Our "Little Barracuda"

Sarah

The various factions of the Left have decided to “pounce” on McCain’s VP pick, Sarah Palin. What’s hilarious is that every one of the complaints about Palin by the yapping Democratic attack dogs can and should be applied directly to Obama. McCains vice presidential selection is more experienced and more qualified for the presidency than the Democratic nominee himself. That should tell you something.

They’ve basically got a glorified “I vote present” Illinois state senator running for the highest office in the land while they are complaining about a governor and, might I add, the only person on either ticket with actual governing experience. Palin stands in stark contrast to an Obama who has abundantly more baggage and a disturbingly tainted and problematic past.

I say burn the naysayers and doomsayers at the stake. It was a bold and fine pick Mr. McCain. Palin has a backbone of steel, is fiercely independent, strong minded and witty and has created her own success in life. Let the bully boys and the pit bulls circle and growl, but Palin should do you proud. McCain has to be willing to be bold, calculating and willing to take risks. Whether the Palin pick will make much of a difference remains to be seen but the maverick continues to surprise and impress as the campaign goes on. He has done remarkably well and far better than many initially thought he might. This election is Obama's to lose but the "inevitability" factor has almost completely dissipated and his pick of Biden was one born out of desperation, panic and weakness in response from increasingly effective McCain campaign strategies.

With this one pick, McCain has snapped the conservative base back into place (she is loved by pro-lifers, evangelicals, gun rights advocates, and the lovers of Liberty everywhere) and also managed to reach out to every middle class, working soccer mom type that may have considered Hillary at one time or another. It softens the appearance of the ticket, helps eliminate the “novelty” factor of an Obama candidacy, and also guarantees that history will also be made on November 4th with a McCain victory.

The low blow name-calling that is already being bantered about by Democratic talking heads is already borderline sexist and certainly joins the ‘ageism’ so evident in the attacks on John McCain. The “party of tolerance” is in fact often a very intolerant group of hypocrites and conservatives like myself never tire in pointing that out. That is just one of the many, many reasons why I do not subscribe to the intellectually and morally barren “progressive” ideology.

Here are a couple of things you may not know about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

In high school Palin was known as “Sarah Barracuda” by her classmates due to her fierce competitiveness on the basketball court. Her oldest son is in the army and is being deployed to Iraq . She was the 2nd runner up for the Miss Alaska title. She is known as a political outsider and maverick, loves mooseburgers, is witty, smart and is considered squeaky clean in a political climate that often oozes with corruption.

Politics can be really fun at times. This is one of those times. The “Right” has been so concerned about McCain yet have faithfully, if reluctantly, backed his “Nobama” candidacy. They have been scared to death of Obama and his vision of an apparent womb to the tomb socialist, Utopian state complete with hamster wheel powered vehicles and torch and pitchfork pogroms against all those who are white, bitter, Bible believing, gun owners who hesitate to hire illegals to clean their plastic wading pools. They don’t want to be micromanaged by an unfeeling, uncaring federal government that insists upon interfering and regulating every aspect of their daily lives.

The sound you now hear is millions of conservatives rushing to man the barricades against the Oprah hordes. In less than twelve hours the past sins of the maverick McCain were forgiven if not forgotten and Sarah “barracuda” Palin became some sort of amalgamated mascot, poster child, rallying point and hero of the conservative camp. The pundits will ponder the question as to whether Palin brought over the women to the McCain camp, but the truth is she brought over every male that is old enough to spout some hair on his chest or hasn’t been emasculated somewhere along the way by angry FemiNazis.

In politics, there is nothing more greatly feared by the Left than an energized and united conservative movement. They delivered the white house to Reagan, shook the very pillars of the Clinton presidency, rallied the nation to fight the vanguards of fundamentalist Islam and now they will be coming after The One and all those who weep and faint at the mere sight and sound of their new secular Messiah. The conservatives have found a rallying point, McCain has found a powerful new symbol and the Democrats who once believed they had this election in the bag are increasingly defensive in their tactics and shrill in their attacks. They have been betrayed and deflated by Bush and vilified and impaled by the Left and the media, but the elation and galvanization of a down but not out ideology that is still powerful and influential cannot be denied. And they may be the difference between a McCain victory and a McCain defeat.

The partisan rhetoric aside, I would much rather be governed by a self-made success story living the American dream with the independent and freedom-loving values of rural Alaska than by someone who is the product of the corrupt Chicago, inner city political machine. One wants you to control your life, and the other wants to control your life for you. You’ll hear a lot about “experience” in this election but just as important is the concept of freedom, common sense, morals and values. The winner of that debate is clear.

Posted by David M. Huntwork at August 31, 2008 2:35 AM
Comments
Comment #260492

David,
I wish the Conservatives luck in electing the first VP under State Investigation and declaring the Moral Highground coming out of their convention. For why I am sure that Mrs. Palin may be a Good Person at heart. I do believe that the Societal Mark for Elected Officals is the “Show of Improperness.” Or does being Conservative this days means that One has to give up their claim to Authority? Something for the Right of Society to think about this week and in November.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 31, 2008 4:02 AM
Comment #260493

Hahahahahahahahahahahahha.

This is really getting ridiculous. Every post or article I have read about McCain’s choice of Palin as VP has been the same talking points regurgitated, swallowed hard by the loyal bushbots and regurgitated some more, and this column is no different.

Let’s do the run down to make sure Rush gives you a pat on the head for being such a good trooper and using all the right keywords.

1) Palin is more experienced than Obama, Biden, or even McCain because she has…you guessed it, governing (executive) experience.

Wow, she was mayor of a town of 6,000 people, where her primary responsibilities were to be the tie breaking vote when needed, and act as a figurehead at mooseburger joint openings and the annual Paul Bunyan lookalike contest. Then she became the Governor of a state with less people than 17 US cities, that has no state income tax or state sales tax and a budget that runs surpluses thanks to oil royalties, which she has held for less than 20 months.

2) She has a “backbone of steel”, and will stand up to the special interests and the pork projects, like a good outsider.

Too bad she was for that bridge to nowhere until she was against it. Woops…I guess that backbone might be rubber.

3) She will appeal to women who were considering Hillary Clinton.

Because as we all know it was written in the scrolls that the daughters of Eve must always vote for their own kind, even though her views are the complete opposite to Hillary’s.

4) Thanks to her christian dominionist views she will energize the base surging John McCain to victory.

Right…because a gun-toting, former beauty queen, basketball baracuda will bring out even more evangelicals than the old 2004 tactic of “fear and queers.” Well you guys will certainly need to find even more of them if you’re going to beat the record number of people who will come out to vote for Obama. Maybe check under the pews, I’m sure you could scrounge up a few more that didn’t come out for Bush in 04.


That’s pretty good, you covered all the main points, and you threw in a little “Democrats are acting sexist“…yada yada…”Obama is the One“…da da da…”Obama is the Messiah“…added a little touch of his holiness Ronald Reagan juxtaposed to the evil Bill Clinton…very good. However you do lose some points for no shout out to 9/11. You did mention fundamentalist Islam, but in order to get full points for the reference you have to actually use the numbers 9 and 11 with a “/” in between.

So your final tally was a 9 out of a possible 10 points, making you tonights champion on Talking Points Showdown. Rush Limbaugh tell him what he wins.

[Rush] Well Pops, Mr. Huntwork has won a year supply of Oxycontin…and that’s not all, he also wins an all expense paid trip to the Dominican Republic.

[Pops] That’s all the time we have on Talking Points Showdown, see you next week, and don’t forget to have your pets spayed and neutered. Bye Bye.

Posted by: pops mcgee at August 31, 2008 4:37 AM
Comment #260494

Pops,

You said it so well, I have nothing to add. Lying seems to come naturally to the Republican flag waivers. Put some lipstick on a pig and they are ready to dance all over again.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at August 31, 2008 6:01 AM
Comment #260496

The funny thing is, with her stance on abortion and use of polemics, I can’t help but hear the song by Heart, and Ann Wilson’s hard charging guitar licks every time I see her talking head. B-b-b-baraCUDa-a-a-a-a.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at August 31, 2008 6:16 AM
Comment #260497

If the real thing dont do the trick
No, you better make up something quick
You gonna burn burn burn burn it to the wick
Ooooooohhhh, barra barracuda.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at August 31, 2008 6:18 AM
Comment #260503

“In high school Palin was known as “Sarah Barracuda” by her classmates due to her fierce competitiveness on the basketball court. Her oldest son is in the army and is being deployed to Iraq . She was the 2nd runner up for the Miss Alaska title. She is known as a political outsider and maverick, loves mooseburgers, is witty, smart and is considered squeaky clean in a political climate that often oozes with corruption.”

So in lieu of qualifications we get a predator fish with a son heading to Iraq. However I do have to say she does look better in a dress than Guliani so if thats a requirement for a repub candidate then the movement should be tickled. If I’m not mistaken David wasnt McCain considered a maverick until he dedcided to run for President? As we can all see now thats a thing of the past. Why do you think Palin would be any different? Doea a love of mooseburgers automatically qualify one for office under conservative movement standards? Does consuming mooseburgers cause one to become politically wise in shorter periods of time than those that dont have a ready supply of mooseburgers to consume? Witty smrt and squeaky clean when compared to those that ooze corruption really doesnt set the bar that high does it? But then thats ok for the movement faithful considering the slim picking they have to choose from. The question is will the movement followers still find her squeaky clean for influence peddling by attempting to get a state policeman canned for divorcing her sister. Seems petty and vindictive to me. But the important thing you didnt mention for the movement followers is the strict adherence to the conservative borrow and spend philosphy, $20 million in debt during her short term as mayor (or $3k per resident) still reeks of more of the same to me.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 31, 2008 9:23 AM
Comment #260506

David M. Huntwork-
My zip code has more people than her town, my county precinct has more people than her state. She left her town twenty million dollars in debt. This is your experience? Do we need another spendthrift former governor in the White House?

Any argument you had for Obama not being president on account of his inexperience is totally screwed now. You have offered up the most inexperienced politician on a ticket since the turn of the last century.

The Bridge thing is a joke, and the fact that you as a conservative don’t know it for that is what’s ironic to me. She endorsed it while she was running for governor, and only cut it after it became clear that the rest of us taxpayers in Hawaii and the Lower 48 weren’t going to foot the bill. How small government of her.

With this one pick, McCain has snapped the conservative base back into place (she is loved by pro-lifers, evangelicals, gun rights advocates, and the lovers of Liberty everywhere) and also managed to reach out to every middle class, working soccer mom type that may have considered Hillary at one time or another. It softens the appearance of the ticket, helps eliminate the “novelty” factor of an Obama candidacy, and also guarantees that history will also be made on November 4th with a McCain victory.

You can’t have both these groups at once, not when push comes to shove. The Hillary Supporters won’t necessarily go for Palin merely because she matches their chromosomes. They’ll look at her record on abortion and balk. The Conservative supporters, in addition, can’t save the ticket. If McCain successfully appeals to his base, and successfully convinces the rest of America that he is a hardline conservative, it will get more difficult, not easier, to win in November.

It’s not sexist to point out that somebody is just there to be window dressing. We actually put a candidate through the primaries and almost to the nomination. Hillary proved her toughness, her political ability in a trial by fire. Would Palin had been selected, if Hillary hadn’t proved so formidable? Palin’s trying to take Hillary’s Mojo, but has done nothing to deserve Hillary’s good regard.

As for Ageism, did you know that most of the people who oppose McCain on age grounds are middle aged and elderly themselves? The Presidency is a demanding job. Clinton went in there dark brown and came out bright white, and he was younger than Obama when he gained the office. Adding to age concerns are health concerns. Will we elect this guy president to see him die of Melanoma halfway into his first term?

And if he becomes incapacitated like that, just what is Palin prepared to do? There are 500 people in America for ever person that she governed in Alaska, and that only for a year and a half. There are limits to the political correctness we can reasonably apply here. The question is not whether McCain is old, the question is whether he has the strength and mental ability to handle the most demanding job in the world. The question is not whether Palin is young or a woman, but whether she has the qualifications to be on a national ticket like this, once step away from governing an entire nation.

In high school Palin was known as “Sarah Barracuda” by her classmates due to her fierce competitiveness on the basketball court. Her oldest son is in the army and is being deployed to Iraq . She was the 2nd runner up for the Miss Alaska title. She is known as a political outsider and maverick, loves mooseburgers, is witty, smart and is considered squeaky clean in a political climate that often oozes with corruption.

Fierce competitiveness is not always a positive trait. The creature who doesn’t choose his battles, who tries to win every fight may stay on top at first, but it will expend greater energy and incur more injury and thereby reduce its survival and chances for reproductive success.

Contention costs. Rove and his disciples should know that better than anybody, having supercharged Bush’s support with their battles, but exhausted and disillusioned so many people in the process of winning each and every fight that at some point, they just didn’t have the strength to win when it counted.

Though she, like McCain, has wrapped herself in the flags of this country and in the flag of change, She is essentially a Bush Republican in all her contradictions, just like McCain is. And the more we make that obvious, the more we make her irrelevant.

You talk about the whining and everything, but I hardly think that’s the proper word. We are going to pounce on her, just like we’ve pounced on every other gambit that McCain has brought out trying to bamboozle the American people. We’re going to make sure that people know every last thing they need to know about this poorly vetted VP choice, and once they do, they will choose the Democrats, because you cannot look at her and see anything else than four years of the same thing. All the McCain campaign is, is the Bush Cheney ticket standing on its head, an Old Washington insider with an illegitimate reputation for being a moderate with a poorly experienced religious conservative governor with a false reputation as a reformer.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2008 9:46 AM
Comment #260508

Yes, Palin was once the mayor of a smallish Alaskan town. At the same time Barack Obama was a “community organizer” in the corrupt Chicago politics, associating with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Rezko— who would later kick him back a sweet-heart real estate deal.

But then Palin went on to be governor, to deal with a state legislature, oversee multi-million dollar budgets, deal with the schools, the prisons, the state infrastructure. She traveled to Iraq and met with soldiers. She negotiated a treaty with Canada for a natural gas pipe-line (that alone dwarfs ANY “foreign policy experience” Obama might pretend to have based on giving speeches).

We know EXACTLY where Palin stands on issues that Obama has never done anything but run his mouth about. She has more experience with energy issues that Obama, McCain, and Biden combined.

She was not governor for long, but the citizens of the state of Alaska saw the same thing in her that McCain does, which is why they gave her an 80% approval rating. You don’t have to spend 30 years doing a job to show that you’re damned good at it.

And what has Obama done this whole time? NOTHING, and nobody can point to any substantial accomplishments on his part except getting liberals to vote for him in the Democratic primary. As a state legislator he set records for voting “present” in order to avoid making difficult votes. As governor, Palin had no such luxury—when it was time to make a decision, she had to make it. And she did. Time and again. And then Obama entered the US Senate, a position in which he’s done nothing but run for president.

Democrats want to claim that Palin is inexperienced? Bring it on. The TOP of their ticket is infinitely less experienced than either McCain or Palin, and no amount of absurd spin will change that.

Palin is really making the Dems sweat. Like they say, when you’re catching so much flak, you know you’re over the target.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 31, 2008 10:36 AM
Comment #260511

I think Democrats are truely shocked that McCain would pick someone with so little experience on the national stage. Sarah Palin, much like Barack Obama was eighteen months ago, is a blank slate to voters. She has about 65 days to put herself out there for examination and the questions are going to be direct and blunt. She has to be in school and on the trail at the same time. I don’t know how they are going to pull this off. If she muffs a name, a position, a place name, there is going to be no mercy.
I do agree with David that the attacks against McCain because of his age is truly insulting. I am 57 and am at the point in life where many younger people regard me as being much less capable than I am. (as an aside, last summer, I rode a bicycle from Portland, Oregon to San Francisco, camping all the way. Just after I got back I happened to be riding the MAX Streetcar, standing; a younger person stood up and offered me her seat. How messed up is that?)
Also funny, George’s and Dick’s decision not to attend the convention because of hurricane Gustav. What are they going to do? What use could they possibly be in alleviating the disaster?

The truth? I know republicans shy away from the truth like a vampire from the light of day, but the truth is that GEORGE AND DICK ARE NOT WELCOME AT THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION!!!!!!!

Posted by: Charles Ross at August 31, 2008 11:28 AM
Comment #260514


Obama needed someone on the ticket with experience.

Posted by: jlw at August 31, 2008 11:44 AM
Comment #260517

pops! You did it again!
A shot to the heart -
A light in the dark
yeah, baby baby
pops! With an ungentle shove
You show from above
Sarah’s not that innocent!

(sorry - couldn’t resist)

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 31, 2008 12:24 PM
Comment #260519

They’re not only not welcome there, Charles, but it isn’t like they have experience from the last one to offer and it would be more of an insult than anything else. Macabre as it may sound, this storm is almost prophetic.
I wish nobody harm, injury or loss, so prayers are with everone potentially at risk again.
I see that neither Bush or Cheney are going to attend the convention, which seems to be going ahead as scheduled.

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 12:26 PM
Comment #260522

How it looks this morning:

Sunday, August 31, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday—the day before the Republican National Convention is scheduled to begin—shows Barack Obama ahead of John McCain by three percentage points both with and without leaners. That’s exactly the same edge Obama enjoyed a week ago on the eve of the Democratic National Convention.

Today’s numbers show a one-point improvement for McCain, but Obama still leads 47% to 44%. When “leaners” are included, it’s Obama 49%, McCain 46%. Obama is now viewed favorably by 57% of the nation’s voters, McCain by 56%.

There have been significant changes in perception of John McCain in the two days of polling since he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Since then, 49% of Republicans voice a Very Favorable opinion of McCain. That’s up six percentage points from 43% just before the announcement. Also, 64% of unaffiliated voters now give positive reviews to McCain, up ten points since naming his running mate.

There has been little change in perceptions of Obama since his Thursday night speech and the Palin announcement.

Palin herself made a good first impression and is now viewed favorably by 53% of voters nationwide. Her counterpart, Joe Biden, is viewed favorably by 48%. While Palin has made a good first impression, the more significant numbers will come a week from now after the nation has a chance to learn more about her.

We’ll see what the numbers look tomorrow and then again after the Republican convention. And with people actually evacuating New Orleans for Gustav like they should have with Katrina, it looks like there will be much less human suffering this time around, thankfully.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2008 12:42 PM
Comment #260524
I think Democrats are truely shocked that McCain would pick someone with so little experience on the national stage.

I think Democrats are truly just shocked that McCain doesn’t just concede.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2008 1:01 PM
Comment #260525

Pops

Great response! That has to be one of the most creative rebuttals I have ever read here. No only creative but true and to the point.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 1:05 PM
Comment #260526

Oh, and in other news:

Friday, August 22, 2008

The latest wave of state-by-state polling, market data and national trends have pushed the Rasmussen Reports’ Electoral College projections as close as our daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

The latest numbers from the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator show Obama leading in states with 193 Electoral College votes and McCain ahead in states with 183 Electoral College votes. Previously, Obama had enjoyed a 210–165 advantage.

Currently, states with 135 Electoral College votes are leaning slightly in one way or the other, and three states with a total of 27 votes — Colorado, Nevada and Virginia — are pure toss-ups.

Looking at the polling data over the past few months has shown McCain closing in on the electoral college numbers and many states moving from the Democratic towards the Republican side.

Will this change in the next two months? Obviously back and forth, but the trend is in the wrong direction for Obama and especially his supporters who have been predicting a landslide victory in November.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2008 1:23 PM
Comment #260527

“In high school Palin was known as “Sarah Barracuda” by her classmates due to her fierce competitiveness on the basketball court. Her oldest son is in the army and is being deployed to Iraq . She was the 2nd runner up for the Miss Alaska title. She is known as a political outsider and maverick, loves mooseburgers, is witty, smart and is considered squeaky clean in a political climate that often oozes with corruption.”

This was a list of things you may not have known about her, not a list of qualifications. Matter of fact, the sentence before that paragraph actually said “Here are a couple of things you may not know about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.”

Try to keep up.

And googlumpuugus, name one lie in the above article.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at August 31, 2008 1:23 PM
Comment #260528

David H

This post has to be one of the longest most boring hyperbolic Sunday morning sermons I have ever read. There really is nothing new, definitive or of substance in it. Just another deceptive attempt at irritating liberals by way of Limbaughesque propaganda and brain washing. I can understand your desperation in supporting all things McCain. You really have no choice. But you will have to do much better than simply trying to convince people that Obama is some sort of evil anti Christ because he is not a devout conservative. Or do I have that wrong. Seems I also remember the right proclaiming him the One. You folks really need to make your minds up. Which is it going to be, Christ or anti Christ? Liberal minds want to know.

Good luck with that Sarah McCuddah the savior thing. I have absolutely nothing against Sara the saint. I just haven’t had time to form any good judgment on her worth of the position at hand. I could be wrong here, doubt it, but imo she will be the explosive which creates the final implosion of the McCain run. If it ends up being close indies will again decide this one. They tend to be a bit more responsible than your main party voters when it comes to their politics. They will see through the obvious weaknesses of both your candidates. The result will be that rather than again being held responsible and accountable for four more years of Bush policy they will do what is right and head our country in a responsible direction.

The “party of tolerance” is in fact often a very intolerant group of hypocrites and conservatives like myself never tire in pointing that out.

I might suggest you read the entirety of your post and consider if maybe you yourself might be guilty of what you imply others are. If you are incapable of seeing it then I might suggest taking the blinders off.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #260529
If it ends up being close indies will again decide this one.

Indies always are, something both major parties forget.

They will see through the obvious weaknesses of both your candidates.

You mean all four of the candidates, don’t you?

Oh yeah, there are no weaknesses with Obama, I forgot. :/

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2008 2:17 PM
Comment #260530

‘a very intolerant group of hypocrites’.

Sheesh!

THEY BELIEVE they’re the real party of financial responsibility - but WHO had budget surpluses? Not them, not since before the Kennedy Administration.

THEY BELIEVE they’re the real party of protecting Constitutional rights (even the parts other than the Second Amendment) - but WHO implemented warrantless wiretapping several months before 9/11, threw habeus corpus under the bus, and has held even an American citizen for several years without a trial or even access to legal counsel?

THEY BELIEVE they’re the real party of national security - but WHO led the biggest military drawdown in U.S. history, started a war on FALSE pretenses, even now continues to violate the Geneva Convention, and still has yet to find Osama bin Laden?

THEY BELIEVE they’re the real party of family values and lawful and ethical behavior - but WHO had the great majority of sex scandals over the past eight years (several of which, unlike the Dems, did NOT involve the OPPOSITE sex), has ignored multiple Congressional subpoenas, refuses to enforce ethics laws against Republican faithful, loses MILLIONS of e-mails required by law to maintain (and does NOTHING about it), claims the VEEP is NOT part of the executive branch of government…

…and THEY call US hypocrites?

WHERE is their HONOR? WHERE is their INTEGRITY? WHERE is their desire to uphold their solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic?

Perhaps it was outsource to Dubai with Halliburton, who now operates free of American taxes…and American law.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 31, 2008 2:26 PM
Comment #260532
1) Palin is more experienced than Obama, Biden, or even McCain because she has…you guessed it, governing (executive) experience.

Wow, she was mayor of a town of 6,000 people, where her primary responsibilities were to be the tie breaking vote when needed, and act as a figurehead at mooseburger joint openings and the annual Paul Bunyan lookalike contest. Then she became the Governor of a state with less people than 17 US cities, that has no state income tax or state sales tax and a budget that runs surpluses thanks to oil royalties, which she has held for less than 20 months.

Which is *STILL* more experience than Obama. You can poopoo the experience by, once again, belittling small town America, but it doesn’t change the fact that Obama has no experience running anything even at that small size.

And trust me, there are a lot of people who are still upset about the clinging to guns and religion statement. It is not going to just ‘go away’ because Obama can give a good speech in an elemented prepared specifically for him.

2) She has a “backbone of steel”, and will stand up to the special interests and the pork projects, like a good outsider.

Too bad she was for that bridge to nowhere until she was against it. Woops…I guess that backbone might be rubber.

But did she ever for ‘present’ in order to keep her political asperations intact? Did she have such a blank slate that no one can pin down how she really sees those areas that are considered political 3rd rails, like guns and abortion? I may disagree with her on one of those, but I at least know where she stands.

3) She will appeal to women who were considering Hillary Clinton.

Because as we all know it was written in the scrolls that the daughters of Eve must always vote for their own kind, even though her views are the complete opposite to Hillary’s.

You assume that all of the women who were going to vote for Hillary were doing so because of her views. And you further ignore the reality that Obama has severly pissed off women by calling Ferarro a racist. Ferarro, to her credit, was on the radio friday praising Palin and welcomed knowing that she no longer bears the title of the only woman vice-president nominated by a major party (the Libertarians nominated Dr. Nancy Lord several years ago but apparently have a woman with two doctorate degrees on that ticket didn’t count).

4) Thanks to her christian dominionist views she will energize the base surging John McCain to victory.

Right…because a gun-toting, former beauty queen, basketball baracuda will bring out even more evangelicals than the old 2004 tactic of “fear and queers.” Well you guys will certainly need to find even more of them if you’re going to beat the record number of people who will come out to vote for Obama. Maybe check under the pews, I’m sure you could scrounge up a few more that didn’t come out for Bush in 04.

I remember the record number of young kids that were going to come out and vote against Bush in 2004 as well…

And she has energized the Republican party and their views of McCain as I pointed out in the polling information. You can say it isn’t going to make a different all you want, but when faced with the facts, it makes it harder to do effectively.

There have been significant changes in perception of John McCain in the two days of polling since he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Since then, 49% of Republicans voice a Very Favorable opinion of McCain. That’s up six percentage points from 43% just before the announcement. Also, 64% of unaffiliated voters now give positive reviews to McCain, up ten points since naming his running mate.

She is also viewed more favorably than the other VP candidate.

But what is most telling, at least to me, is that the Democrats are now scrambling to show how much experience that their presidential candidate has compared to the Republican vice-presidential candiate, which points out an obvious problem that they have. I think most Republicans would have never said much about Obama being the VP, his qualifications lend themselves to that position just fine. It is his nomination as president that I think is presenting him the most trouble when compared to what a ticket should look like, experience at the top with a person who is younger and with a similar ‘maverick’ view as his/her running mate.

I think this election is going down to the wire. It may be another late night in November this year…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2008 2:32 PM
Comment #260537

Rhinehold,
No, it won’t be close. Osama received a big bounce from the convention, and even before his acceptance speech, which was watched by 38 million people, the polls showed him up 4-8 percent. The initial poll for Sarah Palin showed most people thought she was unqualified. It was a terrible pick, and that’s going to become increasingly apparent.

The problem with Palin is she nails down the votes which McCain already commanded, and she alienates the middle because of her extreme right wing views and her inexperience. She adds nothing to the ticket.

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2008 2:48 PM
Comment #260539

Polls show Palin does not help McCain’s chances:

“Does having Sarah Palin as his running mate make you more likely to vote for John McCain in November, less likely, or will it not have much effect on your vote?”
N=898 registered voters, MoE ± 4

More Likely 18%
Less Likely 11%
Not Much Effect 67%
Unsure 3%

Seems Republican Bloggers think Palin was a brilliant addition to the McCain campaign. General public is not so gullible.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2008 2:58 PM
Comment #260540

phx8,

I’m sorry, but I’ve posted polling that contradicts what you have stated. You are free to believe what you want, I’ll keep looking to the facts myself. You can believe the fairy tale that this will be a landslide, but the electoral college is getting closer and closer. Rasmussen, the most accurate polling firm over the past several elections, has the electoral college down to a 10 point difference, neither one getting 270 points.

And the Republicans haven’t even had their convention yet…

And BTW, I love the ‘38 million’ thing like it means something. Apparently, if you watched the speech, it means you are for Obama!

I also love the voting with Bush 90% of the time, line, I can’t wait for that one to come out and bite you guys on the butt too… I have something special planned for that one.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2008 3:01 PM
Comment #260544

Rhinehold

You mean all four of the candidates, don’t you?

I guess in theory you are probably right. I should have stated that better. It probably should have read that in the end indies will realize which party has more weaknesses. I would never imply that any one party or candidate is perfect or has all the answers. I would think that is a reality which should be obvious to anyone who follows politics with any degree of regularity. We simply have to decide which party will best serve the needs of this country at the particular moment. At this moment in time imo I am relatively sure that the blue side holds the best possibility of putting things back in proper perspective.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 3:09 PM
Comment #260546

Rhinehold,

The youth vote will come out at least the same, and probably in greater numbers to vote Obama this year, than they did in 2004. Most young people voted against Bush instead of for Kerry in 2004, and they really weren’t excited about Kerry to begin with. Obama has brought out the youth vote in even greater numbers during this primary than 2004, so I expect them to show up this november.

Evangelicals were brought to the polls in 2004 in record numbers based on the fear of terrorism, and gay marriage, and that’s not happening this time. Terrorist scare tactics and color coded alerts that only show up at election time will not be as strong an issue as it was four years ago. All of the gay marriage amendments on state ballots have been used up in the last two elections. How many times can you continue to ask people to ban gay marriage? To prove how desperate the Republican party has become to energize the base, just look at how radio hosts and preachers have resorted to whisper campaigns that Obama is the anti-christ. That reeks of desperation and people aren’t buying it.

Now it’s coming out that McCain actually wanted Leibermann, but when word of that made it through the Karl Rove/Ralph Reed channels, he was warned that the fundies would revolt at the convention. So Palin was a last minute decision to appeal to the “agents of intolerance” to at least trickle out of their churches and give old John a sympathy vote.

Do you really think evangelicals will come out in the same numbers as they did in 2004 because of who the VP nominee is?

Posted by: pops mcgee at August 31, 2008 3:13 PM
Comment #260547

Rhinehold, your approach to the discussion misses the marks widely.

Look at the polling data and observe what the American people think. That is afterall, the only relevant measure of what is happening in this race.

On the economy, ability to unite this country, and bring needed changes to our system, Biden/Obama ticket has a handy lead.

On the war on terrorism, finishing Iraq, and foreign policy, McCain/Palin have a decided advantage.

So, on election day, it is likely to boil down to what voters are most concerned about personally, their financial status going forward here in the U.S., or some conflict or terrorist threat overseas.

As for the VP choices, Biden adds to Obama’s weaknesses in the foreign policy arena across party lines, Palin adds social conservative strength to McCain’s already declared Republican following, but little from outside the GOP following. This would appear to indicate that Obama’s choice helped him in the polls, while Palin adds nothing to McCain’s support outside already registered Republican ranks.

What people hope and wish for this election is irrelevant. What the polls demonstrate is the general voting public’s response, is everything. On Nov. 4, they will be polled one last time - and that makes the polling the only measure by which to rationally assess this race.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2008 3:15 PM
Comment #260549

David,

I agree, Nov 4 will be the deciding factor, but you forget that most people vote for a president based on foreign policy, not economic, because as we all know it is congress that has the hand in that more than the president.

But, my point was not that McCain was going to win, nor was it that Obama was going to, only that it will not be the landslide many were hoping for and predicting, McCain has done a very good job in shoring up the race to be pretty much a tie, even in the electoral vote.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2008 3:22 PM
Comment #260551
Do you really think evangelicals will come out in the same numbers as they did in 2004 because of who the VP nominee is?

I’ll repost:

There have been significant changes in perception of John McCain in the two days of polling since he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Since then, 49% of Republicans voice a Very Favorable opinion of McCain. That’s up six percentage points from 43% just before the announcement. Also, 64% of unaffiliated voters now give positive reviews to McCain, up ten points since naming his running mate.

Do you not think that a 10% point bump in unaffiliated voters is important? Even David’s polling data shows that more are more likely to vote for him than not based on the pick, 18-11 is a net 7% bump.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2008 3:25 PM
Comment #260559

Unaffiliated voters, that’s laughable. Just look at how many people identify themselves as Republican today compared to 4 years ago. Once the Republican party proved how incompetent they were people jumped ship, and changed their status to independent. So don’t put too much stock in those unaffiliated voters numbers, it’s probably just former Republicans from 2004 coming back home. McCain is going to need to draw alot of those independents to make up for the lack of enthusiasm in his own party, and the youth turnout for Obama.

As for the electoral college numbers, Obama is doing well at holding all the states Kerry won in 2004. He is also leading in Colorado and New Mexico, with tight races in Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, and Florida. If he wins Ohio or Florida it’s over. If he wins Virginia, then all he would need is Iowa or Colorado. Or if he takes Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico he’s got it. McCain would have to nearly run the table with all those states I mentioned to win, not as easy a task as it was 4 years ago.

Posted by: pops mcgee at August 31, 2008 3:46 PM
Comment #260562

I was in shock read this article
Palin: Surge? What Surge?

http://art-of-politics.blogspot.com

This is the end for for McCain

Posted by: John at August 31, 2008 4:25 PM
Comment #260569

Palin is as experienced as Obama

Let’s say that you do accept that (and I don’t). Is that a reason for picking Palin? The only reasons I see for picking her are that she’s a woman and has an extreme right wing perspective.

Today, on Meet the Press Pawlenty was asked about her economic experience, and he literally said she would bring her experience managing her family’s budget with her….. He said she has foriegn policy experience, because her state is next to Russia. He said she has “commander in chief” experience, because she was in charge of Alaska’s National Guard. My jaw hit the floor. It was hard for me to believe this was an adult talking, much less a public servant.

JUST HOW STUPID DOES MCCAIN THINK AMERICANS ARE?

Even Bush generally acknowledged he was inexperienced and would depend on advisors. Why are Republicans manufacturing some kind of experience for her from the thinnest possible rationales?

I seriously used to respect McCain and thought of this election as the best against the best each party has to offer. But why should voters respect McCain when he has made it so clear he doesn’t respect them? I have yet to hear a sensible rationale for adding this woman to the ticket.

Obama has spent the last two years proving his worth. He laid out a new vision and ran an incredibly discplined campaign. Yes, his resume is thin, but stellar - and his talent is obvious and, again, proven the test of time.

You ask what their differences are? Even if Obama were to come out today and be announced as a candidate - he wouldn’t have enough time to prove himself. That’s why Palin’s nomination is… surreal. She adds nothing to the ticket, and even if she is some kind of rare, unique talent like Obama, she doesn’t have enough time to make that case to the country.

The only plausible reason for picking her is that McCain thought any woman from left field would be good enough to substitute for Hillary and Obama as candidates. It means he really doesn’t get it, and it means he must really think Americans are dumb.

As for me, I’m insulted.

Posted by: Max at August 31, 2008 4:44 PM
Comment #260570

Rhinehold:

Which is *STILL* more experience than Obama. You can poopoo the experience by, once again, belittling small town America, but it doesn’t change the fact that Obama has no experience running anything even at that small size.

Do we really need to point out that the stadium obama gave his acceptance speech in the other night had more people than the town she ran? He has had more than 2 million contributors, which is over triple the entire population of the state she has governed. His campaign has just shy of two million volunteers as well, and they are looking to triple that number by election day. His election campaign alone has a far higher population than her state. And you contend he has no experience running anything compared with her?

Posted by: Jarandhel at August 31, 2008 4:45 PM
Comment #260572

Rhinehold, less than half of Republicans hold a very favorable view of the McCain/Palin ticket?

Wow, Republicans are a whole lot worse off than I thought, if that statistic is valid. The last one I read on the Democrat’s side was 80% favorable for Obama.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2008 4:57 PM
Comment #260573

Rhinehold, guess you forgot the winning line, “It’s the Economy, Stupid!”

No, it is not always about foreign policy. Absolutely wrong on that one, Rhinehold, as the history of elections easily demonstrates. When economic times are uncertain, presidential elections have often been determined by economic issues, not foreign policy issues.

But you are right, it is a close race by most empirical measures at this point. Except one, 56 % of Americans prefer a Democrat in the White House in November to a Republican. That generic question’s results gives a slight advantage to the Obama campaign.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2008 5:00 PM
Comment #260578

David H.,

The partisan rhetoric aside, I would much rather be governed by a self-made success story living the American dream with the independent and freedom-loving values of rural Alaska than by someone who is the product of the corrupt Chicago, inner city political machine. One want you to control your life, and the other wants to control your life for you. You’ll hear a lot about “experience” in this election but just as important is the concept of freedom, common sense, morals and values. The winner of that debate is clear.

1. While what you prefer is certainly true, the rhetoric is hardly aside and the lie of self made vs political machine is complete and utter.

2. “One want you to control your life, and the other wants to control your life for you.”
We have lost more freedom under big daddy Bush than any other recent President.

3. The winner of that debate is clear. To whom? Perhaps not a lie, just wishful thinking or possibly psychosis…..

How’s that for a a few in just the last paragraph?

The “lie” I am referring to is the lie that this dink is prepared for the presidency. You know she isn’t, but you rise with a load of crap to defend your party’s position. It’s why no one listens to you anymore. It’s why this was a dumb move by McCain and will hurt him in November. As to Rinehold’s quixotic polling….grasping at straws.
This kind of minute to minute polling is meaningless, except to pollsters bank accounts.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at August 31, 2008 5:23 PM
Comment #260583

The Dems who are still repeating the nonsense about Governor Palin being less than qualified (although she is far more qualified than Obama himself and is only running for the VP spot) need to get back on the reservation.

Don’t you realize that the Obama campaign has backed away from this talking point because it’s incredibly embarrassing to have any discussion about qualifications while Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee?

Don’t do this to your candidate. Haven’t you been watching the Obama ads and his spokespeople on the Sunday talk shows?

The talking point about Governor Palin is that she is just like Dick Cheney. Got that? Governor Palin is just like Dick Cheney. More of the same. No different at all. Exactly like Dick Cheney, just as John McCain is just like George Bush.

Those are the talking points you’re supposed to be using. Governor Palin=Cheney. Tell all your friends, family members and coworkers. Can it really be that hard to remember? And ignore that look on their face while you’re talking. They’re the ones who are crazy. Not you!.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 31, 2008 5:54 PM
Comment #260588

The boasting by liberals on the blue side is music to my ears. I love how confident they are that Barry and Joe just can’t possibly loose to an old guy and a new gal.

It reminds me of all the boasting being done by some of these same folks before the Gore and Kerry losses. They were dumbfounded then and couldn’t understand how a good ole boy from Texas with no law degree, no brain, no ability to speak French, and no war-time metals could possibly have won. So, in desperation, the liberals decided that Bush must have cheated somehow…twice. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice…shame on me.

Now comes John and Sarah, too old, too young, too white, too dumb, too (you name it). They can’t possibly win, let’s start the celebration. I hope come election night the Chicago Tribune early edition headline reading “Obama Defeats McCain” has to be hastily recalled reminiscent of the Truman/Dewey headline.

Some of the smarter liberals writing here are no doubt covering today’s gleeful boasts with prose ready to be posted to explain how this election was also stolen.

Fool me thrice…Stop playing the Game.

Posted by: Jim M at August 31, 2008 6:21 PM
Comment #260591

Loyal Opposition-

Obama has had 7 years in the Illinois state senate, the same level of government as Sarah Palin’s governorship. She has held her position for less than 2 years. Additionally, Obama has several years of experience as a US Senator, providing federal experience which Palin has no equivalent for. You may counter that she was a member of the Wasilla city council for 4 years, and a mayor for 6 years, but that still makes her total time served less than two years more than Obama, and at much lower levels of government for the majority of that time. She’s just hit the major league, with the majority of her experience in the minors, while Obama’s been playing at the major league level for a while now, if you’ll forgive the sports analogy.

Posted by: Jarandhel at August 31, 2008 6:41 PM
Comment #260594

In 1948, the Tribune was run by Col Robert McCormick, a Rpblcn partisan. Today, the Tribune is less partisan, but the Sun Times is considered to be the South Side newspaper, so maybe they’ll oblige this time.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 31, 2008 6:50 PM
Comment #260601

Jim M, I love the way you think that now that your party still holds to the White House by its fingernails, that the 2006 boot of Republicans from Congress is nothing more than an historical anomoly.

This faltering economy, this endless war in Iraq, and this degradation of so much in America like education, infrastructure, and deficits and debt are all products of Republicans being in charge. Do you really believe American voters are going to forget that in favor of a female face on the McCain campaign trail? I don’t think so despite Republican efforts to make it so.

But, we will see on Nov. 5. And if appropriate, I will remind you of your words here pontificating as if they had some prescience for November.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2008 7:34 PM
Comment #260602

The best argument I have read for a Republican president coming from a relative unknown is not from Palin, but LA Hanna.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2008 7:37 PM
Comment #260609

Jim M

Here’s a little liberal music for your ears:

Same old song
Just a drop of water in and endless sea
All we do crumbles the ground, though we refuse to see
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind

I close my eyes
Only for a moment and the moment’s gone
All my dreams
Pass before my eyes a curiosity
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind

Now don’t hang on
Nothin’ lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away
And all your money won’t another minute buy
dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind

This is the music I will be playing when your party gasps its final death throes November 4th.

We really aren’t so different it seems you and I aspire to the same end result. The only difference is I will be able to enjoy the music. ;-)


Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 7:53 PM
Comment #260612

acondo

HE IS THE ONE ANTICHRIST. HIS ENTIRE HISTORY IS CORRUPTION. LIBERALS HAVE SUCH HATRED THEY WILL VOTE FOR THE ANTICHRIST AND DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE FACTS SURROUNDING HIS HISTORY. THIS GUY IS NO DIFFERENT THAN HITLER. WHAT SCARES ME IS THAT HIS PLATFORM IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS HITLER’S

Thank you for clearing that up for us. I am sure your fellow conservatives are proud of your representation of their views in this reply. Says a lot towards understanding the workings of neocon reasoning. Now if you will excuse me it is time to go donate some more Hitler bucks to further the “Ones” cause. I hear tell through the grapevine that he is rallying the Obama forces in an all out effort to begin the conservative extermination campaign. ;-)

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 8:13 PM
Comment #260614

LO-
It’s nonsense a number of Republicans, including many in Alaska have repeated. Look, just two years ago, the dear lady was running a town about the size of my zipcode with twenty thousand fewer people. That’s your padding on executive experience. Local level, small town. Just how the hell does this translate to being one step away from being leaders of the freaking free world!?!?

What mysterious arts of governance did she learn, while she put her small town twenty million in debt, that somehow makes up for the fact that she only spent two years in a state level position?

The Republicans seem to have a magic words approach. Whenever McCain’s soft, ultra-wealthy lifestyle is brought up, or his honesty is question, just say POW. Whenever his near total agreement with Bush and the Republican orthodox is brought up, just say Maverick.

And whenever people bring up the fact that she has only twenty months as governor, and the rest of her time was spent as a local politician in a town whose population is nowhere near ten thousand, what are the words we hear? Executive experience!

Well last I checked, nobody was ranking the experience of towns that size in the Lower 48 that highly. You’re playing that card for one reason, and one reason alone:

Desperation. Republicans must justify this decision at all costs, or liberals win. For God knows how many years, y’all have justified not making sense on the grounds of party unit.

You see, the trouble is, McCain didn’t exactly consult with y’all on the question of who he would pick. It’s like I said elsewhere, he’s trying to making himself look like he’s catching the wave Obama’s riding, so he decides to get himself a young, supposed Reformer who’s a party outsider. And to try and drink further from the Democrat’s milkshake, he sought out a woman to try and attract Hillary voters!

The way I read this, this isn’t McCain being a Maverick, this is McCain trying clumsily to get somebody on the ticket who imitates Obama’s freshness, his charisma, his reform credentials, and his good looks.

The Irony is, you have come up with a candidate who better fits your most insulting attacks than Obama ever did. She’s more inexperienced at this level, more obscure and unknown, more of a real religious radical, more part of the party’s fringe, and last but not least, a product of hype more than substance. You’ve killed the argument, by showing you had even less regard for those matters.

As for Palin and Cheney? They’re close, in certain ways. They’re both beholden to the gas and oil industry. Both hold far right views. Both back neocons ideas, but have never served themselves. They both have a record of abuse of power, firing people for mere differences of opinion, pressuring people to break laws. They want consensus in a desired form, not informed analysis of what’s going on which might contradict their desired course of action.

Jim M-
No, it’s not quite so simple. The speed of the response that you’re getting, the pushback on all sides comes from a Liberal left that has adopted the internet as its medium of choice. Whether it’s Macaca moments, long buried newspaper stories, statistics and records, the Democrats have developed a capacity not only to counteract your media operations, but attack aggressively.

The smarter liberals here are out puncturing your myths. The minute you folks announced Sarah Palin, we were on the case. It’s not much more than two days, and our people are aware of how well she’s been vetted. Just think what we’ll uncover in the next 48 hours.

Do yourself a favor, look up “cake”, “McCain”, and “Katrina” on a google image search, and you’ll find what McCain was doing. We know how he’s voted, we know he made a particularly off-color joke about “at least no Arabian Horses were killed” mere hours after Katrina struck.

We probably know a hell of a lot more about your candidate than you do, and by this time next week, Palin may have gone the way of Thomas Eagleton. Hell, we already know somebody wrote a book about her. Oh, what might we find, if we look even closer?

The rank and file Democrats are prepared to play hardball, and have the skills to do so on the substance. Take 2006 as a warning.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2008 8:16 PM
Comment #260615

acondo-

HE IS THE ONE ANTICHRIST. HIS ENTIRE HISTORY IS CORRUPTION. LIBERALS HAVE SUCH HATRED THEY WILL VOTE FOR THE ANTICHRIST AND DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE FACTS SURROUNDING HIS HISTORY. THIS GUY IS NO DIFFERENT THAN HITLER. WHAT SCARES ME IS THAT HIS PLATFORM IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS HITLER’S

Give me a break. I know for a fact that the Antichrist is alive and well and living in Jerusalem. Or he’s a clone of the Real Christ, from tissue taken off the Shroud of Turin.

Or is he a Romanian who takes over the UN and…

Or this is all just another riff on the the “Obama’s scary so run” idea.

As far as evidence goes, you don’t nearly read enough of the posts. There’s plenty of it to go around. The real question is, do you care?

As far as mental gymnastics go, Palin’s far more inexperienced than Obama. You guys just jump and flip aroundt he fact by declaring that being mayor of a town of less than ten thousand souls qualifies as useful experience for the Presidency of the United States of America.

As far as “morans” go, you should know that there is a famous photo out there that uses exactly this irony in mispelling to make a not so flattering point about the man holding up the sign.

Just thought you’d like to know.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2008 8:27 PM
Comment #260616

acondo, you’re getting very close to bye-bye land in here. First, you don’t know me well enough to call me simple, stupid or an idiot!! You don’t know Max well enough to call him a “moran”….am assuming that you’re trying to spell moron. You don’t know John well enough to call him an idiot, either… and you for sure don’t know our managing editor. But while you’re still around, look, read…maybe you just might learn something !!

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 8:27 PM
Comment #260624

janedoe

Give me hell girl!! Don’t pull any punches with that self implicated you know what.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 9:21 PM
Comment #260625

Forrest Gump-
Palin’s accomplishments? Like putting the town she was in 20 million dollars worth of debt? Barack Obama’s experience, both in elected terms and in campaigning terms is much greater. People know him.

As much as you would emphasize the same scary BS, there is little to suggest in real policy terms that Obama is a radical on this subject.

You have to entertain that conveniently unprovable notion that he’s some kind of sleeper who’s just hiding his racial animus.

Obama’s scary to people like you because he makes the Democrats look good. Can’t have that. You won’t be able to save people from themselves if you can’t scare them into voting for a Republican. Pity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2008 9:23 PM
Comment #260628

Admit it, you are either a moran or a partisan, but you have a low IQ and no objectivity. How do you even look at yourself in the mirror with this crap.

Most people that come to this site kind of gently slip in and feel things out for awhile in order that they might be accepted by their peers here. It is an approach that comes with some seasoned adulthood. If you will notice you will see virtually no one here, other than yourself, is referring to those whose position they are in opposition to as idiots or morons. We may refer to the message in a negative, but not inflammatory way, but not the messenger. Accusations and counterpoints can be plenty frustrating even without the name calling. It serves no purpose other than to turn people off and as a result they tend to avoid you once they have figured out that is the sort of person you are.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 9:36 PM
Comment #260630

Comment #260628 was directed at acondo. Sorry.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 9:38 PM
Comment #260632

RickIl…. lol…guess there are a few hormones enough left to rage… ;)

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 9:46 PM
Comment #260646

Stephen D

Obama’s scary to people like you because he makes the Democrats look good. Can’t have that. You won’t be able to save people from themselves if you can’t scare them into voting for a Republican. Pity.

In a nutshell Stephen. Excellent observation and so succinctly expressed. I am impressed to say the least.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 10:55 PM
Comment #260658

BLANK is scary to people like you because he/she/they make the BLANK look good. Can’t have that. You won’t be able to save people from themselves if you can’t scare them into voting for a BLANK. Pity.

Obama scares me because there is not enough there to determine what he will in fact do. There is not enough precidence. With McCain there is.

Posted by: Honest at August 31, 2008 11:45 PM
Comment #260659

RickIl,
I agree with your commet #260628

Acondo,
Why I try and stay independent on an Issue, you might want to reconsider your words. For why I will concur that Senator McCain has the right to chose his own VP. I wonder if the Republicans want to have the first Lady they nominate for VP to be the first VP in Americas’ History to have an active investigation going on during an Election?

Yes, the Conservatives may chose Mrs. Palin this week at their convention; however, I do not believe that the Ladies of Society are “Stupid” or that much of an “Idiot” to vote for a Candidate that by any other Principle or Standard would be Media Meat based solely on a single Issue. For if McCains’ VP Pick was a Man, would the Right even consider his Name in this Historical Election?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 31, 2008 11:54 PM
Comment #260662
That said - Obama should win, shouldn’t he? He’s a machine (DNC, Black Liberation grass root) made man that thinks he is a leader but actually is just really good at reading other peoples speeches.

I don’t know… From Rasmussenreports.com

When asked who will make a better leader and whose values are closest to your own, voters generally give McCain the edge by several percentage points. Changing that perception will perhaps be Obama’s biggest challenge in the next two months.

And it doesn’t help that:

Voter confidence in the War on Terror is at the highest level ever recorded since Rasmussen Reports began regular tracking in January 2004. Fifty-four percent (54%) of American voters now think the United States and its allies are winning the war. The previous high-water mark for optimism—52%—was reached a handful of times in September and October 2004.

Optimism about the situation in Iraq is also at an all-time high. Forty-eight percent (48%) now expect the situation in that troubled country to get better over the next six months. Only 17% expect things to get worse. In addition to being the most optimistic assessment ever recorded, these numbers reflect a remarkable turnaround over the past year. Last August, just 27% thought things were going to get better while 47% were pessimistic.

Kind of took the wind out of the sails for that easy step into the White House for the Dems. Landslide? I don’t think so, this is a horserace even with the smear campaigns by supporters of both candidates in full swing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 12:17 AM
Comment #260664
Look, just two years ago, the dear lady was running a town about the size of my zipcode with twenty thousand fewer people.

And Obama was leading… well, hmmm…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 12:19 AM
Comment #260670

BTW, David, it’s not Monday yet but…

ST. PAUL, Minnesota (CNN) — On the eve of the Republican convention, a new national poll suggests the race for the White House remains even.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Sunday night shows the Obama-Biden ticket leading the McCain-Palin ticket by one point, 49 percent to 48 percent, with the statistical margin of error.

The survey was conducted Friday through Sunday, after both the conclusion of the Democratic convention and Sen. John McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

A previous CNN poll, taken just one week earlier, suggested the race between McCain, R-Arizona, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was tied at 47 percent each.

“The convention and particularly Obama’s speech seems to be well-received. And the selection of Sarah Palin as the GOP running mate, also seems to be well-received. So why is the race still a virtual tie? Probably because the two events created equal and opposite bounces assuming that either one created a bounce at all,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

Obama’s acceptance speech in front of a crowd of more than 80,000 people at INVESCO Field in Denver, Colorado, on Thursday night wrapped up the Democrats’ convention. It was one of the most widely watched political conventions in history.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 12:38 AM
Comment #260671

Obama was leading….hmmm…..a large congressional district and touring the middle east….hmmmm.

Which experience is more directly applicable to a Presidential bid…gee, that’s a tough one.

Those building permits and several thousand dollar police budgets are certainly complex and world shaking.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 1, 2008 12:45 AM
Comment #260672

First, let’s hand it to the McCain team and give credit where credit is due. The pick of Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for VP has sucked the oxygen out of the air and changed the discussion away from the Democratic National Convention, Obama’s acceptance speech and his 38 million viewers. Bloggers, pundits and talking heads have discussed little else since Palin was named. If taking the focus off Obama and the Democrats was an objective, (and I’m sure it was) Palin has already been a huge success.

Now back to reality.

The president of the student government at my local high school has more constituents than Palin did as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. (Given the shortage of viable Republican candidates this election season he probably made McCain’s short list too.) But please, don’t insult my intelligence by claiming that her “executive experience” is in any way preperation for the job of President of the United States. It’s not and you know it’s not and the American electorate will see that it is not. If you want to question Obama’s experience and qualifications for the job, make your best case. But, offering that experience as proof (or even evidence) that Palin is ready for the job of president makes it look as if you feel the electorate is stupid and will buy whatever foolishness you float.

Let’s be honest, had McCain selected Jeffery Dahmer or Bozo the Clown as his running mate many of you (including David M Huntwork) would be writing with equal passion about what a brilliant choice that was. You fool no one with this silly argument about Palin’s experience, least of all disaffected Hillary voters. No one is that dumb.

As anyone will tell you, it’s not about experience, it’s about judgment! And if this is an example of John McCain’s judgment, God help us all if he is elected.

Posted by: RMD at September 1, 2008 12:51 AM
Comment #260675

John, I’d quit linking to nutjob blogs. It’s not helping your cause or your arguments.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 1, 2008 1:04 AM
Comment #260676

I’m about as liberal of a democrat as one can get. If you take all else out of consideration I would certainly agree that Obama’s resume is certainly thin to be taking on the presidency. My preference was Hillary Clinton because of this very issue. She had the edge over, say, Joe Biden, because of her husband, who I’m sure everyone would admit is the last successful president we have had.
Add to all this the fact that John McCain is the most impressive republican candidate we have had, well, in my humble opinion, in my lifetime (Eisenhower). He is a much better man then he has been portrayed or then he has acted in the last year.
I can’t vote for him. He is the nominee of the republican party, a group composed in large measure of liars, criminals and incompetents. (it’s the last i fear the most). As good of intentions that McCain may have, they will be quickly and completely subverted by those who truly run the show with this group (no one actually thinks that w was running the party, do they?)
I guess what impresses me the most about Obama is that Hillary Clinton was easily the presumptive nominee of the party. A year ago there was not even a second place. He beat her; he stood the criticism and examination that comes with achieving the nomination. It really is a sort of crucible, a test, and I think he comfortably withstood it. Having “executive” experience is really a questionable measure of how good a president will be. Jimmy Carter was a governor and, as it turns out, a micro-manager. He drove his staff crazy because he was unable to delegate (as I have heard). Ronald Reagan was indifferent to the actual hands on management of the federal government. Clinton was certainly successful and i sense a good manager. Bush jr. was a governor for six years and he has every possibility of being the worst president in U.S. history, by most objective measures. He is not even welcome at his own party’s convention. (Please, no one say that he has to stay in Washington to oversee the hurricane relief. He would have nothing positive to add) As far as general experience is concerned I think the most qualified president we have ever had would have to be George H.W. Bush, Congressman, Diplomat, head of the CIA, Vice President for eight years. He sought and was denied a second term, a great indication that he was not a successful president.
I guess the main indicator of success is the ability to attract and galvanize support for a course of action; whether your target audience is the Congress, foreign leaders or the general public, if you have the ability to do this then you have a core quality of a successful leader. Obama has this, and I think McCain too has this quality. It’s going to be a close election, decided by three points or less, (because of racial issues), with Obama on top.
So, to me, it’s kind of silly to be comparing “executive” experience between Obama and Palin. Palin will have the opportunity over the next 60 + days to do what Obama has already done. Good luck to her.

Posted by: charles Ross at September 1, 2008 1:08 AM
Comment #260677

…and even if she is some kind of rare, unique talent like Obama, she doesn’t have enough time to make that case to the country.
-Posted by: Max

What “rare, unique talent” would that be? Reading from a telepromptor or slaying a Clinton?

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 1, 2008 1:10 AM
Comment #260678

Of course logic does not prevail. Palin is a perfect match if one wants BIG OIL to continue to run the country. They apparently want an extension on their lease of the Republican Party.
A Wiki seach on Palin is worth your time. Among others things you will find she was a suporter of Alaska’s famous “Bridge to Nowhere” until it gainned national noteriety. Then she flip flopped.
She also believes that a woman that is raped and impregnated by her assailant and has an abortion should go to prison. Thats a pretty tough sell to HC suporters.
One would have hoped that her lack of experience would put an end to the Reps charges of lack of experience of BHO but apparently,as stated previously. logic does not prevail. There was another presidential nominee from Ill. with even less experience, only one term in the state legislature and two years in Congress. He won the election. That would be Abraham Lincoln. Give it a rest.

Posted by: BillS at September 1, 2008 1:15 AM
Comment #260681
Obama was leading….hmmm…..a large congressional district and touring the middle east….hmmmm.

As was Palin. And the state senate district that Obama was running before he was elected was about twice the size as the city Palin was the Mayor of…

Which experience is more directly applicable to a Presidential bid…gee, that’s a tough one.

Those building permits and several thousand dollar police budgets are certainly complex and world shaking.

You can poopoo actually being a commander-in-chief all you want, but she has that on Obama, and she’s not even running against him, is she? That’s the funny part as I see it, you are spending your time trying to win an experience argument against a VP candidate, not against a presidential candidate.

Meanwhile, the pick took the sails right out of the Convention bounce and the Republicans haven’t even gotten up to speak at theirs yet. Ooops.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 1:36 AM
Comment #260682
I guess what impresses me the most about Obama is that Hillary Clinton was easily the presumptive nominee of the party. A year ago there was not even a second place. He beat her; he stood the criticism and examination that comes with achieving the nomination. It really is a sort of crucible, a test, and I think he comfortably withstood it.

I’ve never understood this rewriting of history… Obama was placed in the top 5 after his speech in 2004 and I even wrote on this blog that the press was gushing after him in 2/2007 http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/004824.html.

The fact is that had the black vote not come out for him (is that less cynical that looking for the female vote with Palin as McCain is accused of), the states of Michigan and Florida participating in the debacle that they created and the fact that Edwards took much of Hillary’s steam away from her early in the race, it most likely would have been harder for him to win the nomination.

But, Kerry won that nomination much easier in 2004 and it didn’t get him anywhere during the election. Using this as a sign of his ability is all well and good, provided it is not the ONLY thing you are using…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 1:43 AM
Comment #260683
(because of racial issues)

WTF does this mean?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 1:46 AM
Comment #260686

BTW, I think this commentary by John Podhoretz pretty much summs it all up.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/24771

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 2:13 AM
Comment #260697

Rhinehold,

Sorry, no atttempt to predetermine her incompetence, here, despite John and your attempts to run from the obvious irony of your defense of her bona fides after pummeling Obama’s.

I will always poo-poo someone who throws around terms like commander in chief to describe what one is in the tub wearing the skipper hat and pulling his little boaty and ducky through the suds.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 1, 2008 7:29 AM
Comment #260701

Foreign policy knowledge is something you can’t fake. It takes a broad body of knowledge, critical analysis skills, and intellectual capacity. Obama has already demonstrated his acumen in this area - his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan are quickly becoming policy. He has certainly demonstrated more skill and better judgment than the current administration or his competition. Palin has yet to show us any understanding of events outside her state. I’m sure Joe Biden will give her a chance to show what she knows in the VP debate. McCain has really demonstrated only a surface knowledge of the issues - he has a lot of explaining to do to as far as I’m concerned.

What the country cannot afford is something akin to what we have had for 8 years - a president that has no foreign policy skills who has to take advice from his staff and who seems to be guided only by ideology. It has yielded disastrous results. I don’t see anything from McCain to suggest that he has the capability much less Sarah Palin. If JFK had not had the intellectual capacity to understand US-USSR relations and listened to some of the advice he got during the Cuban Missile Crisis we might have gotten into a global nuclear war. I don’t trust McCain’s judgment in these matters much less the Alaskan Governor.

Posted by: tcsned at September 1, 2008 9:47 AM
Comment #260706

Below is poll material from Zogby, after
McCains pick of Palin. Lets see what happens by the end of the week.

“Zogby Poll: Equilibrium in the POTUS Race!
Brash McCain pick of AK Gov. Palin neutralizes historic Obama speech, stunts the Dems’ convention bounce


————————————————————————————————————————

UTICA, New York - Republican John McCain’s surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate - some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama’s historic speech accepting his party’s presidential nomination - has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows.

Data from this poll is available here

The latest nationwide survey, begun Friday afternoon after the McCain announcement of Palin as running mate and completed mid-afternoon today, shows McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden.

In other words, the race is a dead heat.

The interactive online Zogby survey shows that both Obama and McCain have solidified the support among their own parties - Obama won 86% support of Democrats and McCain 89% of Republicans in a two-way head-to-head poll question not including the running mates. When Biden and Palin are added to the mix, Obama’s Democratic support remains at 86%, while McCain’s increases to 92%.

After the McCain “Veep” announcement on Friday, Palin was almost immediately hailed as a strong conservative, and those voters have rallied to the GOP ticket, the survey shows. Republicans gather in St. Paul, Minnesota this week to officially nominate McCain and Palin as their presidential ticket.

Does the selection of Sarah Palin help or hurt John McCain’s chances of winning the presidential election in November?
8/29-30
Zogby Poll One Week Ago: Does Biden Help or Hurt Obama?

Will help him
52%
43%

Will hurt him
29%
22%

Will make no difference
10%
26%

Not sure
10%
9%

Overall, 52% said the selection of Palin as the GOP vice presidential nominee helps the Republican ticket, compared to 29% who said it hurt. Another 10% said it made no difference, while 10% were unsure. Among independent voters, 52% said it helps, while 26% said it would hurt. Among women, 48% said it would help, while 29% said it would hurt the GOP ticket. Among Republicans, the choice was a big hit - as 87% said it would help, and just 3% said it would hurt.

Pollster John Zogby: “Palin is not to be underestimated. Her real strength is that she is authentic, a real mom, an outdoors person, a small town mayor (hey, she has dealt with a small town city council - that alone could be preparation for staring down Vladimir Putin, right?). She is also a reformer.”

“A very important demographic in this election is going to be the politically independent woman, 15% of whom in our latest survey are undecided.”

“In the final analysis, this election will be about Obama vs. McCain. Obama has staked out ground as the new JFK - a new generation, literally and figuratively, a new face of America to the world, a man who can cross lines and work with both sides. But McCain is the modern day Harry Truman - with lots of DC experience, he knows what is wrong and dysfunctional with Washington and how to fix it, and he has chosen a running mate who is about as far away from Washington as he could find.

“This contest is likely to be very close until the weekend before the election - then the dam may break and support may flood one way or the other.”

The interactive survey shows that 22% of those voters who supported Democrat Hillary Clinton in their primary elections or caucus earlier this year are now supporting John McCain.

Among those who said they shop regularly at Wal-Mart - a demographic group that Zogby has found to be both “value” and “values” voters - Obama is getting walloped by McCain. Winning 62% support from weekly Wal-Mart shoppers, McCain wins these voters at a rate similar to what President Bush won in 2004. Obama wins 24% support from these voters.

Other demographic details are fairly predictable, showing that the McCain/Palin ticket heads into its convention on Monday with numbers that may fuel an optimism they may not have expected, and that many would not have predicted, especially after Obama’s speech Thursday night.”

Posted by: Oldguy at September 1, 2008 10:54 AM
Comment #260708

Rhinehold, please don’t play dumb. “because of racial issues” was an explicit comment, no translation should be necessary. When poor, rural, uneducated white folk go into the voting booth they are going to have a bias against Obama. Why?
Because he is black.
Re: Obama’s possibilities a year ago, September 2007, months before the Iowa caucus. He was given no chance. What are you suggesting, that Hillary was the underdog?
Talk about rewriting history.

Posted by: charles ross at September 1, 2008 11:01 AM
Comment #260725

David M. Huntwork-
The way you speak about it, you’d imagine one could just blunder into defeating the Clintons. The Clintons who had support of the party elders, the party machines. The Clintons who took the biggest Democratic States on Super Tuesday.

Obama, to gain this nomination, had to win enough states by a great enough margin to catch up to her, then surpass her. He minimized her margins and kept his high.

He bypassed the usual donor base for the Democrats, which supported Clinton, and built his own, which scored record numbers of contributors and immense amounts of money to spend.

Having won, the man has moved DNC headquarters to Chicago He moved his party’s headquarters.

Obama has proved to be an aggressive, effective leader That’s his unique talent. McCain’s not proven so good at doing that job.

Rhinehold-
Obama’s senate district is in the middle of Chicago, and most likely has about 215-225 thousand people in it, many times more than in Palin’s town.

Why are you resorting to such lame arguments to defend her? She was impulsive pick on McCain’s part, and the rest of the GOP is trying to rationalize things on the basis of the fact that they’ll lose if they go along with the common sense read on the facts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 1:24 PM
Comment #260728

David, the polling data you linked to is very helpful, but seems more inconclusive about whether Palin will help than what you suggested. Like you said, let’s discuss the data. Most of the comments here (no specific reference to anyone here) are unfortunately highly anecdotal.

Palin excellent: 27%, good: 25%
Biden excellent: 18%, good: 26%

More likely to vote for McCain: 22% (less: 20%)
More likely to vote for Obama: 15% (less: 11%)

I would consider these results to be fairly even, although it looks like Palin did receive a surprisingly enthusiastic welcome from the GOP base.

However, the poll also indicates that McCain is still 80% to Obama’s 44% (Bloomberg, LA Times) on having necessary experience to govern. Granted the question is specific to the candidates and not the ticket, but given the context with the veep questions, that this comes after the Palin announcement is still significant and may undermine the Left’s claims that Palin’s lack of experience will hurt the ticket.

In other categories, McCain is ahead on Russia, terrorism, integrity, and patriotism.

Obama is ahead on energy, economy, change, and empathy.

As to who holds the advantage on Iraq, the polling results are inconclusive.

Oldguy, are the statistics you cited for Palin and Biden really exactly identical? That seems strange.

Posted by: Gandhi at September 1, 2008 1:58 PM
Comment #260729

On a second look, the experience discrepancy polling data is older than the veep announcements. So McCain may no longer lead 80% to 44%.

Posted by: Gandhi at September 1, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #260732
Obama’s senate district is in the middle of Chicago, and most likely has about 215-225 thousand people in it, many times more than in Palin’s town.

Reread what I wrote, I said state senate.

Why are you resorting to such lame arguments to defend her?

I’m pointing out facts and highlighting the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party. Something I like to do alot. Like when you tell us how the Dems are tired of being treated badly by the mean nasty right but forget to mention all of the things the left has done over the years which are arguably just as bad. It starts to ring hollow.

She was impulsive pick on McCain’s part

That is your opinion. Nevermind that she was on the top 5 list of most people talking about the pick for months, just because the ‘pundits’ thought that he would go with a more conventional pick doesn’t mean that she hasn’t been considered by the campaign for the variety of reasons that it has given.

It starts to wear thin, to be honest, to see people assume they know what is going on in someone else’s mind and then set out their arguments based on what they see as obvious fact.

The left says ‘the only reason she was picked was because she is a woman’. It doesn’t matter that she offers way more to the ticket than that, it is the reality on the left so they run with countering that. McCain himself has stated that he has no delusions about being able to bring Hillary voters to his side, that the reason he picked her was her strong conservative views as well as being a strong ‘maverick’ if you will. Please point to me the one person who has that quality in the other candidates brought up? Condi RIce? No. Romney? No. Would it have been great if she had been governor for more than 1 1/2 years? Yes, it would. It would have been nice if your candidate had some history for us to look at running anything other than a campaign for president.

But that doesn’t take away from what she is and what she brings and to me it seems pathetic the things I have been hearing from the left, which I am sure you will explain away, as you always do, that you get it from the right all of the time. Because we all know, two wrongs make a right.

I think it is wrong to call Obama a muslim, as if that were something bad, and claim he is not US born. In that same regard I think it is bad that the Obama campaign runs ads calling McCain old and then start up rumors that Palin’s baby is not her own. In 2004 we had manufactured documents presented as factual by news organizations, books by long time opponents to Kerry being published and Michael Moore being touted an important American and being invited to the Dem Convention.

To write on here, with a straight face, that the Dems are above it all and are just getting tired of being pushed around is beyond the pale, Stephen. Reagan was ridiculed for being an actor by the left repeatedly, Quayle was never given a chance even though he had more experience in government than Obama, the Republicans in Congress in the 90s were accused of wanting to starve children and throw grandparents out into the cold. Now they are called evil routinely by the left who then get ruffled if someone questions their patriotism. Neither should be being done, but what I find ridiculous is the attempt to walk the high road while slinging in the mud.

The fact is that a VP has only one function unless the president dies, but to hear your side tell it McCain has one foot in the grave already, as if he is going to fall dead by March of 2009. It’s interesting to see how the party of unity, the party of the people, treat women and the elderly when they are not liberals, isn’t it?

The funny thing is that it looks like Obama is the only one on the left getting it right, he even had to stop his own campaign from looking like fools when they started with the same nonsense that the left is throwing out here. I’m sure that he would appreciate you following his lead, perhaps he should send out another email blast?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 2:12 PM
Comment #260734

“In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman”. Quote from Margaret Thatcher.

It seems that everyone is focusing on the players on not on the playing field in this election. Liberals promulgate policies based mainly on feelings. If it feels good it must be good. Feeling good describes their opposition to drilling here. Feeling good describes their promotion of national health care. Feeling good is their purpose in withdrawing from a war that is finally going well. Feeling good is an excuse to plunder from the wealthy and corporations.

On all the major issues of this election polling favors the Conservative position. Majorities favor drilling here, favor pursuing our winning strategy in Iraq, favor keeping health insurance private, and favor lower taxes.

When American’s enter the voting booth in November will they cast their vote for the personality of the candidate or the position of the party on the issues of the day?

Neither party in the past two years have shown the American public any concrete evidence of change, of understanding the depth of voter despair, of the ability to do the job for which they were elected. If this is true, American’s will have to look beyond the faces and speeches of the candidates and examine the core philosophy of each party. Hands down, the conservative philosophy of governing is most popular and will win the day.

Posted by: Jim M at September 1, 2008 2:21 PM
Comment #260737


“in other words, the race is a dead heat.”

An unnecessary and unpopular war,conducted in a manner conducive to profiteering.

An aborted attack on Social Security.

Katrina.

The economy in a ditch, with excessive inflation and massive deficits.

All that talk about the Republican party self-destructing.

The Democratic party with enough spending money to end poverty.

The greatest wide screen spectacular in American political history.

And, the polls are a dead heat?

Liberals have become the Republicans greatest ally and the bane of the Democratic party.

IMO, Hillary/Obama would be up 10 to 15 points.

IMO, Richard Gephart would have defeated Bush in 04.

Your “Jeffersonian” candidate is young, inexperienced, and the new kid on the block in this election cycle. The dirt being thrown at Obama by the Republicans is the new dirt for this cycle. It plays well to a captivated audience.

Hillary Clinton is a seasoned veteran of the political wars and well aware of how dirty the Republicans play the game.

In 2000 and 04, it wasn’t Diebold that killed the beasts, it was dirt. The dirt the Republicans had to throw at Hillary was old dirt, mostly discounted by a majority of the voters. She was very popular in working class circles.

If liberal luck holds true to form, they may be nominating Obama in the next three election cycles.

Posted by: jlw at September 1, 2008 2:30 PM
Comment #260744

Rhinehold-

Reread what I wrote, I said state senate.

Yes, I know. That’s twelve million people divided by 59 seats. If I were talking about Obama’s US Senate Experience, I would be saying he represents the full twelve million.

I’m pointing out facts and highlighting the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party. Something I like to do alot. Like when you tell us how the Dems are tired of being treated badly by the mean nasty right but forget to mention all of the things the left has done over the years which are arguably just as bad. It starts to ring hollow.

You’re using the Republican’s talking points, which are objectively underwhelming. Twenty months ago, she had executive experience only in a town whose land area was smaller than my zipcode, and whose population is about 20,000 less. The Republicans barely vetted her at all, which is why the Democrats have so many interesting things to say about her.

It’s not some magical thing. We’ve had good bad and indifferent presidents from the ranks of its governors. It’s just not what I would treat as conclusive data for saying she has genuine experience.

The rumors about Trig Palin originated in Alaska, from what I know. This was another reason that good vetting would have been a nice idea. When confronted on that count, there would be a ready made response, rather than uncomfortable seconds of silence.

The Democrats are tired of getting pushed around, and some are willing to follow these kinds of rumors. But should you counter by saying all of us do this? Many of us opposed it.

The fact is that a VP has only one function unless the president dies, but to hear your side tell it McCain has one foot in the grave already, as if he is going to fall dead by March of 2009. It’s interesting to see how the party of unity, the party of the people, treat women and the elderly when they are not liberals, isn’t it?

Two generalizations do not make a right. Age is an issue in terms of capability, and a legitimate one, made more so by the inexperience of his running mate. Palin seems to have been chosen as a “mavericky” compromise in the place of Lieberman or Tom Ridge. Her pick is a political pick, much more than Biden, who adds real expertise on a number of subjects instead of casual acquaintance with them.

Biden also has the virtue of not being connected to a party that seeks the departure of his home state from the union.

Jim M-
Everybody thinks the other people are operating on feelings in politics, while they are the rational ones.

But everybody uses their feelings on matters to shape their decisions. That is a scientific fact. What’s also a fact is that people’s feelings are influenced by what they’ve thought through.

The rationale on drilling is a combination of Teddy Roosevelt (conservation to preserve wilderness intact) and Al Gore (ending our dependence on Carbon Dioxide emitting fossil fuels) If you’re trying to break an addiction, scoring a new stash is not the best idea.

On National healthcare? It’s businesses that pay too much for healthcare to pay their workers well. It’s people denied treatment that could save their lives and keep them productive. It’s the threat of a biological attack or natural epidemic that finds its way first through those who have to muddle through the day when they get sick instead of getting the help they need.

On the war, it’s a strategy that never worked like plan, and that has us tied down in Iraq, without enough forces to respond to any other crisis in the world without abandoning our other commitments.

Hands down, the conservative philosophy of governing is most popular and will win the day.

Party identification has shifted ten points away from Republicans over to Democrats.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 2:49 PM
Comment #260746

Twenty months ago, she had executive experience only in a town whose land area was smaller than my zipcode, and whose population is about 20,000 less. The Republicans barely vetted her at all, which is why the Democrats have so many interesting things to say about her.

Which you want to dismiss but is more ‘leadership’ experience than your POTUS candidate. Do you not find it ironic that this pick now has you comparing the razor thin resume of your POTUS candidate against the Republican VP candidate? Do you really want to keep going down that path, it is obvious that Obama does not want to.

It’s not some magical thing. We’ve had good bad and indifferent presidents from the ranks of its governors. It’s just not what I would treat as conclusive data for saying she has genuine experience.

It is different to say that her experience is not a complete indicator of her ability to be the VP candidate and to say it doesn’t matter. I agree with your above statement, which is different than saying that her experience is meaningless because she comes from a smaller town than NY.

The rumors about Trig Palin originated in Alaska, from what I know. This was another reason that good vetting would have been a nice idea. When confronted on that count, there would be a ready made response, rather than uncomfortable seconds of silence.

And if someone let loose a rumor that Obama had once been a mamber of the Black Panthers, would he have come out immediately with documentation and proof of it not being true or would he have, rightfully so, ignored it as the minutia that it is?

Her pick is a political pick, much more than Biden, who adds real expertise on a number of subjects instead of casual acquaintance with them.

That is your take. Others might not see it the same…

Biden also has the virtue of not being connected to a party that seeks the departure of his home state from the union.

No, just a history of making stupid statements, lying, plaugurism and racsim. Woo Hoo!

Oh, and being a Washington insider who is seconded only by Obama in voting the party line as much as possible. “Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006”. And the senate has a worse track record and approval rating that even Bush does…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 3:08 PM
Comment #260758

Gandhi, thanks for actually looking at the stats and discussing some hard data, instead of proferring anecdotes and opinionated conjectures.

Yes, the stats you cite demonstrate that except for the base of each party, the VP choice has little traction in the polling data.

Again, it comes down to whether the voters are focused on foreign policy issues or domestic economic issues in November. There the polls are unequivocal (at this point in time) as to what the outcome of the election is likely to be.

I say this with one caveat. The Biden VP choice did not raise a storm of protest on the internet or in the media circles. The Palin announcement did. That may show up in polling data by the end of this week, if the VP choice makes any difference on the public at large. We will have to wait and see.

Still, the polling preference for a Democrat over a Republican with a spread of more than 6 points, will be significant, if it holds, or widens. Obviously, both campaigns will be working on shifting that spread. But, in part, the ability to shift that number depends on money and outreach to the public. Here again, the money favors Obama.

One last factor. Gustav. The McCain campaign’s decision to scale back the GOP convention due to Republican’s record on Katrina, does not bode well for the McCain campaign. That reduced media coverage and exposure to the public audience, especially on this Labor Day when vastly more eyes are on the TV than a regular work day, is likely to have an effect as well on the polls in the coming week or two.

All other things being equal, and looking at these factors above, I would guess Obama’s polling numbers go up by 2 to 3 points by the end of this week, nationally. But, there is no of being sure all other things will be equal. We shall see.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2008 3:57 PM
Comment #260760

Another one. Palin’s husband has DWI arrest

http://art-of-politics.blogspot.com/2008/08/polls-voters-doubt-palins.html

Posted by: John at September 1, 2008 3:57 PM
Comment #260763
All other things being equal, and looking at these factors above, I would guess Obama’s polling numbers go up by 2 to 3 points by the end of this week, nationally.

And you’re basing this on something besides wishful thinking?

As for Palin, she brought more conservatives to McCain who fear him because he is willing to work with Democrats. Her pick obviously had an impact, look at CNN’s poll from yesterday:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/31/obama.mccain.poll/index.html?iref=newssearch

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 4:06 PM
Comment #260773

Rhinehold-
I find it ironic that you talk about a razor thin resume When Obama’s got six years on her in state government. If A>B, and B>C, then A>C. Obama was a representative in one of America’s most populous cities. he dealt with issues and problems at a scale far greater than she did, and for far longer. Her number constituents as a local politician could be fit many times into his total.

Greater responsibilities count for greater experience. And it counts when your VP is constitutionally obligated to take up the office, should your current president die or otherwise leave office before the next election.

Biden can take over for Obama. Can Palin?

What are your thoughts on her connection to the Alaska Independence Party? I can show you the greeting she sent to their convention at its start, and the claim by an AIP member that she’s one of their own. Tell me, when she says Country First, which one is she referring to?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 4:32 PM
Comment #260777

Stephen, Obama pretty much “voterd present” in the state senate and was about as undistinguished and as absent a state senator as he is a US senator. “Talkig good” does not a good candidate or president make. The Democrats are desperately attempting to not reveal their ‘buyers remorse’ for picking the untried new guy with the dubious past, psycho spiritual mentor and fringe friends.

I’d be careful with Sarah Palin.
The political landscape is littered with the corpses of those who’ve underestimated her.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 1, 2008 5:25 PM
Comment #260778

Mwwwaaahhaaaahhhaaa….
Get serious David! Buyers remorse?? You bet, all 80,000 people in MileHigh Stadium and the millions who tuned in on TV to watch him are all suffering from buyers remorse! Don’t you wish?!

Posted by: janedoe at September 1, 2008 5:30 PM
Comment #260787

I agree that Palin’s ability to engage in the politics if destruction that has been the hallmark of the GOP for the last 8 years. For this she should not be underestimated. It appears now that her personal problems are going to be the victim of the tabloids. It’s sad, not that she is now going to get dragged through the mud - if you can dish it out you should be prepared to take it - but her poor daughter will now become the topic of the prurient eye of the media. Palin’s judgment, credibility, and honesty are open to scrutiny and should be studied more closely.

Though, to say that anyone is quaking in their boots that she is the GOPs second best person they could come up with is ludicrous. She was a Hail Mary pass by McCain at best and I just don’t see a Doug Flutie replay here

Posted by: tcsned at September 1, 2008 6:07 PM
Comment #260790

David M. Huntwork-
He voted present at some times, sure, but he has more than 800 bills sponsored or co-sponsored by him in the State Senate. Don’t tell me he was absent. That same absent Senator, in the US Senate, has worked on five hundred bills.

He talks fairly well, granted, but buyer’s remorse is not what people feel after that speech. If that were the case, McCain could have forgone stepping on Obama’s coverage on Friday.

As for the skeletons in Palin’s graveyard, I think people would be rather interested to know about what people she sent there. She fired people left and right, often times concerning their loyalty. You might not find that a problem, but there are plenty of people who are sick of a politican environment where the folks who do their jobs get fired, and the folks who act like cronies get to keep them.

I wrote a post, as a matter of fact, concerning Palin, and not underestimating her on Friday. I know the Republicans, McCain, and how they think. Your VP candidate has just hired a lawyer, and front page on DKos is a story about her connections to a secessionist Alaskan political party. Nobody’s underestimating her. Have you wondered why we came at her so hard and fast?

Well, You wanted her to steal a lot of attention from the Democratic Convention. Next time, be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 6:19 PM
Comment #260791

I think McCain impulsively picked Palin for her shock value alone and otherwise, did not think this through, which makes him look … well, old and not up-to-speed.

The problem with Palin’s 17-year-old daughter’s pregnancy is that, along with Palin’s Down’s Syndrome infant, it emphasizes her role as a mom, not as a political leader. All of these family complications highlight the many domestic distractions she has at home and detract from her ability to be taken seriously. The campaign may as well tie a big apron on her.

Posted by: pianofan at September 1, 2008 6:27 PM
Comment #260806

If I have to hear or see the word “maverick” again in regards to Palin or McCain, I’m going to puke.

Posted by: Cara at September 1, 2008 7:57 PM
Comment #260808

hey Rhinehold,

The latest polls just showed that 67% of polls are made up and googled to show what you want them to say.

Posted by: angrymob at September 1, 2008 7:58 PM
Comment #260810

Whatever helps you sleep at night, angrymob.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 8:01 PM
Comment #260813

Family values= abstinence only education and pregnant children (MINORS!)? Good job! I see it’s working!

What’s next, marrying the father and then
divorce in 5 years?

Family values of Henery VIII? Hell, if it’s a girl, lets just chop of her head!

Posted by: history repeats at September 1, 2008 8:06 PM
Comment #260814

I love how you’ve deemed her your “Little Barracuda” because that is how the right likes their women, cute little pawns for the patriarchy. Slap a diminutive nickname on an anti-feminist former beauty queen and hope us girlies mistake her for someone who has our best interests in mind. She is being used as a gimmick, and I hope to God that more women start to realize this. I hope she realizes it as well, before the media causes more inevitable damage to her family.

Sarah Palin is not only bad for women, she and McCain are bad for this country.

Posted by: Cara at September 1, 2008 8:12 PM
Comment #260816
anti-feminist

Any you can back that up with? I thought feminism was being able to be treated as an equal and make up your own mind. She’s not a feminist because she is pro-life? Is that the litmus test we use these days? I haven’t gotten my press kit from the NOLW recently (National Organization of Liberal Women).

BTW, before you start with the usual, I am pro-choice. Much more than any liberal is, I can guarentee that…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 8:24 PM
Comment #260818

Rhinehold,

I thought feminism was being able to be treated as an equal and make up your own mind.

Yes, I know Rhinehold. Palin wants to outlaw abortion and make sure that no woman is able to make up her own mind about whether or not they want to give birth. She also does not support equal pay for women who do equal work. I just don’t see where the confusion is on this for people.

Posted by: Cara at September 1, 2008 8:38 PM
Comment #260826

Cara, seems rather confused to me, too…
Must be the effect of Palintopia.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 1, 2008 9:35 PM
Comment #260855
Palin wants to outlaw abortion and make sure that no woman is able to make up her own mind about whether or not they want to give birth.

I didn’t realize that to be a feminist you had to be pro-abortion. I’ll make sure to make a note of that later, I was under the ignorant assumption that abortion was a very personal issue that some people felt was the taking of a life and as a result felt that the right of the child overrode the right of the mother, while others see it as a right to privacy of the mother over the child. Therefore we shouldn’t label people as ‘anti-feminist’ on that one single issue. Apparenlty, as I said, I didn’t get the memo.

She also does not support equal pay for women who do equal work.

Which is complete BS. Both her and McCain do support that, they just don’t support the extending of the notification of complaint longer than the current law that already supports it.

It is interesting to see people spout the talking points and not even know what they really mean…

I just don’t see where the confusion is on this for people.

Of course not, equal rights for liberal women, I get it now. My mistake.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 10:45 PM
Comment #260872

Cara:

I think you are really missing something about Palin.

Not that it will change your mind a bit, but I do think the left is underestimating her impact. I was listening to Ed Schutz today, wow what a jerk. He was condemning Palin for her “family values” and stating that their daughter was being forced to keep the baby and marry someone she does not love. Of course he has no idea what he is talking about.

If you look at the precincts that Bush:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

If you talk to people in the red areas, many will identify with Palin because she has a life story they can relate to. I would enjoy seeing polling data asking “which of the candidates do you most identify with” and then track them by precinct. My wager would be in the “red areas” Sarah would get high identification marks.

There are many many people who have lives that share common values with Palin. Her husbands work, their love for the out of doors, small town, etc etc.

Be careful as you ridicule.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 1, 2008 11:20 PM
Comment #260880

Rhinehold:

Apparently you didn’t get the notice. Pro feminism IS pro-choice for women, rather than telling them they must be either pro life or pro death( as you may as well stupidly frame it.) or perhaps you’d like to explain how a libertarian supports pro authoritarian state control of their bodies rather than pro choice, if you prefer. Of course you know that, but once again you’re up to your usual shenanigans. There is no such thing as a pro-abortion movement except in your clearly Palin intoxicated state. Notice served. Thank you for joining the twenty first century.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 1, 2008 11:38 PM
Comment #260883

Craig,

Of course there are many that share Palin’s “values”.

There are many that are Catholic ( I have no idea of Palin’s religion) but don’t support legislation for States right to impose Catholicism.

What she is ridiculing is the privilege of choice Mrs. Palin enjoys while supporting legislation to take that freedom from others.

Of course, you might be careful yourself to impugn the motives of those that don’t share authoritarian leanings like some of your fellow zealots. There are more of those, than the “live your life by my hypocrisy” nuts, in fact.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 1, 2008 11:49 PM
Comment #260888
perhaps you’d like to explain how a libertarian supports pro authoritarian state control of their bodies rather than pro choice, if you prefer.

I never said I supported it. In fact, I made it clear that I was more pro choice, by being a libertarian than any liberal.

But I also understand the dichotomy that people have on that issue and I would never use it as a litmus test on someone. It is a view that goes to the soul of a lot of people, and to be honest is sits on the notion of when life begins, something we haven’t really addressed yet. Does life begin at conception, birth, or somewhere in between. And how do we reconcile that.

I think that the courts are pretty clear that it is a right to privacy issue, I just wish that the liberals would understand it wasn’t just a right to privacy on abortion….

But if you want to use that one issue as a litmus test as to whether or not someone can be a feminist, then I think my position that NOW is just a liberal women’s group is pretty clearly made. Have fun representing half of the women in the US.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 12:04 AM
Comment #260894

Rhinehold:

Numbers I have seen are something like 56% of the public being pro choice, 60% for keeping Roe in place, 14% supporting McCain’s and Palin’s complete ban on abortion.

So your support of Palin, while I could understand for the sheer drool value, somehow conflicts with your “more pro choice” position. But sometimes self assessments can be a bit off.

Life begins in primordial slime. I’ve been known to eat some of it, as have you, most likely. I believe the discussion you want to have is when a clump of cells is considered a sentient human being. While “pro lifers” attempt to move this goal post further down the road than current science or law, their agenda is clear. The use of religious indoctrination makes this as non rational a discussion as creationism.

When they at the same time address why we eat thinking animals like cows and monkeys and put them in cages in zoos, and how they separate the communication of a chimp from that of a zygote, that pulls at their tender heart strings, and they accept that if they must save all zygotes they must also stop eating meat. Then maybe I’ll take their heart felt, deeply thought out feelings as something more than church dogma.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 2, 2008 12:40 AM
Comment #260899

Will McPalin or Barak al-Obama finally end the war with Eurasia and start to handle Oceana once and for all?

Oh wait, I just remembered that the war
is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.

So the republicans are actually keeping society together…

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. I’ve got my own contridictions to go up against the repubs’.

Posted by: guy smiley at September 2, 2008 12:49 AM
Comment #260900

don’t forget…

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
-animal farm

and I add, ‘…like those with more money’

Posted by: morewell at September 2, 2008 12:53 AM
Comment #260905
So your support of Palin, while I could understand for the sheer drool value, somehow conflicts with your “more pro choice” position.

There is a difference between supporting someone not being attacked ridiculously and supporting them for office.

I will not be voting for McCain/Palin in November. That doesn’t mean she needs to be run through the slime mill any more than Obama or McCain.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 12:59 AM
Comment #260913

She should be run through it with the same intensity !! What’s that old saying…..oh ya, “If you can’t stand the heat…” Well, you get the point. SHE is fair game! She lied by omission, therefore dragging her daughter into the fray all by herself. Don’t blame the ones looking for answers and truth, for uncovering it!

Posted by: janedoe at September 2, 2008 1:16 AM
Comment #260917

Rhineold:

OK. I suppose Muslim Terrorist isn’t slimy? She’s just beginning. Give her some time. She’ll get real slimy, I’m sure. McCain had illegitimate black babies and Biden has hair implants and plagiarizes.

What is it that is exactly unfair? Who hasn’t it happened to?

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 2, 2008 1:28 AM
Comment #260918
OK. I suppose Muslim Terrorist isn’t slimy?

It is, that is why I denounce it anytime I see someone using it if someone hasn’t beaten me to it first. And why I never suggest it or bring it up in any of my comments. In fact, I think I denounced it in a recent article as well…

What is it that is exactly unfair?

I would think bringing up Bristol is pretty much unfair, even Obama agrees with me, but you can’t seem to let it go. Then there is the whole conversation we had the other day on the other article about Trig being Bristol’s baby and not Sarah’s. There there is the outright lying, like saying that she is ‘anti-feminist’ and ‘against equal pay for women’ when she isn’t.

Anything else? Want to go after her experience and looks as well, we’ve been through this all this weekend…

Who hasn’t it happened to?

So, as long as the other side is slime, it’s ok for your side to be slime too?

So much for Obama’s attempt at unity and change. How is that going to be possible when he and his followers are just as dirty as their opponents.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 1:32 AM
Comment #260926

Rhinehold:

Which one of Obama’s people are you sliming? I don’t work for Obama.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 2, 2008 1:46 AM
Comment #260927

Rhinehold, can you find something that shows me that Palin IS a feminist? I know she is a prominent member of Feminists for Life, but many feminists including myself see that as a contradiction. I guess she can call herself what she wants, but show me the proof that she is pro-women’s rights, which is unarguably the basis of feminism. Regardless of what you or I consider her, she’s still not good for women! If there is nothing to tell me that she is a feminist or is working to protect women’s rights, all I have to go on is that she is a forced-birth proponent. Which in my opinion is pretty anti-feminist.

And Craig, I would hope that people are voting for McPalin based on policy issues, not whether or not they relate to her outdoor-loving, moose-eating lifestyle, or because her husband works…(okay?) But I do agree, she is a smart move for the GOP as far as getting more social conservatives to vote McCain. I actually don’t believe that the GOP is stupid enough to assume that Hillary supporters are stupid enough to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket just because she is a woman. I think that is something the media and probably a lot of liberals have decided to believe. But other than the social conservative vote, I don’t think this is going to help the campaign that much. And lets get this clear, I’m not ridiculing Palin’s personal life. I’m ridiculing her anti-choice stance on abortion. And I’m not really not cool with bringing her daughter into this.

I guess we will just have to see how this all pans out.


Maverick…wasn’t that the name of a bad Mel Gibson movie?

Posted by: Cara at September 2, 2008 1:58 AM
Comment #260929

Maverick was funny!!!

Perhaps you had to have seen the old James Garner TV show to appreciate it.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 2, 2008 2:07 AM
Comment #260937

Cara, her record is one of raising taxes on the oil and gas companies. Not sure that is going to sit well with some Conservatives. Certainly didn’t sit well with a number of Republicans in Alaska, though the majority thought it was great because they got rebate checks from those tax increases.

Palin however, hasn’t any more clue about national economics than McCain does. Not because she is as ignorant as McCain, but, because she lives in a very unique state with enough oil and gas to afford the government budget and sending checks to voters from oil and gas revenues to boot. That ain’t going to work for our national budget and tax system.

I see the Peter Principle being played out all over again in the Republican Party. They took an incompetent governor from Texas and elected him President, and now less than 1 and 5 can stand what he has done. He was promoted to his level of incompetence.

Palin is by all accounts, a very good governor of Alaska, a very unique state having very little in common with the lower 48 states in geography, weather, culture, government, budgeting, revenues, or population density. If she were to become President with McCain’s passing or debilitation, she would so unprepared by her experience in Alaska as to rise to GW Bush’s level of incompetence.

That would be a tragedy for out nation to lose ground economically, on foreign policy, and in deficits and debt for another 4 years. The window of opportunity to fix some of these challenges is closing. We don’t have time to risk on the potential of another Peter Principle president. Which would include both McCain and Palin.

I heard McCain is reading an Alan Greenspan book. The same Greenspan who kept interest rates at 1% far, far longer than our economic situation could handle for the sake of reinforcing GW Bush’s ownership society creating homeowners of everyone possible. Now we are paying the price of Greenspan’s folly, and McCain says he is learning economics by reading Greenspan’s Book.

Greespan’s book is entirely about Greenspan fending off responsibility for his contributions to the current inflation and mortgage/credit crisis seizing the Middle Class consumers in its grip. This is incompetence instructing the incompetent. If McCain thinks he is going to get a crash course in real world economics by reading Greenspan’s book, god help us all if he is elected president.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2008 3:37 AM
Comment #260938

Rhinehold said: “I will not be voting for McCain/Palin in November. That doesn’t mean she needs to be run through the slime mill any more than Obama or McCain.”

I couldn’t agree with you more, Rhinehold. Part of the problem of course, is that any rational and logical critique of her capacity as president based on her experience and education levels, is treated as slime mill regardless, by ardent GOP party line supporters.

How quickly they forget it was they who elected Mr. Peter Principle himself not once, but twice. One would think they would ask just a bit more education and experience from their next candidates in the areas of foreign policy and economics.

Any high schooler could manage Alaska’s budget and economic situation with 80% of their state revenues coming from oil and gas during an administration in which oil and gas prices have been multiplied by 300%. This hardly qualifies Palin in experience for the infinitely more daunting task of dealing federal deficits of 455 billion and taxes falling short of spending by the same amount, not to mention the ever growing interest on our national debt of nearly 10 trillion dollars.

I hope we can learn more about what she thinks can be done about those federal level issues. If she says drill, drill, drill, like she did in her MSNBC interview with Maria Bartalomo several days before her being picked as VP choice, she will surpass GW Bush in incompetence. But, she may just come up with some very cogent and responsible answers, if the McCain camp will give her the opportunity.

We will just have to wait and see. Should be an interesting debate between Palin and Biden. That is, if such a debate is even allowed to go forward. If I were McCain, I would now vet Palin considerably before allowing her to step into a debate with Biden. There could be some real downside risk otherwise.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2008 3:51 AM
Comment #260941
Rhinehold, can you find something that shows me that Palin IS a feminist?

I never said she was. I only countered the assertion that she was ‘anti-feminist’.

many feminists including myself see that as a contradiction

Of course you do, because of a single issue litmus test. Myself, I think that that one 3rd rail issue is something that crosses all kinds of bounderies because it is not an easy issue at all for people to get their head around and while I will make sure our right to privacy is not violated, I will not identify someone as ‘anti-feminist’ because of it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 8:38 AM
Comment #260949

Well it seems the maverick has been forced by the party bosses to conform to their wishes for VP hence we get Palin, not yet vetted. Cant blame McCain he wanted Lieberman, it was the single issue conservatives that he bowed down to, but most disturbing of all he chose the job over his better judgement and over whats best for his country. Is anybody surprisd?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26501863

Posted by: j2t2 at September 2, 2008 10:01 AM
Comment #260966

I’d say that’s kissing butt at its’ best, and just shows who, in reality, is going to be making all the decisions…..which resultantly moves Palin down the ladder of responsibility. That, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing.
Howdy Doody and Clarabelle ride again..two “tokens” on one ticket….scary !!

Posted by: janedoe at September 2, 2008 12:31 PM
Comment #260982

“The rationale on drilling is a combination of Teddy Roosevelt (conservation to preserve wilderness intact) and Al Gore (ending our dependence on Carbon Dioxide emitting fossil fuels) If you’re trying to break an addiction, scoring a new stash is not the best idea.” Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 02:49 PM

Poor analogy Stephen. Going “cold turkey” on oil, a product used by every American for over 100 years is hardly breaking an addiction. Does a person attempting to loose weight stop eating?

Drill here, drill now is a strategy to keep the world eating and working while replacements are being developed and brought online. Your strategy is not only rejected by over 65% of voters, but is shortsighted and a sure formula for disaster.

As for your suggestion that all individuals are led by feelings, that’s false. Some of us rise above our feelings and use logic and reason for our basis of action. And, you missed the point. I am ascribing the word “feelings” to a group…namely, liberals.

As a group, liberals attempt to influence government policies based upon what feels good to them rather than on what is best, logical, or most effective. Liberals devolve their power from the group-think, rather than from the individual. It’s what’s good for the group that counts. That thinking flies in the face of our founding documents that give rights to the individual.

Posted by: Jim M at September 2, 2008 1:57 PM
Comment #260999

Jim
Drill here, drill now is as much a smokescreen as the rest of any of the right-wing “solutions”
Drill here ?? where? we use 25% of the oil and have 3% of the reserves, and there is nothing within out borders (not including IRAQ- which the RW is trying to turn into our 51st state) that would significantly change that ratio

Drill Now???
there are already 60 + million acres in leases that have not been explored nor accessed —
If you really want to “Drill Now” why aren’t those being taken advantage of?

Drill Now??
any new leases would take Years before they came on line — how is that “helping the transition” — we are hoping to have the answers to alternative energies by the time those “fields” MIGHT come on line. Remember all the “new areas” that are being proposed to be opened up to drilling are as unproven as any of the leases that are currently out there, but are not being used — again, even if the areas are opened up there is no guarantee that anything would result — 10-15 years from now.
GREAT SOLUTION!!

Posted by: russ at September 2, 2008 3:00 PM
Comment #261000

JimM

Poor analogy Stephen. Going “cold turkey” on oil, a product used by every American for over 100 years is hardly breaking an addiction. Does a person attempting to loose weight stop eating?

Who is recommending going cold turkey Jim? Last I knew we just are not able find a reasonable reason for drilling in new areas when there are many which haven’t yet been drilled. Hell I heard yesterday that Palin has some sort of issue with Exxon because they weren’t yet drilling on land up there in Alaska that apparently they should be. What does that say about the situation. Fossils are an eighteenth century product in a 21st century world which is being heavily marketed by right wing barons in an effort to quell an industry which threatens profits they think should be theirs and theirs alone. If you can not see this then I might suspect you are letting your investments get in the way of practicality. Your informed conservative logic here says that you are worried about numero uno and the hell with everyone else. I personally as a liberal individual would prefer to pursue alternatives and allow my individual children a future free of the restrictive and debilitating nature of a monopolistic oil industry. If you individuals get your way conservatives will once again put a lid on the alternative industry and shelve it until we face this dilemma again. And no this liberal did not have to go to a group meeting to come up with that logic.

Posted by: RickIL at September 2, 2008 3:01 PM
Comment #261003

Rubuplican conservative dudes, you really have your spinning cut out for you with this ticket. Let me suggest a slogan:

“Grampa Feely McSmearpants and the Broad in ‘08 - They’re just as white as you!”

Posted by: mental wimp at September 2, 2008 3:20 PM
Comment #261013


RickIl: Are you at all concerned that you might be trading one monopolistic control of energy for another on behalf of your children?

Don’t you think that corporations who will depend on wind and solar to provide energy for customers are going to do everything they can to monopolize the market?

Don’t you think they will do whatever it takes to drive up the costs of or to dissuade people in other ways from investing in home based alternatives which would greatly reduce or eliminate their dependence on the corporations for their energy needs?

Posted by: jlw at September 2, 2008 3:53 PM
Comment #261014

jlw, great defeatist attitude. Nothing like avoiding a possibility to stay with an absolute.
Only slightly off-topic, because this is regarding your reply to RickIl… Look at these pictures….it is absolutely awesome to go past this area (Altamont Pass) and see these. This area is far too windy to have residences in there…but the cattle seem to like it okay ;)

http://xahlee.org/Whirlwheel_dir/livermore.html

Posted by: janedoe at September 2, 2008 4:18 PM
Comment #261035

Why the Left’s “use it or lose it” policy has no merit

Newt Gingrich and Roy Innis
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Washington Times

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Rep. Nick Rahall, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress who oppose producing more American oil are in a bind.
They know voters are hurting from high gas prices and overwhelmingly want the government to allow more American oil production. But they can’t side with the American people and risk upsetting their left-wing base. So they needed a way to make us think they support more drilling - while effectively preventing us from ever drilling a single new well. For the rest of the article go here: http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3630/Default.aspx

Have any of the bloggers saying we shouldn’t develop more of our own resources wondered why the price of natural gas is coming down so rapidly? It just may have something to do with supply and demand and the concomitant reaction on the commodities market. But then, you may not find what you want to support you’re illogical, outdated, politically formed opinions and ideas.

As usual, liberals “feel” that it’s more important to criticize today’s solutions than to use their (God given) brains and understand that we need a bridge (to use T. Boone Pickens words) to get us safely to the new energy technology. Oh wait, now I have upset the atheist. They got their brain from a source they can’t explain.

Posted by: Jim M at September 2, 2008 5:32 PM
Comment #261045

Jim M

They got their brain from the big bang.

Seriously, the left wing nuts want us to get off of fossil fuel and yet they are against producing more natural gas, which is virtually as clean as you can get. They are against nuclear power plants. The Kennedy clan is against wind turbines for electric power. What are we supposed to use for energy?

If we drove electric cars, it would cost us an arm and a leg to charge the batteries each day.

It seems to there is a desire by the left to turn us into a third world nation.

Cara

What is the definition of feminist? I thought the goal of the feminist movement was to encourage women to be all they can be. Would you consider Hillary a feminist? Hillary is not a self-made woman; she rode in on the coat tails of her husband. It appears to me that Sarah Palin is self-made. One would think the feminist movement would be completely behind a woman who has fulfilled all that the feminist movement promotes. Or could it be that the feminist movement is about one thing, the killing of babies. I guess it doesn’t matter how successful a woman may become, if she doesn’t walk in lockstep with the left and endorse abortion, she is anti-feminist.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 2, 2008 6:39 PM
Comment #261047

I thought and still do that Gov. Palin was not the right choice, but she is changing my view. After she came out and said her was pregant, before the news did. I also like that her son is in the military.
Now as far as no experience, let’s see Bush was gov of tx,clinton gov of ar,carter gov of ga,reagan gov of ca. So there is a lot who rose to the top that didn’t have a lot of experince with foreign policy except working with companys to relocate to their states.
She still has a way to make me a true beliver, but what I do know is that I am not voting for Obama.

KT

Posted by: KT at September 2, 2008 6:44 PM
Comment #261048

Tick, tick, tick.

Palin has been sequestered. No interviews. Cancellation of engagement.

Tick, tick, tick.

Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2008 6:46 PM
Comment #261052

HRC earned more than her husband for their whole married life, up until he wrote his biography. By that standard, she would be considered to have been the main support of their family for most of their life together.

The current pregancy controversy, as opposed to the previous pregnancy controversy, is a good one to exhibit differences in values, but not all Rpblcns really want to eliminate birth control, and force their teenage daughters to marry the first guy who knocks them up. There will be a shotgun at the wedding, right?

Posted by: ohrealy at September 2, 2008 7:35 PM
Comment #261061
The current pregancy controversy, as opposed to the previous pregnancy controversy, is a good one to exhibit differences in values,

Except candidate’s children are off-limits, as well as their spouses unless they enter the political fray.

Apparently the left thinks that its a good idea to appeal to the middle class, middle american independant by trying to make the point that Palin was a ‘bad mother’ because her daughter got pregnant. I wonder how they are going to react to that?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 8:14 PM
Comment #261070

Rhinehold, I don’t at all think that a candidate’s children should be off-limits if their actions and/or circumstances are relevant to a position that the candidate has taken.
The initial word on Sarah Palin was that she is a traditional mom, with traditional family values, who is anti-abortion, anti-family planning, anti-sex education, anti-Planned Parenthood, and pro-abstinance-only education, a nice counter-balance to a suspect John McCain. Fine. I think it is legitimate to ask and be answered the question: How is taking those positions working out for you and your family?
I guess the answer is: not too well.
I do know that you will not hear much from her on the campaign trail about how terrible family planning is. She was put out there on day one initially as the paradigm of virtue who could demonstrate, through her life’s example, what having true “family values” could produce. Now she and hers is being hurriedly portrayed as just a typical American family with all the problems that go with. It is not funny, she is not to either be sainted or pitied or despised, but I do think the people on the right, who are rushing around, fully engaged in damage-control, trying to rationalize reality and marginalize those who are simply pointing this reality, are pathetic.

Posted by: charles ross at September 2, 2008 8:49 PM
Comment #261081

Polls have Obama taking a 5 point lead over McCain, and this is coincident with even Republicans asking what the hell was he thinking in picking Palin? Fact is, McCain didn’t pick her, his handlers and the Religious Right picked her, and that choice has now cost his campaign a 5 point loss in the polls.

This 5 point rise times perfectly with the conclusion of the Democratic convention and McCain’s VP choice. Except for Gustav, there is nothing else on the front pages of media to account for the polling shift.

McCain is not the take charge and independent decision maker that he has professed to be. He buckled to his handlers and the Religious Right, and now he has a VP choice that solidifies part of his base, and alienates small parts of others, while earning the thanks and praise of his adversaries.

Way to go, McCain. You should have stayed in the Senate hiding your lack of economic knowledge and education even as you voted for trillions in spending and taxes. You lack of competence, Sen. McCain was not so apparent there in the Senate. But, that is how the Peter Principle works. Folks are not found out to be incompetent until they have reached promotion to their level of incompetence.

One would think McCain would have learned this in 2000. But, learning is not McCain’s strong suit either, being the inordinately poor student he was in school and Annapolis. Man the parallels between Bush and McCain just continue to become more and more apparent. No wonder they were always hugging each other.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2008 9:35 PM
Comment #261085

Well, David, that’s a bit unfair. Yes, that one photo of McCain hugging bush does make it look like McCain is hugging his daddy, but it’s just the angle of the shot.
Ps. just in: Sarah Palin is “working on her speech” and “doesn’t have time” to address an anti-abortion, anti-family planning, anti-birth control, pro-abstinence only, pro-traditional family values (whatever that is) group (is the noun i was looking for. Sorry i kind of got lost in the adjectives in that sentence!).
Good for her. At least she knows what the word “contradiction” means.

Posted by: charles ross at September 2, 2008 9:50 PM
Comment #261087
Fact is, McCain didn’t pick her, his handlers and the Religious Right picked her, and that choice has now cost his campaign a 5 point loss in the polls.

This is utter nonsense.

Like every single other presidential candidate in history, Obama has enjoyed a “convention bounce.” Five points, by historic standards, is actually kind of small (Dukakis, for example, vaulted out by 17 points), so it’s arguable—though too early to know—that Governor Palin’s selections actually BLUNTED the usual convention bounce.

Again, it’s too soon to know, but just blithely saying that an improvement in Obama’s poll numbers right after his convention is due to Governor Palin is laughable on its face.

Furthermore, John McCain certainly DID pick her. He’s the one who makes the picks. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t think about pleasing certain segments of this constituency and the general population for political reasons. I’m sure he did make those considerations… just like EVERY Presidential candidate, including Obama, including everyone has done.

You don’t like Governor Palin. We get it. But your analysis sounds more partisan than well-reasoned.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 2, 2008 9:54 PM
Comment #261090

LO, said: “This is utter nonsense.”

No, it is not nonsense. Catch some news. It will help your comments to appear more informed.

I understand you need to assume it is too soon to know and therefore deny polling results. But, the polling results are what they are for today. And your crystal ball into tomorrow is no more effective than mine. Today’s facts and data are what we have to make our decisions on. Well, for those of us who don’t hide from facts and data.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2008 10:06 PM
Comment #261094

No Charles, there a numerous photos on differing occasions with the two of them in various depths of embrace. My comment despite being factually evidence, was facetious, nonetheless and hardly the main point being made.

C’mon, Charles, of course she knows what the word contradiction means. She is a politician isn’t she?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2008 10:10 PM
Comment #261096

Ohrealy

“HRC earned more than her husband for their whole married life, up until he wrote his biography. By that standard, she would be considered to have been the main support of their family for most of their life together.”

Perhaps you could offer proof of this statement, or is this your opinion?

Why don’t we talk about BHO’s mother and how she became pregnant at age 17 and had no husband? Or perhaps we could talk about Biden’s son who is under investigation for corruption.

There is an old saying, “But for the grace of God, there go I”. No matter what our morals may be and how we try to instill these values into our children, not all things go as we plan. You sit in your dark rooms, hiding behind your PC screens and spewing forth your gossip about someone of which you have no knowledge. Because you fear Palin, you viscously attack her daughter, hoping only to destroy Palin. Your attacks will only galvanize people in support of the mother.

DRR

BHO should have received a 15-point bounce after the DNC, but he only got a 5-point bounce. Let’s see what happens next week.

McCain picked Palin because she was right in his eyes. A couple of years ago, he was the media darling because he was a maverick and stood against either party. Now, in your eyes, he is a puppet of the religious right. I submit McCain is the same man, the only difference is that he nominated a VP who is the greatest threat to the left.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 2, 2008 10:13 PM
Comment #261097
I don’t at all think that a candidate’s children should be off-limits if their actions and/or circumstances are relevant to a position that the candidate has taken.

And it is relevant how? Her daughter is her own person. She made a choice that was in opposition to her mother, that’s instant disqualification!

Please… Do you *REALLY* open that road?

I think it is legitimate to ask and be answered the question: How is taking those positions working out for you and your family? I guess the answer is: not too well.

Good idea, let’s see how middle america likes that question, when they have the same values and understand the heartbreak when their children make their own, wrong (in their view) decision. I’m sure they will like being told it is their fault that their child made the decisions that they did.

And I’ll remember that it is ok to go after candidate’s families and the Obama is just wrong on the issue…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 10:15 PM
Comment #261098
Well, for those of us who don’t hide from facts and data.

That you like and ignore those that you don’t.

The CNN poll had it statistically even after the announcement. They say that the Palin announcement nullified the Obama convnetion bump, or at least delayed it. Then the hurricane came through and uncountered slime gets smeared in the news and Obama gets a bump in some polls.

You are going to say whatever you can for your guy, we already know that…

BTW, I’m sure McCain just doesn’t learn. His opponents know no shame, whether it be Bush or Obama’s followers. It’s too bad that his followers aren’t real good at following, including his own VP nominee.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 10:19 PM
Comment #261104

David, is it not a fact that presidential candidates get convention bounces? Are you denying it?

You’re making a very elementary logical error. In case you’ve never taken a course in logic, it’s called the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. If one thing follows another thing, it doesn’t mean that the first has to be the cause of the second.

If you eat a sandwich and it starts raining, it doesn’t mean that eating sandwiches causes it to rain.

Obama’s poll numbers have risen—just as EVERYBODY knew they would on the heels of the Democratic convention. You want to blame Palin, but your logic has been eclipsed by your partisanship.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 2, 2008 10:39 PM
Comment #261110

And what happens when the notorious McCain anger surfaces? Will he use his most common vulgur language to describe people? I’ll not use the 4 letter language here but it is well documented. Is this the kind of President of the US we want? Is this the kind of world leader we want to represent us? This is out of the world of reason. America needs to take a really close look at who they want to represent them - morally and politically. Not what family members do but what the actual person we choose to represent the country does and says. The McCain descriptive words of his wife are well know outside of the US and are demorilizing and degrading to all women!

Posted by: L FerSchuh at September 2, 2008 11:05 PM
Comment #261116

Here’s more illuminating info about Palin that apparently McCain didn’t know: Palin thinks we should only send troops “on a task from God.”

Here’s more from the same speech:

‘“I can do my part in working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline, … [but] I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said. “I can do my job there in developing our natural resources, … But really that stuff doesn’t do any good if the people of Alaska’s hearts aren’t right with God.”’

In addition, “the McCain campaign seems to have had no knowledge of it [the video] when Palin was announced as McCain’s running mate on Friday,” even though it was posted on her church web site.

Here’s the link to the story on MSNBC.com:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/02/1327574.aspx

The church site with the video of this speech yanked it after MSNBC.com reported its story. But Youtube has it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k

Posted by: pianofan at September 2, 2008 11:24 PM
Comment #261118

Oldguy says “BHO should have received a 15-point bounce after the DNC, but he only got a 5-point bounce. Let’s see what happens next week.”


Sez who, well other than the McCain camp? Of course its all propaganda and the republicans know better in fact it seems they believe he shouldnt get a bounce due to the holiday weekend and the start of the repub convention.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20080829_The_American_Debate__Why_Obama_is_unlikely_to_get_a_convention__bounce_.html

Posted by: j2t2 at September 2, 2008 11:29 PM
Comment #261127

‘“I can do my part in working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline, … [but] I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,”

This is kind of like the Governor of Georgia last year calling for a day of prayer for rain. I believe he led the state in prayer.

Perhaps you could google and see how many presidents prayed publicly during times of war and disaster in the history of this country.

She was speaking at a church function, who was she supposed to talk about, the nut cases on the left fringes of the democratic party? Maybe she could have spoken of the love and patriotism of “MoveOn.org” or maybe talk about the sanity of “Michael Moore”.

You guys are unbelievable, is there anything else you can complain about?

By the way, Lieberman gave a great speech tonight, for those who missed it.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 3, 2008 12:06 AM
Comment #261133

It was interesting to see Republicans applauding Bill Clinton, wasn’t it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 12:16 AM
Comment #261135

From the Washington Independent:

I’m reading an article from October 1996, in which a reporter named Laura Mitchell Harris asks Palin about her intentions for a shake up. How would she effectively run a city without experienced leaders? “”It’s not rocket science,” Palin said, “It’s $6 million and 53 employees.”

And that was the city she ran into 20 Million dollars worth of debt and addicted to earmarks. Experiences counts in lessons learned well, not years spent learning them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2008 12:25 AM
Comment #261155

I can’t think of a more insincere gesture than republicans applauding Bill Clinton at their convention.(Do you think that would have happened had Hillary been the nominee? It don’t get phonier than that) republicans have truly lost their bearings. They don’t seem to recall even recent history, they twist even more the twisted principles they bring initially to the debate (instead of insisting that marriage be between one man and one woman, now teenage single motherhood is celebrated). They are not even sure what they believe anymore; just so long as they project something to american voters, anything, that allows them to continue in power.
RE: Lieberman and his speech. I’ve never regarded him as an American. He represents the interests of Israel to the American government and it is simply a coincidence that he happens to hold citizenship and be a U.S. Senator.

Posted by: charles ross at September 3, 2008 1:33 AM
Comment #261166

to hell with all of that. in the words of hillary clinton “john mccain is experienced & is qualified to be commander in chief on day 1…obama has a speech from 2002!” thats what matters. besides how many of you had teenage moms?….you talkin bout my momma?

Posted by: benhed at September 3, 2008 4:12 AM
Comment #261171

Has anyone else noticed the Jaime Lynn wing of the Republican party out in full force?

McCain’s choice for Veep is the absolute bottom of the barrel cynicism. He’s appealing to the NRA, pro-life, racist, trailer trash wing of the party. They blame the gooks, I mean camel jockeys and Mexicans for every problem in their sad, pathetic lives. The wing too dumb to realize or care, while flag waving, that the Republicans are the party that allies with those that keep this segment of the population poor and disenfranchised.

McCain is such a Maverick that he is employing the same tactics that Republicans used to smear him. Bush III.

While this will certainly rally this segment, the important swing voters are being further pushed away. Andy Jackson used similar politics. He brought us one of the worst depressions of the 19th century. Let’s hope that the majority of voters are smarter than this deeply cynical tactic.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 3, 2008 8:16 AM
Comment #261173
RE: Lieberman and his speech. I’ve never regarded him as an American.

Nice.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 8:41 AM
Comment #261183

I believe the applause for Bill Clinton was for the fact that he worked with those on both sides of the isle to accomplish something. Remember, the Republicans took control of the congress after the second year of his presidency.

The American people have always managed to put balance in government. When Clinton had a Dem controlled congress, the people voted in Republicans. It would be very dangerous for us to vote in BHO when the congress is controlled by Dems. Especially when you have such left wing radicals as Pelosi and Reed.

SD said:
“And that was the city she ran into 20 Million dollars worth of debt and addicted to earmarks. Experiences counts in lessons learned well, not years spent learning them.”

Perhaps you could provide the proof and circumstances of this statement.

Charles ross:

I believe the delegates at the RNC would have responded the same way, if the fact that the Democratic machine had also discriminated against HRC.

I believe your statement about Lieberman smells of anti-Semitism. He is hated because he left the Democratic Party. Of course, he left, because he was also discriminated by his own party

Googlumpuugus said:
“McCain’s choice for Veep is the absolute bottom of the barrel cynicism. He’s appealing to the NRA, pro-life, racist, trailer trash wing of the party.”

The wing of the party you are talking about is what the majority of the party believes: 2nd Amend. Rights, pro-life, and of course the racist could only apply to the Democratic Party because they are the only ones to bring the term up (for example; BHO’s pastor).

“While this will certainly rally this segment, the important swing voters are being further pushed away”

The only thing that will rally the base of the Republican Party and the disenfranchised women supporters of HRC is the lefts attacks on Palin and her family,

Posted by: Oldguy at September 3, 2008 9:50 AM
Comment #261189

Oldguy, Joe Lieberman has LONG been a de-facto lobbyist for Israel vis-a-vis the United States government. This is not a revelation. Google “Joe Lieberman Jewish advocate lobbyist”. He is a neo-conservative to the max re: stability in the middle east and how to achieve it. We have lost upwards of 5,000 Americans and spent 300 billion dollars directly in the Iraq war. Has it ever occurred to you that one of the main reasons for the war is not some vague “we’re defending freedom” but that we’re acting as a proxy for Isreal. Do you even know what a war by proxy is?
Oldguy, I’m know I’m asking a lot here, you’re a republican, easily swayed by slogans and phrases but stop and think here: Joe Lieberman was the Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee in the year 2000, eight short years ago. He was a committed Democrat; wasn’t he or was he? He is still a liberal on just about any issue one could think of. THAT IS WHY JOHN MCCAIN COULD NOT PICK HIM AS HIS RUNNING MATE!!! Now, the only issue that Lieberman has broke with the dems on is the war in Iraq. Even in the war’s darkest hours he was pro-staying the course (remember that phrase). Are you prepared to say that no part of any of his above actions and positions had to do with the fact that he is a Jew and an advocate for Israel?
Lieberman’s first and foremost concern is the survival of Israel, not the fact that American blood is being spilled in Iraq.
It’s easy to throw out the phrase “anti-semite”; and if you put the word “smells” before it, you let yourself off the hook for having to actually prove it; It becomes just some vague accusation one can make without having to back it up.
Joe Lieberman is a United States Senator representing the interests of his Connecticut constituents to the rest of the nation and THE INTERESTS OF HIS NATION TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. The fact (and it is clearly a fact to anyone who does even a minimal amount of research) that he has divided those loyalties is despicable.

Posted by: charles ross at September 3, 2008 10:36 AM
Comment #261197

Charles ross

First of all, Israel is an ally of the United States. We have been since 1948. The Middle East is a hot spot for the whole world, because of oil reserves. It was a hot spot in WWI and WWII; it has to do with oil.

Lieberman, is an ex-democrat who has publicly stated what all politicians of both parties believe. If you think BHO or Kerry, or Biden, or any other Dem would allow a rogue state to control the oil of the Middle East, you are lacking in understanding of world affairs.

We are dealing with a group of radical nuts, which would just as soon die if they could take infidels with them, especially Jews.

You said:
“Now, the only issue that Lieberman has broke with the dems on is the war in Iraq.”

I watched his speech last night and I believe he has more than just Iraq against the Democratic Party. He also stated that McCain was the right man for these perolis times. Meaning he has the qualifications for such dangerous times. Secondly, he referred to the inability of the Dems for cross party lines and make decisions for the nation. Pelosi and Reed have hijacked the congress and there is no working with them.

“Joe Lieberman is a United States Senator representing the interests of his Connecticut constituents to the rest of the nation and THE INTERESTS OF HIS NATION TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.”

You don’t believe this. If you did then you would agree with the 75 percent of the American people who want to drill for more oil, invest in nuclear, natural gas, clean coal, shale, and wind power. Since these politicians represent the interests of the American people.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 3, 2008 11:01 AM
Comment #261206

Oldguy, within a few short sentences you contradict yourself. You say that Kerry, Obama, and Biden share with Lieberman the commitment that no rogue state should control middle east oil and then say that he, Lieberman, opposes those same people for their stand on the war in Iraq. Which is it?
Re: Lieberman’s responsibility as an American Senator to represent his constituents. Of course I believe this and so do you. It is common sense. You’re continuing on to the subject of drilling is a non-sequitur. You are confusing advertising campaigns for political positions that end up shaping opinion polls WITH the obligation of politicians to represent the INTERESTS of the American people. 95% of Americans were for the incarceration of Japanese-Americans in 1942. Just because the politicians accommodated these opinions and put them in camps has no relationship to the issue of whether or not they were representing their constituents INTERESTS (clearly, they were not). We have a representative government. If you could decide which course of action to take (to drill or not to drill) through an opinion poll, why in the world would you need a middle-man representative?
The Middle East was a “hot spot” in World War I and II? What does that mean? It is such a vague assertion that it has little meaning. Were major battles fought in Iraq or Saudi Arabia in either war? If the Middle East we’re a prime objective of either the allies or the axis how come so little effort was expended by either side to defend or gain the area?
Honestly, Oldguy. Reread what you have written and put a little more intellect into your future posts. I do want to learn from the opinions of others but you need to give me some substance to work with.
Incidentally, i’m for drilling in new areas on the coast and ANWAR and was pro-Iraq invasion. I’m just against lies and incompetence which eliminates any possibility that I would vote republican. They are really, from top to bottom, a bunch of spinners and liars. Just look how they are contorting themselves today over all these contradictions re: Sarah Palin.
It is really pathetic.

Posted by: charles ross at September 3, 2008 11:45 AM
Comment #261209

Charles -

‘oldguy’ is sorta like a neo-con friend I have.
No matter how much common sense you tell him,
no matter how much you correct his knowledge of history,
no matter how much you point out the clear numbers to him,
no matter how much you show the Republicans have wasted the nation’s economy,
no matter how many lives have been wasted due to his party’s policies and military adventurism,
no matter how much you point out the corruption and hypocrisy of the Republicans, he won’t listen.
In his view, it’s simply ‘unpatriotic’ to vote anything but Republican…and that is the reason that, in their view, trumps all other issues.

It’s just like the years I spent debating religion - no matter how right you are, the other guy will never change his mind.

Why? Pride. Silly, stupid pride. The kind of pride that forces one to cling to one’s beliefs and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 3, 2008 11:59 AM
Comment #261210

jlw


RickIl: Are you at all concerned that you might be trading one monopolistic control of energy for another on behalf of your children?

Nice try. No I am not. As I stated no one is suggesting cold turkey with fossils. They will continue to play a part in the markets. They will however now have to share with competitors of which there are multiple choices, all contributing to the total picture, all garnering their share of the profits. All this competition will be sure to create a competitive market insuring that no one industry can control costs.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 12:04 PM
Comment #261214

janedoe

jlw, great defeatist attitude. Nothing like avoiding a possibility to stay with an absolute.
Only slightly off-topic, because this is regarding your reply to RickIl

Thanks jane! Wonderful picks. They built a large wind farm jus a few miles outside the little town I grew up here in norhern Il about 6 years back. They certainly are not ugly and I think they add a bit of grace to what otherwise is just boring farm land. Not to mention they have created jobs and a need for services.

I think many of these people who are opposed to progress in this area are simply too heavily invested in the status quo. They are happy with the proven returns they get and see these other forms of energy as a threat to their livelihood. I say to them re-invest if need be. Tough crap pal, the world moves on. You either keep up or lose out. But please don’t drag the rest us down in your attempts to retain outdated regressive and debilitating ways.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 12:20 PM
Comment #261220

Jim M

Why the Left’s “use it or lose it” policy has no merit

You could have used that conservative brain to find a little less biased source than Newt Gingrich.

It is obvious you would prefer to stagnate in old ideology. That I guess may be good for you. But I see it as nothing more than an effort to delay moving into the future.

You seem to be of the notion that proponents of alternatives are suggesting dumping fossil sources immediately. That is an absurd notion which I have to believe you are using to cloud the facts. The dems have been offering a comprehensive energy plan. Problem is the wealthy fossil folks want nothing to do with that. Never the less it is obvious that your sentiments sit with securing a future for the fossil industry which insures that alternatives will remain as the back door product. History has shown that alternatives do little more than sit on the shelves under conservative rule.

I know I am just another brainless liberal without a clue as to how this world works. And for that I apologize. But, not having a brain has rendered me incapable of realizing why it is that I should accept your stagnated, regressive, narrow minded, outdated, shallow, faith based disparaging conservative ideologies.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 1:03 PM
Comment #261225

LO

Furthermore, John McCain certainly DID pick her. He’s the one who makes the picks. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t think about pleasing certain segments of this constituency and the general population for political reasons. I’m sure he did make those considerations… just like EVERY Presidential candidate, including Obama, including everyone has done.

Maybe the perception that he indeed did pick her is out there. But it is doubtful. I would suggest that he was encouraged to pick her and that it would be allowed to appear as though he did. I think most everyone is aware of the command structure within the GOP. It has been pointed out in the past that those who step out of line will be reprimanded up to and including being rendered useless and non deserving of support from the party. The GOP is not a party that supports free thinking members. They are of a cult mentality in which everyone is expected to live by the book.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 1:27 PM
Comment #261229

No, humpty (could you have picked a more appropriate nom-de-plume?) real americans do not have divided loyalties. Lieberman has long represented himself to his Connecticut constituents as being Israel’s senator. He brags about it. He was one small voice pushing for this war from the beginning. He doesn’t give a rats ass about the loss of life and treasure that America has incurred because of the incompetent conduct of the Iraq war.
I display “the absolute epitome of Democratic arrogance. Its a stench that smells of humans rotting” !!!!? and … “Because you are such a great American you have this great discernment?” !!!!?
You are so well spoken! I guess I can drop to my knees, look you in the eyes and respond:
“I know you are, but what am I.” : )

Posted by: charles ross at September 3, 2008 1:37 PM
Comment #261243

Humpty Dumpty,

Too far, you are going to get an official warning if you keep up that garbage. Stick to the Message, not the Messenger.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 2:12 PM
Comment #261244

Let’s think a little about two recent great failed democrat contenders for president. First, Al Gore. This honored man chose as his VP none other than Joe Lieberman. The convention unanimously voted for this ticket and worked hard for their election. Most democrats today will readily tell us of Gore’s great intellectual ability and political smarts. Both Al and Joe were vetted and found acceptable as their party’s flag bearers.

Four years later we had an even more educated, brilliant and politically savvy democrat candidate for president in the person of John Kerry. John chose Edwards as his VP and both were unanimously chosen to lead the party to victory.

Today, Joe Lieberman, the same man who 8 years earlier was considered fit to be president if necessary, is slandered, abused, vilified and hated by these same democrats.

Today, John Edwards, the same man who 4 years ago was considered fit to be president if necessary, is not even invited to his party’s convention and is held in disgrace and disgust.

All 4 of these men were fully vetted and found acceptable and yet, none won, and 2 are considered piranha by their own party.

Today, democrats have chosen a candidate with none of the experience or credentials of Gore or Kerry. And these same democrats are telling republicans that we are making a mistake in supporting the choice of VP made by our candidate John McCain.

Friends, democrats have by default, given up their believability in choosing their own party’s candidate for VP, much less the candidate for VP of the republican party.

Posted by: Jim M at September 3, 2008 2:15 PM
Comment #261248
Little tired of reading Chuck calling people “despicable”, “pathetic”, “stupid”, etc, etc

Sorry, but I haven’t seen Charles call anyone those names, other than political figures or other people, not the messenger he was talking with. Or ideas, which can be pathetic and stupid as well. If you have a comment that I missed, please feel free to post the comment number and it will be looked at by the managing editor, I’m sure.

So my words were a bit more crude - guess I just didn’t go to enough schooling - they basically imply the exact same thing as “despicable”, “pathetic”, etc.

No, you started to attack him personally, most likely in jest which is why I was trying to warn you before anyone else got involved.

Oh - and I’m sure I’ll get banned. When “righty” says something inflammatory there’s always a more harsh reaction.

If you don’t think that the Rules for Participation are being applied evenly then feel free to email your concerns to the managing editor. And be sure to include details of actual situations, not imagined slights.

WatchBlog and its management reserve the right to deny access to any persons whose participation violates the rules above, or diminshes the stated purposes and use of WatchBlog by the public at large. If you see violations of these policies, please report them to via the email addresses below. managing-editor [at] poliwatch.org, OR drremer [at] gvtc.com.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 2:37 PM
Comment #261253

actually, humpty, I’m in favor of deporting anyone in the country who does not have the legal right to be here. Corporations can not send the good paying jobs overseas fast enough so they have to bring the cheap labor here. How insulting is that?
I was for the United States forcing the issue in Iraq. That is, entering Iraq with our military, deposing their government and installing a government more sympathetic to the needs of their people. I recommend a movie entitled “No End in Sight”. It is an excellent dissection of what happened after the start of the second Iraq war. Interviews with all the principals: Garner, Bremer, Rumsfeld, Powell and their subordinates. It paints a sad picture of a war that could have been won. One example: Bremer’s decision to disband a 300,000 man army, send them home to unemployment and LETTING THEM KEEP THEIR GUNS.
On drilling: oil is extremely valuable. One barrel of oil, 42 gallons of distilled gasoline, has the same energy yield of 30 men working full time for a year. Oil is the reason we have the quality of life we do in the 21st century. Go get it, ANWAR, off-shore, shale, sands, go get it. But … . do not let people waste it under the guise of “choice” as in “if people choose to drive gas-guzzling vehicles, who are we to tell them no”. Either oil is valuable or it’s not. If it is, then we should have tax and regulative policies that treat it so.
Re: polices on this board. I think there should be a fairly liberal policy on what people say about one another. When people engage in personal attacks it only diminishes their argument. I guess I am making personal comments about other bloggers when I suggest that they should elevate the debate. This could be an interesting blog where I could learn something from other persuasions. That doesn’t happen so much.
For my part, I don’t hang on to every position that the dems take regarding every issue. I try to see things as rationally as possible and try to avoid rationalizing. I preferred Hillary Clinton to Obama, I like Joe Biden, I like John McCain, the selection of Sarah Palin is, to this point, appearing to be a fairly ridiculous one. I will be voting for the Obama-Biden ticket but do agree with republicans that Obama is largely an unknown quantity that has come too far too quickly.

Posted by: Charles ross at September 3, 2008 3:02 PM
Comment #261256


RickIll,Janedoe: I suggest that I would like to see the American people become more self- sufficient, less dependent on corporations. For this, you label me an oil loving, anti-change proponent with a great defeatest attitude?

If I am a defeatest, what does that make you? Idolaters of ideology?

Genghis Khan was one of the greatest competitors in human history. His Mongol horde crushed the competition.

I know, corporations are not the same as Mongol hordes. We have rules and regulations now, written and enforced by politicians who are dependent on corporations for reelection funds. There is no conflict of interests there.


Posted by: jlw at September 3, 2008 3:08 PM
Comment #261269

Humpty Dumpty, charles ross, and Oldguy have been banned for violating our Rules for Participation. Please do not respond to their comments, they cannot reply.

Questions or comments regarding this action should be directed in EMAIL to editor [at] watchblog.com. Comments here should be on the topic of this article.

Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at September 3, 2008 4:07 PM
Comment #261278

jlw

I did not label you anything. I am an idolater of progress. Please don’t lecture me on the political immoralities of the corporate sector. You will find no bigger proponent of accountability in government than myself. If it is ethics reform and removing back door corporate influence from government then I salute you. It will not happen until the voters of this country have simply had enough. At some point in time they will demand accountability and transparency. Until then we will have to live with what we have. Which in my opinion is much less than acceptable.

I interpreted your question to me as asking if I did not think that an alternative industry would be just as monopolistic as the fossil industry. I think I sufficiently gave you my reply as I see it.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 5:04 PM
Comment #261284

jlw

I went back and reread my reply to jane. I am assuming that this is what you are referring to. Tough crap pal, the world moves on. You either keep up or lose out. But please don’t drag the rest us down in your attempts to retain outdated regressive and debilitating ways. This was not directed at you specifically. I have made several replies over various threads recently which apply to this subject and in pretty much the same context. The response was meant in a general way to cover a broad area of people who seem to support this sort of energy ideology. My apologies that I was not clearer in that presentation.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 5:14 PM
Comment #261305

If you feel anger towards another person posting, try beginning your post with: whomsoever, I respectfully disagree, and then go on to make your point.

The topic is the barracuda governor of Alaska, who likes to hunt furry creatures, here is Woody Allen on moose hunting and jews:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmnLRVWgnXU

Posted by: ohrealy at September 3, 2008 7:26 PM
Comment #261310

ohrealy

Checked out the video clip. Hilarious! Thanks for the laugh. I have always found his humor to be a bit dry for my tastes. But this is great.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 8:13 PM
Comment #261340

BTW, I’ve had enough, I have decide to let my followers talk me into running for President. I just need some help finding a VP…

Here is a news story about it:

http://www.inews3.com/topstory.php?id=207c5268696e65686f6c64


Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 12:02 AM
Comment #261341

It is amazing what trouble and passion one can release by posting about Mrs. Palin. My fault I guess.

By the way her speech tonight was terrific. Give ‘em hell Sarah Barracuda!

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 4, 2008 12:07 AM
Comment #261363

David H., funny that Obama’s selection had almost no controversy attending it at all, isn’t it. Now, you have Republicans saying Palin has killed the McCain ticket on an open mic they didn’t know was open. Ooops!

Sarah did deliver that speech written by her handlers, very well, didn’t she? Too bad FactCheck.org will destroy with fact and truth, like they did Thompson’s and Lieberman’s lies at the convention.

I almost feel sorry for this novice Gov. who doesn’t yet even realize the gross illogical and fallacious content she read from the prompters. All part of learning how to be a national politician I guess. She will be ready and seasoned for federal elected office in another 8 to 12 years though. I think we can bank on that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 12:57 AM
Comment #261369
Too bad FactCheck.org will destroy with fact and truth, like they did Thompson’s and Lieberman’s lies at the convention.

And Obama’s. Let’s not leave out the other side now David…

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 1:05 AM
Comment #262265

The only “controversy” here with Palin, is of the manufactured kind by a panicking left. I’m not impressed, nor entirely surprised by it either. There was no controversy about Biden because everyone already knew he was a liar and a plagarizer and light weight. What’s so controversial about all that? We just figured it was par for the course for our Democratic friends on the Left. Actually, we did smirk and grin a bit on the selection of Biden and correctly predicted it wouldn’t do a thing for Obama.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 9, 2008 1:04 AM
Comment #263500

I am amazed at the thought process behind everyone that is thinking to the left. I am a conservative person who does occasionally have a liberal thought every now and then. My thinking is, I want government out of my way and let me enjoy my life.
I like Sara Palin and why? She is like us. A normal person who is just like every person that lives in between the “2 most important cities” New York and Los Angeles. I like my religon, my family, and my gun. I doubt that anyone that reads these things online care about us out here in normal-land. I am against the “from the womb to the tomb” mentallity that the demo’s have. I am from a small town in Illinois and fundamentally DIS-agree with Barack Obama and Joe Biden. I moved to Texas and am Damn proud of my country. I just want my piece of the American Pie too but not using the democratic thought of RE-distrubution of wealth in order to get it.

Posted by: shawn at September 19, 2008 11:39 AM
Post a comment