I’m with both of you.
Screw the GOP’s content-free scumbag-style campaign.
Instead, let’s look at: Joe Biden On Fire!

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 11, 2008 3:53 PM
Comment #262688

Jon,

Are you telling me that in the whole of the Democratic party, Biden was the best choice?

Really?

Do you see how absurd the argument is, because who is creating the requirements for a subjective assessment like that?

Would so man have felt this ‘offended’ if McCain has chosen Pawlenty?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 3:56 PM
Comment #262690

First off, Rhinehold is correct… all this speculation about who McCain really wanted on the ticket is just that… speculation. But… let’s suspend reality and assume the author is correct…

First McCain picks Lieberman who is not even a Christian - he is Jewish - and then switches to Palin, who claims that U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. From a non-Christian to an extremely devout Evangelical Christian!

Uummm… so? Am I missing something here? What if his first choice had blonde hair and his second brown? Would that mean anything?

Evidently Palin is a cynic like McCain. She is against abortion even in trhe case of rape. She does not believe in choice.

Being 100% pro-life does not make someone a cynic… it means they don’t like the idea of killing innocent babies. As a pro-choicer (to a point) myself, I can respect the opinions of those with whom I disagree as genuine. We need to stop villifying those on the other side of this issue.

To satisfy them and to gain their support, McCain picked Governor Sarah Palin, a person of the Religious Right…

Yup… probably so. Funny thing, when one is campaigning for office, they tend to do things that will get them votes… that’s how it works. Kinda like Obama trying to satisfy the working class vote by picking ‘the boy from Scranton’ who ‘knows the Amtrak conductor’. Whoop-de-doo.

What bothers me most about the Palin selection is that it signals that the Culture War continues.

Really? I thought it just signalled that he chose the Alaska governor to be his running mate. I must be missing something…

This is a poorly written article. As a voter whose finger will come nowhere near the name of McCain on the touchscreen, I can say we need to see better arguments for not voting McCain than this… lordie knows there are plenty enough of them out there.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 11, 2008 4:05 PM
Comment #262699

If you left wingers would have picked HRC instead of BHO this would have been a blowout election for the Democrats but now GOOD LUCK.

Posted by: KAP at September 11, 2008 4:53 PM
Comment #262703

Rhinehold said,

“Maybe if you guys had stayed focused on the issues and not started namecalling, attacking McSame, McPain, etc and his running mate so personally, accusing all republicans of being evil, etc…

It might not have happened… But its never been about ‘unity’ for you guys really, has it? Do I think you’ll see or admit to any correlation or even similarity? Of course not. But it feels good to point it out all the same.”

Glad YOU”RE not participating. Who is “you guys” any way?

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 11, 2008 5:10 PM
Comment #262706

It’s difficult to understand that some writers believe the choosing of a VP is not a political decision. Where have you been? Or, when did this change?

Do any of the dems on this blog really believe that picking Biden for the VP slot was non-political? Is Biden the best choice to step in if Obama can’t perform his duties? Even Biden, again today, agrees that Hillary would have been the better choice.

It makes me wonder if Biden is getting ready to bow out to be replaced by Hillary. The party made a huge mistake…twice. It should have chosen Hillary in first place and Obama in second place. Had it done so, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

Should Biden be replaced by Hillary at this late date it will be strike three for the “wise” men of the party. How the party that couldn’t lose picked the team that can’t win is just beyond me.

With the loss of the election by Obama/Biden your party will take many years to recover.

Posted by: Jim M at September 11, 2008 5:35 PM
Comment #262708

I know there has been an overload of activity and discussion concerning John McCain’s running mate. So much so that the actual candidate for president has been overshadowed. One reason is that McCain is about as exciting to watch and listen to as the La Brea tar pits. That is, unless he is going red-faced psycho on someone and that kind of entertaining in a car wreck sort of way.

Simply put, there is more discussion of the running mate because she is the more interesting person - none of it good, but more interesting nonetheless.

Our elections and our government, for good or ill (mostly ill), has become a form of entertainment. John McCain has violated one of the fundamental things I learned about show business - don’t let your opening act upstage you. Listen to the GOP crowds cheer for her and listen to how much less enthusiastic his own supporters are for him.

Posted by: tcsned at September 11, 2008 5:46 PM
Comment #262712

JMcC will probably be elected, and his administration will be more bi-partisan than any previous one. I agree with the R man on all this Mcpalin, Mcsame, Mcnonsense being childish. I don’t know where the rumor came from about JMcC wanting Lieberman for the VP spot, but he’s pretty unimpressive anyway. I don’t understand why CT kept reelecting him.

Bloomberg with JMcC and wife and BHO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx9LOzxdbnc

Posted by: ohrealy at September 11, 2008 6:19 PM
Comment #262716

Rhinehold,
I’m still confident it will be a blowout for Obama, in case you’re wondering. A lot can happen, and while McCain’s campaign is concentrating its funds on advertising, Obama’s campaign is concentrating on registration and turnout. I know it seems exciting right now, with polls showing a close race, but McCain is being seriously outorganized and outstrategized. McCain temporarily gained by introducing an unknown, unqualified, unvetted person as Vice President, but good luck with that!

For example, does anyone really think the governments that invest hundreds of billions of dollars in our debt, in the corporate and government bonds of entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, does anyone think they appreciate it when the VP makes a statement showing she doesn’t even know what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are? When she jumps off a plane and makes stupid statements about how government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem, blissfully and stupidly unaware that the government just bailed out two entities to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, in order to avoid a depression? What a colossal idiot. McCain is a little better, although he did state he does not understand the economy…

Posted by: phx8 at September 11, 2008 6:34 PM
Comment #262717

See? Like phx8 points out above… there are PLENTY of REAL reasons to not vote for the old guy…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 11, 2008 6:36 PM
Comment #262721

Here’s one that’s been going around - The Alaska Daily News is reporting that Sarah Palin while mayor of Wasilla made rape victims pay for rape kits (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/52266.html) according to the article Wasilla was unwilling to pay the $300-1,200 per rape kit charge and the police chief Palin appointed said, “In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims’ insurance company when possible,” Fannon told the newspaper. “I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer.”

They could afford to go into debt to build a sports complex but they can’t afford to pay for rape kits for the victims of one of the most vile crimes imaginable. So not only does she not support the right of women to terminate a pregnancy if she has been raped and Palin also thinks that they should have to pay to investigate the crime they were a victim. Pretty sad.

I am watching a piece of her interview with Charlie Gibson - she obviously did not learn anything about Russia from being “next door neighbors.” Nor does she understand the Middle East. They should have kept her under wraps a bit longer - maybe she isn’t the quick study they have been saying she is. Worst of all, she has no clue of why we were attacked on 9-11. She trotted out that insanely stupid ‘they hate our freedom’ reason. Very 2 dimensional. Weak, weak, weak.

Posted by: tcsned at September 11, 2008 6:48 PM
Comment #262724

Oh my. Apparently war with Russia is on the agenda. Heh. Not quite ready for prime time. What will happen if she ever does a live, real time interview, say, Meet the Press?

Posted by: phx8 at September 11, 2008 7:00 PM
Comment #262726

phx8 - that’s why you can be sure she won’t be on any of those shows because they don’t show the proper “deference” that the 4th estate is supposed show towards our leaders. By deference they mean asking questions and stuff - how dare they!

What a joke of a candidate.

Posted by: tcsned at September 11, 2008 7:06 PM
Comment #262727

>Nor Obama, his plan has already been shown to be a deficit increaser as well.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 02:28 PM

Rhinehold,

The ssame people said the same thing about Clinton’s plans…oh, well…try again.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 11, 2008 7:17 PM
Comment #262728

We might hear more about the Russian strategic bombers that landed in Venezuala, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEkAf5Nv-2Y than Alaska being our frontier with them.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 11, 2008 7:19 PM
Comment #262731

KAP:

blowout election for the Democrats

I like the sound of this so much, I just thought I’d re-quote it!

GOOD LUCK.

Thanks!!!


Jim M:

Is Biden the best choice to step in if Obama can’t perform his duties?

Biden was a very good choice, and is fully qualified to lead this nation, yes.

Even Biden, again today, agrees that Hillary would have been the better choice.

He’s only being kind as well as self-effacing.

It makes me wonder if Biden is getting ready to bow out to be replaced by Hillary.

Not a chance.

The party made a huge mistake…twice.

No we didn’t. Democrats voted for who we thought would be the best president. Btw, why don’t you speak for your own party? I mean I could just as easily say that the GOP made a huge mistake nominating a dishonest old fart of a Neocon puppet like McCain, and clearly an unqualified nutjob like Palin was a huge mistake.

It should have chosen Hillary in first place and Obama in second place.

“It” is We. The same We as in: Yes We Can! And no, obviously We didn’t think so.
IMHO, Hillary lost the Democratic primary for a whole bunch of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that she said that McCain — a man who shares absolutely no positions or principles with Democrats — was more qualified to lead this nation than Obama. She really jumped the shark with that statement.

How the party that couldn’t lose picked the team that can’t win is just beyond me.

We still can’t lose as far as I can tell.
Even McCain has been forced to admit that this is a Change election, that’s why he’s had to co-opt Obama’s campaign theme. But the obvious truth is, Republican’s did such an amazingly horrible job over the past eight years, and have run this country so thoroughly over the proverbial cliff, that you’re going to have to work very hard for a long time in order to regain the trust of the American people. Since McCain’s positions are identical to Bush’s, despite all the new “change” lip-service he’s pulling, I don’t see this recovery happening any time soon.

With the loss of the election by Obama/Biden your party will take many years to recover.

What’s going to take many years to recover is America in the wake of the Bush Years. Obama and Biden have really got their work cut out for them. Luckily for all of us though, they’re both really smart people.

ohrealy:

JMcC will probably be elected

That sounds like wishful thinking on your part.
Registered Democrats : 42 million
Registered Republicans: 31 million
That’s a lot of Independents that are going to have to make up for the GOP shortfall.

I don’t know where the rumor came from about JMcC wanting Lieberman for the VP spot,

The rumor came from McCain’s own advisors.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 11, 2008 7:48 PM
Comment #262735

That’s a lot of Independents that are going to have to make up for the GOP shortfall.

I am an Ind. and I think the Democrats have made a very wise choice in their pick P/VP. I would vote for Cynthia McKinney if this wasn’t such a pivotal election. My vote is pretty solid for Obama and I like Joe Biden too a lot. He is a great choice for many reasons.

Posted by: NapaJohn at September 11, 2008 8:04 PM
Comment #262743
The ssame people said the same thing about Clinton’s plans…oh, well…try again.

And he was unable to enact those plans because of a Republican congress (you know, the ones who write the budget) and had he not raided the SS trust fund (something Obama doesn’t want to protect either) he would have had high deficits too. As it is, the debt increased every year he was president.

Until we get responsible leadership, of which we are not being offered in this election, only a president and congress of different parties is going to keep this country afloat.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 8:39 PM
Comment #262745

Rhinehold - even though I’m a Dem there is something to the divided gov’t thing - too bad McCain is such the wrong man for the job and there’s a 0% chance the GOP takes a branch of congress.

Posted by: tcsned at September 11, 2008 8:49 PM
Comment #262746
The rumor came from McCain’s own advisors.

You mean an unnamed person ‘close to the campaign’? What makes you say that was an advisor without knowing who it was? Could have been a staffer with a grudge for all we know, making it all up. That is the problem I have with ‘unnamed sources’ used by the media to label rumor as fact. It doesn’t make it any more true than if I had said it…

The funny thing is that the article you linked to contradicts itself, evident of using multiple sources, who wanted to paint different pictures. Which of the views is right? Throw out the first four paragraphs and then read the story and you get the story (backed up with names) that contradicts the view of the pick that you and others on the left had attempted to display. She was on a short list of 5 and was picked because she highlighted his strengths. She was vetted, which you have claimed she wasn’t and that she was on the list for several months and making the short list of 5 displays that she was not a ‘quick pick without thought’. She wouldn’t have made it that far if she was never thought of.

As for wanting to pick Lieberman, I bet he wanted to pick Clinton too, as it would have been game over. But there are political realities that everyone must face in an election. There is nothing to suggest that he had made that decision and was overruled.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 8:52 PM
Comment #262753

“I would vote for Cynthia McKinney if this wasn’t such a pivotal election.” I will vote for her. She recently appeared with Ron Paul and Ralph Nader on a forum on the Campaign for Liberty. She’s also a great speaker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_QGiEN9VWI

More of JMcC and BHO at the 9/11 memorial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_qcHwKXTRg

Posted by: ohrealy at September 11, 2008 9:46 PM
Comment #262759
You mean an unnamed person ‘close to the campaign’? What makes you say that was an advisor without knowing who it was?

Um, because the reporter to the article I linked to clearly stated:

advisers close to the campaign

Sounds like more than one in that instance.

This article on the other hand, says it was: “a Republican close to the campaign”

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 11, 2008 10:37 PM
Comment #262760

that’s the problem, VV, there is no naming, so there is no way to know if it was one or more, how ‘close’ they were, etc. I despise this type of reporting, especially in a day and age when I don’t trust any of the news media enough to take them at their word anymore. They have all forfeited that trust.

The piece itself appears to be selling something that they want or think to be true but may not hold up to scrutiny. It contradicts its opening assertions after the fold.

Sorry, but without being able to verify the article, it is still a rumor and has as much weight as a piece of haddock that is wrapped into it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 10:41 PM
Comment #262774
Some say that he had already asked Lieberman. The Christian Right objected vociferously. To satisfy them and to gain their support, McCain picked Governor Sarah Palin, a person of the Religious Right, ostensibly without much investigation of her background.

Who are the “some” that say this? I believe the “some” was the media and the left who would love to have McCain pick Lieberman; b/c that would have upset the conservatives in the Republican party that felt left out and uneasy about McCain and his conservative agenda. Also, the reason, I believe, the MSM was so critical of McCain’s pick is b/c he did it with such stealth and they (the MSM) didn’t “vet” her. It’s clear Sarah(cuda) was an excellent pick: she rallied the (conservative) base and pi$$ed off the MSM and the democrats. Not to mention, she just shattered and debunked the feminist movement for what they really were the whole time and that’s for (liberal) women’s rights, rather than for women’s rights.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 12, 2008 12:00 AM
Comment #262775

I, for one, am very happy McCain didn’t choose Lieberman for the ticket. Thank God he used some “nuance” in his pick to actually try and get elected.

Posted by: andy at September 12, 2008 12:12 AM
Comment #262783

McCain picked who he wanted to pick—or else he’d have picked somebody else. It’s that simple. Nobody else can make that choice for him. Part of what McCain wants to do—in fact his main consideration—is win the election. Palin increases the likelihood of that more than Lieberman. Hence it’s what McCain wants.

This isn’t rocket science, people.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 12, 2008 12:46 AM
Comment #262801

It doesn’t make any difference who McPain wanted on his ticket. He chose Lipstick Soccor Pit-bull, and is stuck with it…the problem is, if they actually win this election, we are stuck with it too.

Democrats, get out there and work toward Obama’s win this November…take NOTHING for granted. This is too important. Just going to the polls is not going to be enough…we need others to vote as well. Please take an active part in this thing.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 12, 2008 5:18 AM
Comment #262804

I for one am glad McCain picked Palin and not Lieberman. Palin, as much as she was unknown, was as status quo a pick as was out there. She stands for everything that is bad about the last 8 years. Ignorant blustering and misplaced tough talk on foreign policy. Demanding loyalty oaths from subordinates even in non-political positions. Improper firings. False religious arguments for policy. Being in the pocket of oil companies. Sounds just like George Bush.

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2008 7:57 AM
Comment #262828

Article being held “the first time I post”… the first time today… What’s going on?

Posted by: janedoe at September 12, 2008 1:04 PM
Comment #262846

phx8 says, “When she jumps off a plane and makes stupid statements about how government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem, blissfully and stupidly unaware that the government just bailed out two entities to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, in order to avoid a depression?”

Thanks phx8 for mistakenly supporting her position about government being the problem. Who created Mac and Mae? Government! Yes, that same government you seem to believe should grow even bigger.

I really have to laugh when folks are critical of Governor Palin when she talks about NATO membership and what it means. NATO has the word “Treaty” in it’s name and members of NATO agree to protect fellow members. If Georgia, or any other country, is accepted into NATO they will be protected by the group.

Are those critical of Governor Palin saying that the signatories to NATO can’t be trusted to keep their promises?

Just as Mr. Sarkozy of France, a conservative who replaced Mr. Chirac, also a conservative, Mr. McCain will replace Mr. Bush and beat the liberal Mr. Obama by at least the same margin of 53% in the French election and for many of the same reasons.

The French are beginning to understand, with their rejection of the socialist opponent of Mr. Sarkozy, that liberals feed off envy, and when empowered, manage to impoverish the rich without enriching the poor.

Posted by: Jim M at September 12, 2008 2:40 PM
Comment #262850

>liberals feed off envy, and when empowered, manage to impoverish the rich without enriching the poor.

Posted by: Jim M at September 12, 2008 02:40 PM

Jim M,

You don’t suppose this might be grossly over-stated do you?

When was the last time a rich guy you know was impoverished?

If you know even one…was he impoverished because of some liberal who was in office?

Nearly every rich guy who ever ended up impoverished was because of his own avarice, even those who allegedly jumped out the hi-rise windows during the great depression…unless, of course, you blame liberals for that too…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 12, 2008 2:55 PM
Comment #262852

Marysdude, Mr. Obama and his liberal followers adhere to a philosophy of “fairness” and promote equality of results. To be “fair” and ensure equality of results they wish to use the tax code and impoverish the rich which they believe will enrich the poor. Success doesn’t work that way, it must come from the individual and not an endless handout.

Have we not heard prominent liberals promote the idea of plundering our corporations to give to some approved social group? Doesn’t Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the wealthy include more handouts to those who don’t even pay taxes?

All this pandering to what liberals define as “poor” has not lifted them out of government defined poverty has it? Not according to liberals it hasn’t. On a regular basis on these blogs I hear the hand-wringing liberals talk about increased poverty, homelessness, hunger, deprivation, etc despite decades of increase government spending on these very same issues.

Marysdude, as I asked in a previous post, what will it take…just one more trillion? No, it wouldn’t end there either. It will end when liberals have impoverished the rich and not enriched the poor.

Posted by: Jim M at September 12, 2008 3:35 PM
Comment #262854

Jim M,

Don’t forget that as the “Agent of Change”, the agent gets his commission for this transfer of wealth in the form of a larger bureaucracy.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2008 4:04 PM
Comment #262861

JIm

Marysdude, as I asked in a previous post, what will it take…just one more trillion? No, it wouldn’t end there either. It will end when liberals have impoverished the rich and not enriched the poor.

Liberals don’t look to enrich anyone. We look to give everyone a fair shake. The wealthy would prefer to give everyone whats left after they have taken their 95%.

Posted by: RickIL at September 12, 2008 5:42 PM
Comment #262864

janedoe

I have had that same thing happen a few times in the past. It bewildered me to.

Posted by: RickIL at September 12, 2008 5:47 PM
Comment #262868

Periodically when I try to post it tells me-My post is being held until it can be read because I am a new poster. I just tried to post and got the same message. I am not a new poster. The last time it happened my post never showed up.

Anybody else get this message?

Posted by: Carolina at September 12, 2008 5:57 PM
Comment #262869

“Liberals don’t look to enrich anyone. We look to give everyone a fair shake. The wealthy would prefer to give everyone whats left after they have taken their 95%.”
Posted by: RickIL at September 12, 2008 05:42 PM

RickIL, what I said was, “Impoverish” the rich without “enriching” the poor. “Fair Shake” is liberal code for “equality of results” and as I have said many times, there is no government on the face of the earth or in the minds of men that can accomplish that.

A long-standing liberal political strategy is to create class envy thru “new rights” not written in our founding documents and then use that envy and those new rights to attract voters who believe in the fantasy of something for nothing.

If one is a liberal it’s a great strategy as they will never run out of new rights that can be created by liberal judges and congresses. For decades liberals have preached that individuals can’t take care of themselves and only government is wise enough to handle their individual affairs.

Liberals created Social Security in the usual flawed fashion and today we all know that it is just a matter of time before severe changes will have to be made to the detriment of all. SS was not sold to the public as the giant “ponzi” scheme it represented but, rather as a remedy for people who wouldn’t or couldn’t take care of themselves. And Medicare and Medicaid is much the same.

Then the brilliant politicians devised a scheme to give a tax refund to those not even paying taxes and gave it a pleasant sounding name, “Earned Income Tax refund” or something similar.

And to pay for these giant liberal government schemes they hid the cost in our payrol taxes and tax code rather than allow American’s to understand the true cost.

Today, we have the same old liberals dishing out their same old failed programs. The difference this year is that American’s by the millions are finally beginning to understand how damaging and cruel these programs really are.

Posted by: Jim M at September 12, 2008 6:11 PM
Comment #262870

Thanks to Doug Langworthy for pointing out something that’s been bugging me about the Palin discussions…people who criticize her for being against abortion “even in the case of rape.” As if this makes her some kind of unsympathetic monster.

The position some criticize her for NOT holding — to be opposed to abortion, except… — is the most hypocritical of all the many positions in this divisive and emotional debate. “Except,” nothing. If it’s your view that abortion is killing a child, do you suspend that belief if the child happened to have the misfortune of being conceived during rape or incest?

The issue only becomes gray if the mother’s life is in danger…then, perhaps you can justify an “except” as the choice is one life for another. Otherwise, either you believe that abortion is wrong or you do not.

In a campaign in which the hypocrisy from both sides appears to be boundless, Palin’s position opposing abortion even in cases of rape or incest, is one of the few of hers that I respect, even if I may not necessarily agree with it.

Posted by: Sam McD at September 12, 2008 6:12 PM
Comment #262871

I posted this earlier……and am far from a new poster in here….my post has yet to show up either….

Article being held “the first time I post”… the first time today… What’s going on?

Posted by: janedoe at September 12, 2008 01:04 PM

Posted by: janedoe at September 12, 2008 6:15 PM
Comment #262872

For those who may be confused, “enrich” as I use it in the above posts means “self-sufficiency”.

Posted by: Jim M at September 12, 2008 6:16 PM
Comment #262874

Jim M,

I hate to remind you, but the last time a so-called liberal held the presidency, he asked higher taxes on the wealthy, and it was not long before our wonderful nation began to balance budgets. He didn’t have to enrich the poor, in fact he encouraged ‘welfare to work’. He merely leveled the playing field a little bit.

My nemisis will come along and tell us that it was actually the conservative congress that should get the credit for that, but he will not remember that there have been conservative congresses since then who have not done so. Then he will say that there was a continuation of the national debt…well at least there was not an additional seven trillion added to it as there has been under the last three conservative administrations…but he’ll try anyway…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 12, 2008 6:44 PM
Comment #262876

Jim M

RickIL, what I said was, “Impoverish” the rich without “enriching” the poor. “Fair Shake” is liberal code for “equality of results” and as I have said many times, there is no government on the face of the earth or in the minds of men that can accomplish that.

No Jim, but a government can bring a little parity into the issue. No class envy Jim. I just don’t like to see the gap widening, while the working class go backwards and the wealthy move forward. There is something wrong with that picture.

Yes Jim while they were creating social programs to help out the poor, the wealthy were lobbying for legislation to further increase their fair share and finding ways to prey on those programs to their benefit. Their are no guiltless parties here Jim. The class struggle has been going on for eons. I suspect it will continue in good fashion regardless of a well meaning liberal or conservative president.

Our current situation has eight years of responsible conservative policy pushing this country into the largest hole of our lifetimes. You folks have created a right fine situation there Jim. Many thanks to your party for all that responsible fiscal policy with the best of intentions and fantastic results. Accountability knows no conservative.


Posted by: RickIL at September 12, 2008 6:57 PM
Comment #262884

I see it as more sensible than cynical to pick a running mate who might help you get elected. IMO, picking Lieberman would have been a more cynical move.

On “rocket science”, there is a t-shirt that they sell in Mental Floss that says “I’m no rocket surgeon”.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 12, 2008 9:40 PM
Comment #262899

We have a few editors on here who are in Texas….so I’d like to let them all know….that we all wish them well, and hope and pray for their safety and well-being. I think we are all big enough to put aside differences in an occasion like this.
Pax !

Posted by: janedoe at September 13, 2008 12:45 AM
Comment #262902

That last comment was pretty stupid….was half asleep and didn’t mean to confine thoughts to just editors! WAS MEANT FOR ALL !!!!!

Posted by: janedoe at September 13, 2008 2:44 AM
Comment #262911

Well I am going to try and post again what I tried to post yesterday. The only thing I figured out was that I used the S_X word can’t imagine why that wouldn’t be ok but anyway. Here goes

More than once recently I have heard McCain whine that if Barack had done town hall meetings with him then the tone of the campaigning would have been different. This is after people have tried to hold him accountable for lying about Barack wanting to teach s_x education to kindergarteners and for lying about the lipstick on a pig.

This again shows how sleazy and disgusting MCcain has gotten. Barack is not responsible for McCain’s behavior-no one but McCain is responsible for what McCain says and does. He alone has the choice and responsiblity on how to run his campaign. No one can control another person’s behavior. It is lying and dishonest to suggest that someone else makes him (McCain) behave a certain way. This is very childish. Just like the child in elementary school when caught doing something wrong says-its not my fault so and so made me do it.

We deserve better than this type of campaigning from McCain.

Posted by: Carolina at September 13, 2008 8:28 AM
Comment #262922

What we deserve from McCain and what we are getting and will continue to get are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. There may have been a time when he was considered honorable, but he wants the Presidency so bad, that has been willing to sell his soul to the Rovian machine. There are no moral boundaries that become too great for him to cross. If he should make it, then this is only the beginning of what we can expect as far as where he will take us. I can’t remember being as fearful as I am at that prospect, literally. I believe the only part of this current administration that will change, will be Shrub, and McPalin will just become new furniture in the oval office.

Posted by: janedoe at September 13, 2008 12:25 PM
Comment #262934

>There may have been a time when he was considered honorable

Posted by: janedoe at September 13, 2008 12:25 PM

janedoe,

I think the operative term here is ‘was considered’…he has been considered honorable because he used ‘honorable’ language. Cheney/Bush may have been more right than wrong about him when they ran against each other…not about the black baby (maybe), but about his lack of courage as a POW. Maybe America is so desperate for a hero, we’ll just take his word for it that he is heroic or honorable? I know that I’ve not seen anything he’s done since he returned from Viet Nam that would lead me to believe in either his heroism or his honor. And, quite frankly, he seems to be getting less so every day.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2008 2:56 PM
Comment #262946

dude, I agree, and believe that anything couragious connected to McCain was surely in his past, and that is even questionable. There is nothing couragious about getting preferential treatment and placement ‘cuz Daddy was a bigwig. Piloting a bomber is more couragious than flying a desk, but without all the risks of a fighter pilot that some still mistakenly feel he was. Getting shot down takes absolutely no courage. Staying alive is inherent and instinctive in all of us.
All that said, I’m glad he made it! I don’t begrudge him having survived and coming home. That doesn’t, however, give him any special intelligence, characteristics and wisdom to become the President. His record stands on its own for how he votes and who he caters to. He has no will and only responds to the highest bidder. We’ve had 8 years of that and it is time for something different…and better.

Posted by: janedoe at September 13, 2008 5:08 PM
Comment #263005

“Makes no difference who you vote for, Government always gets in.”
Democrats and Republicans are different sides on the same coin. The REAL PROBLEM is the size of government. There are over 25 million bureaucrats and other government employees at all levels. There are over 80,000 government entities in the USA alone.
We pay for all this. We pay salaries, benefits, retirement, perks, overhead and more.
Then these fools have the nerve to tell the rest of us, private citizens, what we can and cannot do.
This is NOT Freedom, this is insanity!
www.NothingForNobody.com

Posted by: Bruce at September 14, 2008 5:56 PM
Comment #263006

they kept him alive in the POW camps because he was an officer and thus a useful pawn or “ace in the hole” funny how the neocons have used him in a similar way to promote their agenda. A pawn back then by force but a pawn now by choice.

Posted by: NapaJohn at September 14, 2008 8:00 PM
Comment #263020

well i just want to say that its early for me to decide whom i want to vote with. as i see with their TV ads im thinking that its getting warmer this time . i just saw their recent TV ads in pollclash. and for me Obama takes round one this time.. hehehehehe

Posted by: jacque denise yap at September 15, 2008 8:48 AM
Comment #263025

Well, here we are having a wonderful, happy, rosy Monday!
At least that would seem to be in the lives of McPalin. Just today he says “our economy is strong” and she says “I put the jet on eBay”. These two have their heads so far up their own, and each others’ bu**s now, that the real world isn’t even visible.
I can’t believe that they neither one have access to TV, or newspapers. The outlook for some of us is not quite as rosy as for those of the more priveleged ranks. And speaking of bu**s, if these guys manage to persevere, then we can all kiss our collected bu**s goodbye!

Posted by: janedoe at September 15, 2008 12:26 PM
Comment #378519

http://www.burbagssale2013.com/ Burberry Outlet
http://www.airmaxshoesfactory.com/ Air Max Shoes
http://www.coachblackfriday2014.com/ Coach Black Friday
http://www.coach-storeoutletonline.com/ Coach Black Friday
http://www.coachcoachoutlet.com/ Coach Cyber Monday
http://www.coachxfactory.com/ Coach Factory
http://www.coach-factoryoutletonline.net/ Coach Outlet Factory
http://www.coach-outletonlineusa.com/ Coach Outlet USA
http://www.coach-pursesfactory.com/ Coach Purses Factory
http://www.coachpurseusa.com/ Coach Purses USA
http://www.coach-storeoutlet.com/ Coach Store Outlet
http://www.coach-pursesonline.com/ Coach Purses On Sale
http://www.monsterbeatsbydres.com/ Monster Beats Outlet
http://www.louis-vuittonblackfriday.com/ Louis Vuitton Outlet
http://www.lv-guccishoesfactory.com/ Louis Vuitton Factory
http://www.marcjacobsonsale.com/ Marc Jacobs On Sale
http://www.mcmworldwides.com/ MCM Outlet
http://www.mcmoutlet-jp.com/ MCM 店铺
http://www.oakleysunglassesfactory.com/ cheap oakley sunglasses
http://www.michaelkorsmas.com/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.michaelkors.so/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.michaelkorsfactory-store.com/ Michael Kors Factory
http://www.michaelkorsoutletr.com/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.michael-korsfactoryonline.com/ Michael Kors Factory Online
http://www.newcoachfactoryoutlet.com/ Coach Factory Outlet
http://www.north-faceoutletonlines.net/ North Face Outlet Online
http://www.polo-outletstore.com/ Polo Outlet Store
http://www.ralph-laurenhome.com/ Ralph Lauren UK
http://www.saclongchamppairs.com/ Sac Longchamp Pairs
http://www.tcoachoutletonline.com/ Coach Outlet Online
http://www.the-coachfactoryoutlet.com/ Coach Factory Oultet
http://www.barbour-jacketsoutlet.com/ Barbour Jackets Outlet Online
http://www.canada-gooser.com/ Canada Goose Outlet
http://www.guccishoesuk2014.net/ Gucci Outlet Online
http://www.michaelkorsstates.com/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.moncler-clearance.com/ Moncler Clearance
http://www.moncler-jacketsoutletonline.com/ Moncler Jackets Outlet Online
http://www.northsclearance.com/ North Clearace Outlet
http://www.polo-ralphlaurensoutlet.com/ Polo Ralph Lauren Outlet Online
http://www.woolrich-clearance.com/ Woolrich Clearance
http://www.cvshopfactory.com/ shop.coachfactory.com
http://www.mksfactoryoutlet.com/ Michael Kors Factory Outlet
http://www.zxcoachoutlet.com/ Coach Outlet Online USA
http://www.thebeatsbydre.com/ Beats by Dre
http://www.newoutletonlinemall.com/ Coach Purses Outlet Online
http://www.clickmichaelkors.com/ Michael Kors USA

Posted by: polo outlet at May 20, 2014 4:25 AM
Post a comment