Liberals On Palin


McCain’s VP choice has successfully driven the last two weeks of news. As left-wingers pile on criticism of this successful woman, a few voices have offered sharply dissenting views. Camille Paglia for Salon and former Sen. Mike Gravel on Pacifica Radio each bucked their partisan talking points.

Paglia, a liberal and libertarian, has one of the more compelling articles I've read recently. She makes her position on the upcoming election clear, but goes on to commend Governor Palin as a hero to feminists. Almost as a side note, she makes explicit an argument in favor of legal abortion that reveals its own structural underpinnings.

And in his much-discussed interview on Pacifica Radio, Sen. Gravel ends up arguing with the radio hosts, and calling them out for their lack of class and objectivity. Gravel is appalled by the Republican corruption in Alaska - and thinks highly of Governor Palin for defeating it.

Kudos to these two thinkers for being willing to evaluate an opponent fairly - and speak frankly of their own views. This is an attitude we all would do better to emulate.

Posted by Chops at September 11, 2008 9:27 AM
Comments
Comment #262631

Chops,

Thanks for giving props to these two libertarians, these are the people closest to me, current and former Democrats that realized that the Democratic Party has left their libertarian ideals and embraced the progressive ideals that are in direct opposition.

I think the Democratic party needs more of these to realize what is happening to their party and stand up against it, much as I think that conservative minded Republicans should rise up against their party being taken over by a neo-con contingent.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 9:53 AM
Comment #262636

It would be interesting to see Mike Gravel somewhere in a McCain-Palin administration. Maybe at Justice?

Maybe someone could write a post on which positions and which persons are most likely to be party-crossovers in McCain or Obama cabinets. I confess to having few candidates (Lieberman, sure, but who else?) - anyone want to tackle this?

And you independents, how much would inclusion of 3rd-party cabinet members sway you toward supporting a president, say when reelection time comes around?

Posted by: Chops at September 11, 2008 11:08 AM
Comment #262644

Ridiculous. Mainstream media is treating her like a princess superstar.
The treatment from the limited amount of liberal media is nothing compared to how a ‘successful woman’ named Hillary Clinton was and would be treated by conservative media were she the nominee. Not even close.

There is no excuse for this kind of whining when she won’t even take questions.

Can you provide one example of unfair treatment from the Obama campaign? Is pointing out factual lies unfair treatment?

Since we now know almost everyone is sexist I’ll join the crowd - REPUBLICANS SHOULD WEAR DRESSES.

Posted by: Schwamp at September 11, 2008 12:42 PM
Comment #262646

Palin is sitting down for interviews with the media.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 11, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #262648

Lee, the Gibson “interview” is not an interview in any sense of the word. It is a scripted question-and-answer session that will answer very few (if any) of the hard questions most Americans want to hear.

I’m sick of the tactics the McCain campaign is using to turn this into a contest about personalities rather than what it should be: a contest about policies.

Get the puff-piece crap journalism out of the way now. The starry-eyes will fade away and Palin will be exposed for the neo-conservative right-wing Christian looney she actually is.

Posted by: Anonymous Democrat at September 11, 2008 1:00 PM
Comment #262649

I find it very interesting that McCain’s choice for Vice President is more qualified than either him, Obama, or Biden for the job of President. McCain made a wise choice with Gov Palian.
The thing I like most about her is her record of standing up against corruption in government and working to rid the Alaskan government of it. Even though she had to go after members of her own party to do it.
How many other politicians have done that recently? Let’s see, try NONE!

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 11, 2008 1:05 PM
Comment #262656

Look, Chops … McCain nominates a virtual unknown for his running mate and releases precious little information about her or why she was nominated. Palin delivers one speech at the convention and is then declared off-limits for any unscripted questions. She then continues to deliver portions of the same speech written for her for the convention, parts of which have already been wholly discredited (the silly “bridge to nowhere statement” and the Ebayed airplane, for example).

Your statement about left-wingers “piling on” is unsubstantiated and, from where I sit, sounds like whining.

Whenever Palin’s credentials are questioned, republicans cry sexism. How can anyone possibly take her seriously as a candidate when the McCain campaign itself seems so frightened of anybody checking her bona fides or letting her talk off-script?

Everyone else, McCain included, has been facing the media spanking machine for over a year. If Palin is so qualified for the post, as you assert, why the hands-off attitude?

Posted by: pianofan at September 11, 2008 1:32 PM
Comment #262658

Schwamp,

Mainstream media is treating her like a princess superstar.

No they are not; they’re treating her like crap! She has been compared to Pontius Pilates and Obama to Jesus. The US magazine cover with the “Sex, lies and babies”; where the week prior the cover had “Why Obama Loves her”. Uh, hello!! And, that’s just a few examples.

By the way, it’s her own credentials and success that makes her a “princess rockstar”; she’s the one responsible for that and the media and Obama supporters can’t stand it.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 11, 2008 1:33 PM
Comment #262659
Ebayed airplane

She has not said anything untruthful about the Governor’s plane that was put on ebay 3 times before being sold through a broker.

Your statement about left-wingers “piling on” is unsubstantiated and, from where I sit, sounds like whining.

No, it was pretty clearly documented and detailed that first weekend when all kinds of low, slimy rumors were pumped up and passed around as fact until proven wrong, from the lineage of her son to photoshop’d photos of her in a bikini with a rifle, all particpated in on this blog as well.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #262665

The only candidate I see being treated with kid gloves is Obama. So far NO ONE has asked him any hard questions on the kind of changes he wants to make.
Exactly, Sen Obama, what are you going to change?
How are you going to go about making those changes?
Why do you think these changes need to be made?
Will these changes cost the taxpayers more money or save them money?
If it cost the taxpayers why do you think the change is necessary?
Will these changes add to or subtract from the national debt?
If they add to it then why do you want to make them?
So far no one has asked Obama anything close to these questions. And I don’t look for anyone in the main stream media to ask them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 11, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #262666

Rhine, Rah, Chops and others,

You seem a little confused about the difference between the ‘media’ and bloggers. You are right about the blog world piling on, but the MSM? Get serious. Once in a great while one of them will begin to say something negative about your lipstick darling, but will soon back off with almost reverent double speak…disqualifiers by the truckload.

If you don’t think she’s man/woman enough to put up with the very little chafe she’s actually had to face…oh, but you must be hurting…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 11, 2008 2:01 PM
Comment #262667

Chops,
Camille Paglia is not a liberal. She may be a libertarian. Generally speaking, she is a person who tries to demonstrate independent thinking by taking the most extreme, controversial positions. Most feminists reject her positions. Molly Ivins made this statement about Paglia in a review:

“There is one area in which I think Paglia and I would agree that politically correct feminism has produced a noticeable inequity. Nowadays, when a woman behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, ‘Poor dear, it’s probably PMS.’ Whereas, if a man behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, ‘What an a**h***.’ Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Paglia, Sheesh, what an a**h***.”

Most feminists, such as Steinem, Friedan, and Wolf, are equally scathing about Paglia, and it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest feminists view Palin as a “hero.”

No woman likes a seeing young, attractive female promoted without actually being qualified for the new job.

Anyone who thinks this represents progress or a good example for women to emulate needs to have a long and honest talk with a member of the opposite sex.

Posted by: phx8 at September 11, 2008 2:03 PM
Comment #262671
You seem a little confused about the difference between the ‘media’ and bloggers.

Nope, the statement was that the ‘leftwingers piling on’. Unless you are admitting that the MSM is leftwing?

You are right about the blog world piling on

That you for admitting that.

If you don’t think she’s man/woman enough to put up with the very little chafe she’s actually had to face…

When have I ever suggested anything like that? I find the tactic of the left sleazy (and then complain because their opponent is sleazy too?) but have no real concern one way or another whether or not Gov Palin can or can’t take it, that’s up to her and will be discovered soon enough.

Though, it seems to me, that she herself hasn’t had much of a problem. In fact, there is footage of her before this started talking about being attacked unfairly because of being a woman and her response was that women should just accept it as par for the course and move on, whining about it is not the answer.

And I think she backed up that point in her convention speech, I didn’t see any whining at all there, which I think endeared her to a lot of people who thought she had a legitimate gripe if she had wanted to.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 2:25 PM
Comment #262674

Phx,

You said,
“No woman likes a seeing young, attractive female promoted without actually being qualified for the new job.”

If she is ugly is ok?

And, didn’t she actually win a couple elections including governor of a state? I think that is an accomplishment that at least puts you “in consideration”. I would argue that it also makes you “qualified”. Much in the same way that Obama’s Senate seat in some regards gives him “de-facto” qualification.

Now, are they the “most” qualified. Well, that is being hashed out right now around the country.

Here in my neck of the woods (upper midwest) I would say that my informal survey of women at work / church / and at the school where I volunteer on the parent organization its probably running at greater than 70% as generally viewing her favorably.

And what exactly has Sarah Palin done to not be a good example to young women? She’s a competitor. As reported so far she has been a faithful spouse. She has been a loving mother. She’s demonstrated an ability to pursue career goals and win.

Yeah, what a loser. I hope my daughter doesn’t turn out anything like her.


Posted by: MT Cross at September 11, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #262675

Ron Brown,
Regarding corruption I have one word: Per Diem.

Posted by: Schwamp at September 11, 2008 2:50 PM
Comment #262692

Is she can answer these questions correctly, then she gets my vote (Note that there is only one right answer to these questions).

When did dinosaurs(discounting birds/”modern fossils”) become extinct?

Is there gravity in space or the zero-gravity environment?

Shi’a Islam believes who is the successor to Muhammed?

What is the leading cause of death among 18-25 year olds in poorer, urban areas in America?

Describe the philosophical divide between conservative and liberal.

Posted by: Jon at September 11, 2008 4:17 PM
Comment #262696

MT Cross,
Well, they say politics is show business for ugly people. As for whether Palin would have been promoted to VP if she were ugly, we’ll never know.

Palin won elections for the Wasilla City Council and Mayor. She lost an election for state Lt Gov, and won the election for Governor, a position where she has served for 20 months. She is qualified in the sense that she meets the constitutional minimums of age and citizenship. She is not qualified because she knows nothing about the nation’s economy, military, or foreign policy, knowledge most people consider good things in a politician. She has never participated in a national election campaign of any kind whatsoever. She was appointed to the position.

Perhaps she brings an awesome intellect to the game? Well, maybe. Since her nomination, no one has heard her speak with the national media without a script. She has repeated the same speech, even the parts which have been proven untrue. Her academic record is mediocre. She attended 6 colleges in 6 years. We’re not talking about institutions known for their rigorous entrance requirements, either. On the plus side, she did eventually graduate from college.

Are you sure she was a faithful spouse? Maybe. I’d suggest droppong that line for the time being, because Enquiring minds want to know…

I am proud to say my daughter is nothing like Sarah Palin. Unlike Sarah Palin, my daughter is intellectually curious, highly intelligent, well read, and independent. Unlike Sarah Palin, she is attending one college on a partial scholarship, where she will graduate in just three years. Unlike Sarah Palin, my daughter does not kill animals for ‘sport,’ and my daughter finds hunting from a plane or helicopter appalling…

Posted by: phx8 at September 11, 2008 4:51 PM
Comment #262700

Chops,
Why I do believe that the McCain/Palin ticket will be seen by most citizens as a move for equal rights, unless or until you or others can show me one other Party Ticket in the 233 years of Principles, Standards, and Traditions who candidates wre under active investigation for abuse of power. Than I do believe that I can prove that I hold a Politicaly Unalienable Correct Argument against the Establishment.

So, if country is to be put first by the Conservatives why ae you willing to hand Al Qadea a victory?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 11, 2008 4:55 PM
Comment #262701

“So far no one has asked Obama anything close to these questions. And I don’t look for anyone in the main stream media to ask them.”

Ron are you suggesting the other candidates have been subjected to these questions and have answered them and the media has exluded Obama from this questioning?

Obama’s tax plan lowers my taxes considerably. According to the repubs when you lower taxes federal revenue is increased. Since I am in a range that many more Americans are in this should work out good for the economy. That is if the repub logic holds true.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 11, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment #262702

Rhinehold,

She never said she sold it on ebay for a profit, McCain, however, did. She just implied it.

She also implied that she was instrumental in killing the Bridge to nowhere, she wasn’t, and that she refused the money, she didn’t.

Now that’s not exactly lying, but you are both guilty of guilding the lily. A miss is as good as a mile, in my book.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 11, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment #262705

I think a great deal of what is being talked about is small spuds. All the scandal etc that the left is hoping will destroy Palin will come to not much.

In addition the right has greeted Palin like the second coming. Actually, sort of like the left greeted Obama.

Tonight for instance, she gets her first real interview. She will be well prepared and come off with well thought out answers to many questions. The left, who is well represented here, wont be satisfied. But the only thing the left here would be satisfied with is a resignation.

What is real, is that McCain has in one stroke reached out to his base and woman across America. Woman who felt left behind by Obama are moving to McCain. Obama made a huge error that McCain took advantage of. Is she imperfect? yes, as imperfect as Obama. The campaign that makes the fewest mistakes wins. Obama made a big one, and he is paying a price.

Watch for Palin to do just fine tonight. On the subject of not satisfying the left. Palin will not be talking to you and I here, but rather middle America. Look for her answers to be fairly simple. You and I who read constantly, will want more dirt, but she will be answering for people who may be hearing her for the first time.

She will be speaking to women. Democrats have missed this by thinking the Republicans have plans for all 19 million Hillary supporters. Actually no, only several million are needed. Palin will be speaking to the subset of Clinton supporters that they think are most likely to switch.

So personally, I would look for not too many surprises, and some reasonable answers. I would also expect there to be far less red meat than the left wants.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 11, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #262713

Schwamp

“Ridiculous. Mainstream media is treating her like a princess superstar.”

They may have backed off from their original attacks because the media has done so much damage to BHO. The left bloggers have not learned this lesson yet.

“Can you provide one example of unfair treatment from the Obama campaign?”

Other than lipstick, he lets his surrogates take care of the dirty work. Like the 30+ lawyers in Alaska.

The difference between the McCain’s and BHO’s campaigns is that McCain’s people want to make sure they are ready when they talk to the public. If Biden had had a little more prepping perhaps he wouldn’t have questioned BHO’s veep.

Ron Brown

I am very excited about this ticket. I think we have 2 people who will actually deal with the problems in DC. I can see McCain shutting down the pork supply, to both parties. They will have to over-ride his veto to send pork to their states and that will bring them into the limelight.

Pianofan

“Whenever Palin’s credentials are questioned, republicans cry sexism.”

I think your confusing Palin with BHO, when the Clintons were accused of racism.

Craig Holmes

I agree with everything in your last post, and I might add what I just heard on Fox News:

One of the questions asked by Gibson of Palin, “do you think you are qualified to assume the office” and her answer was a simple “yes”. This answer kind of set Gibson back.

Another question was about the war being God’s will. Evidently this is a big talking point with the left. He wanted to know if she thought this was a holy war. It must have been based on a statement she made, her answer was that she had quoted part of a speech given by good old Abe Lincoln. She then began to quote to Gibson the speech of Lincoln. She’s good!!!

Posted by: Oldguy at September 11, 2008 6:24 PM
Comment #262718

Oldguy,
That’s not a real interview. You understand that, right? It was taped in several sessions, over several days. If she messed up, she had the option of getting the answers from handlers, and saying what she was told to say the next day. Don’t be so gullible.

Posted by: phx8 at September 11, 2008 6:37 PM
Comment #262719

Palin is Great!

Palin is Magnificent!

Palin is the best thing since sliced moose!

You know, Liberals came to know and ally with Obama over the course of four years, during which time, we got to know the guy. During that time, he also managed to lead one of the most ingenious campaigns of recent times.

Looking at that, we can see Barack Obama’s potential. He’s a risk, but a risk with promise.

Which is why the Republican response to Palin amuses me. We took a while to warm to him, but the guy is good, so we did. He was tested, and he won out. He’s not flashy with this toughness, but he outlasted and outsmarted the Clintons.

And what do the Republicans do? They choose a parody of Barack Obama, who is almost exactly like their worst cariactures of Obama, all fluff and no stuff, an unknown with plenty of skeletons in her closet, and a person who calls herself a change agent, but is little different than the people she claims to oppose.

The joke is on the Republicans. They chose themselves a high maintenance candidate, who for some reason has to be cocooned away from the press. What, does she have anger issues? Does the McCain campaign fear she’ll say something about the scandals that makes things worse (besides repeating a patently false acheivement interminably in that canned speech she gives in all her speechs)?

Or do they realize that if she said what she really believed, people would nail her as a religious version of Cheney or Nixon?

It makes campaigning a rather delicate matter for the McCain-Palin ticket. She’s not a brilliant pick, just a gamble that the American people can be fooled again by the Marketing. The ticket is already groaning under all the weight of the media attention to her record in Alaska. Is she ready for live television, for a confrontation with experienced candidates and reporters without being propped up by the campaign with predetermined talking points?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 11, 2008 6:38 PM
Comment #262722

>(Me) You are right about the blog world piling on

(You)That you for admitting that.

(Me) If you don’t think she’s man/woman enough to put up with the very little chafe she’s actually had to face…

(You) When have I ever suggested anything like that? I find the tactic of the left sleazy (and then complain because their opponent is sleazy too?) but have no real concern one way or another whether or not Gov Palin can or can’t take it, that’s up to her and will be discovered soon enough.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 02:25 PM


>(Schwamp),
“Mainstream media is treating her like a princess superstar”.

(Rah) No they are not; they’re treating her like crap! She has been compared to Pontius Pilates and Obama to Jesus.


Rhine,

Mostly I was responding to the general mood of this thread, but as you can see my aim was pretty much on the mark when I pointed out that bloggers were much more involved in trashing your ‘lipstick darling’ than the MSM…if you will argue with that, you’ve set yourself in cement, and we can give this issue up as non-negotiable. Be at peace…after all, you are part of the blog world too…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 11, 2008 6:54 PM
Comment #262725

The degree of upset which the nomination of Sarah Palin has caused is clearly because the BHO supporters see it as a move that they themselves should have made. Biden was a safe choice, like Lloyd Bentsen, but is unlikely to help make BHO POTUS. Palin, on the other hand, actually helps JMcC where he needs it the most.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 11, 2008 7:02 PM
Comment #262729

Oldguy,
That’s not a real interview. You understand that, right? It was taped in several sessions, over several days. If she messed up, she had the option of getting the answers from handlers, and saying what she was told to say the next day. Don’t be so gullible.

Posted by: phx8 at September 11, 2008 06:37 PM


Sorry, so stupid of me. I was comparing it to the interview (at least that is what he called it) Bill O’Riley had with BHO. Of course Gibson called it an interview, but I guess he doesn’t know what he is talking about either. Sheppard Smith of Fox News just called it an interview. I can’t believe how ignorant these news anchors are. They need someone to email and give the correct definition of an interview.


So you think ABC news would let her correct a bad answer? I don’t think so.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 11, 2008 7:26 PM
Comment #262730

Oldguy,
“So you think ABC news would let her correct a bad answer?”

Of course. That’s the whole point of taping it over a few days. Any mistakes can be clarified during the next taping session by Palin. The edited interview can be pieced together to look seemless.

Posted by: phx8 at September 11, 2008 7:37 PM
Comment #262732

She did a horrible job on ABC - she demonstrated that proximity to Russia didn’t teach her anything. If I hear one more person use that simplistic and stupid “they hate our freedom” nonsense about why we were attacked on 9-11 I am gonna scream. Simplistic and 2 dimensional and totally wrong. Apparently all that cramming on foreign policy didn’t help - maybe because her teachers were from the McCain/Bush camp and they don’t understand this stuff either.

Posted by: tcsned at September 11, 2008 7:49 PM
Comment #262736

The real question is, why can’t they do it all in one go? By Comparison, Obama sat down for two complete interviews of 90 minutes apiece with his hometown newspapers, and kept a promise to answer any questions the reporters present might give. The interviews were a success. Why? Because they proved he had nothing to hide, that he could answer a question he didn’t pre-approve, that he could be accountable for his actions and his answers.

By comparison, Palin’s people required deferential, sympathetic interviewers. They had it done in multiple locations, with the possibility that too tough of a question would end the interview right there.

I know folks on the right feel that they are entitled to such special treatment, but the reality is, nobody is. Obama takes his share of lumps in the media, you folks just choose to ignore it to further a narrative in which the media is being led around by the nose by Obama.

You know, here’s the problem: part of the reason we like Obama is that under pressure, he can be an excellent Democrat, an excellent defender of our views, and one who largely comes across as sympathetic. In short, he can win people over to our side.

Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be requiring that their pillows are fluffed, their press favorable, and that all the questions that matter are softballs. Whatever happened to the Republican who could stand for their values without lying, without trashing liberals, and do so in the face of even a hostile interviewer, and win people over who are not GOP or right wing.

The GOP is no longer an intellectually robust party, but a party where apologetics for the platform and marketing of the candidate has become necessary for their people to win. As long as those on the Right Wing emphasize a spirit of entitlement in terms of the media, there will always be a nagging question: behind all the spin and rhetoric, behind all the media strategies, does the party have any substance left to rely upon?

I don’t say this as some sort of concern troll. I say this as somebody truly interested in seeing politics return to a friendlier kind of competition. Republicans have made conservatism so much a matter of opposition to liberals, that they have lost their soul as a party. What defines conservatives AS conservatives?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 11, 2008 8:12 PM
Comment #262737

Fact check addressed what rahdigly mentioned above with the initial rush of BLOG based bashing. For my part I am anxious to see if SNL does a paradoy of the Obama/Greek Temple Speach or a Cheney/Palin hunting trip where she gets advice from him whilst Bill Clinton keeps calling her cell phone. I though SNL did a great job of portray the Clinton/Obama debates.

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

Posted by: Honest at September 11, 2008 8:14 PM
Comment #262739

Stephen:

You sound like a Hillary supporter from last spring.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 11, 2008 8:19 PM
Comment #262741

How out of it does Sarah Palin have to be to not know what the Bush Doctrine is?

She’s also, reportedly, saying that we should get ourselves into a war with Russia over its heavy-handed behavior with its former USSR pals.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 11, 2008 8:21 PM
Comment #262742
Mostly I was responding to the general mood of this thread but as you can see my aim was pretty much on the mark when I pointed out that bloggers were much more involved in trashing your ‘lipstick darling’ than the MSM

My lipstick darling? Interesting. Because I defend someone against slimy bloggers engaging in personal destruction, I am now a Palin lover? I don’t dislike her, like the left does, but I don’t know her well enough to say I like her. And it doesn’t matter since I won’t be voting for McCain/Palin, other than in a blogging/commentary political view.

But I never once suggested it was the MSM that was dumping on her or saying they were being unfair to her. It was the left, including you I believe in this blog, that went off the deep end the weekend she was nominated with all kinds of slime that, unfortunately, has only lightened a little bit.

…if you will argue with that, you’ve set yourself in cement, and we can give this issue up as non-negotiable. Be at peace…after all, you are part of the blog world too…

The difference being is that you won’t see me calling people names, using things like ‘Barry’ or ‘McSame’, engaging in rumormongering, etc. I try to deal with facts and talk opinion based on those facts and my viewpoints.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 8:36 PM
Comment #262744

She also said Russia’s attack was unprovoked. Way overboard yes, unprovoked no. Saakashvili is kind of a thug certainly no democratic reformer. It’s one thing to pick a stupid war with Iraq, a country with almost no military; it’s another thing to pick a stupid war with a country with several thousand nukes. What happened to the GOP’s foreign policy expertise?

To quote that old Russian exclamation “yikesky”

Posted by: tcsned at September 11, 2008 8:44 PM
Comment #262747

Craig Holmes-
I’ll tell you one of the reasons the right is in such trouble, why even its victories seems to drain more blood out of the party.

Dependence on the culture war has created a party that closes off its options, alienates those who disagree, and employs “anything goes” tactics that leave it vulnerable to charges of simply being in power for its own sake.

Obama appeals to people because he tapped in early and well to a swell of sentiment in this country that dislikes this tendency in both parties. Had Democratic Party leaders been more assertive, Hillary might be the candidate, and Obama might be running mate.

There is a struggle going on as much for the soul of the Democratic Party as for control of Congress and the White House.

To cariacture it in culture war terms is a mistake. Democrats are more prepared to work through market solutions, more prepared to live and let live on social issues.

What is really going on is that people have lost their enchantment with Reagan-style economics and deregulation. They’ve lost much of their enchantment with the Neocon’s seductive vision of America as the world’s knight in shining armor. Finally, the generations that the culture war was most effective has given way to one that is more pluralistic and less racist as a matter of course. People are coming of age who never built up the resentments that GOP Liberal hatred builds itself upon.

But more than current generations not having the dogs in the culture fights that the baby boomers and others had, people have been confronted by clear evidence that the Republicans are just as good as anybody else at running record deficits, losing wars, expanding government, breeding waste and corruption.

Ironically enough, the overall understanding of Democratic Party fallibility that the last couple generations of politics has given us plays both into our failures as a party these last thirty or forty years, and our successes now.

The Republican Party’s mistake is that reform among their ranks is focused on an external enemy, the liberals. Meanwhile, all kinds of corruption and hypocrisy brews among those who believe their politics enobles them above their imperfect opponents. The Liberals, though, are interested in purifying both party and people, and not along strictly ideological lines.

The Democratic Party is not all good or all pure, but it operates with more realistic considerations for what it wants out of government, and a watchful set of constituents who often are even harder on Democrats who fail to live up to standards than on Republicans.

Republicans need to become more pragmatic, more practical. They need to put some philosophical weight behind their policies, but not let philosophy dictate what should be policy directed towards the fulfillment of needs

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 11, 2008 9:04 PM
Comment #262748

The Gibson interview of Palin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALsjhDDdaA
and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAlxUChYpj4

She looks pretty good, but sounds a little too Canadian to me. Gibson is not a favorite of mine, and the international questions were a little too in depth not to sound weird. I mean, if you had asked W these questions in 2000, he would have answered “uh, duh, I don’t know” and maybe still now if he wasn’t coached.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 11, 2008 9:13 PM
Comment #262749
they hate our freedom

I agree, if they really knew how unfree we are in the US, they would be calling us their brothers, not their enemies.

The future doesn’t look too bright either.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 9:30 PM
Comment #262750
She looks pretty good, but sounds a little too Canadian to me.

I just don’t get the need for politicians (this includes almost every one I’ve seen, not just Palin) to not just answer a damn question with a yes or no answer. :/

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 9:32 PM
Comment #262751

‘the international questions were a little too in depth not to sound weird. I mean, if you had asked W these questions in 2000, he would have answered “uh, duh, I don’t know” and maybe still now if he wasn’t coached.’

Ohrealy: That is exactly how Bush would have answered and exactly why the Palin choice is so disappointing. I would’ve thought by now, most of us would like a refreshing change from “uh, duh, I don’t know.” It’s clear from this interview that Palin betrays the same small fund of knowledge and the same shallow thinking on very complex subjects with which Bush has led this country for the past 8 years.

This time around I’d love to see people who can beat me in Scrabble win this election.

Posted by: pianofan at September 11, 2008 9:38 PM
Comment #262754

It wasn’t a yes or no question, it was more of a depends on the situation question imo.
She was good with the Israel question and she showed she has leader qualities when Gibson asked her if she’s ready.

Speaking of yes or no answers, I’ve been watching Obama and have never seen someone use so many words to say so little. He was fine though pretty vanilla stuff.

Posted by: andy at September 11, 2008 9:46 PM
Comment #262755

Palin will be speaking to the subset of Clinton supporters that they think are most likely to switch

Craig Holmes, you mean that little racist subset?

Anyone who supported Hillary and switches to Palin does so because he/she was paying attention to the wrong end of her anatomy. Name one similarity between Clinton and Palin besides skin color and XX chromosomes.

Posted by: pianofan at September 11, 2008 9:52 PM
Comment #262756
It wasn’t a yes or no question, it was more of a depends on the situation question imo

Then say ‘it depends’. Don’t just repeat a talking point, I *hate* that.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 10:09 PM
Comment #262757
Craig Holmes, you mean that little racist subset?

Lame.

Anyone who supported Hillary and switches to Palin does so because he/she was paying attention to the wrong end of her anatomy.

It is good to know some people are omnipotent and can look into the hearts of others. The rest of us have to get buy on reasoning and accepting other’s viewpoints.

I wonder how many clinton supporters are thinking about McCain/Palin because they were not happy with Bill and Ferraro being called racists?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 10:12 PM
Comment #262762

I would like to repost something the I posted from phx8 earlier.

“Oldguy,
That’s not a real interview. You understand that, right? It was taped in several sessions, over several days. If she messed up, she had the option of getting the answers from handlers, and saying what she was told to say the next day. Don’t be so gullible.”

Posted by: phx8 at September 11, 2008 06:37 PM

Now he told me it was not an interview and I wrote some examples, which he has ignored. I watched the part 1 & 2 interviews on youtube, thanks Ohrealy’s link. Gibson called his discussion with Palin an interview.

I thought she did a good job.

Rhinehold said:

“I just don’t get the need for politicians (this includes almost every one I’ve seen, not just Palin) to not just answer a damn question with a yes or no answer. :/”

While it is true, politicians have a hard time answering questions. The questions pertaining to Israel, Iran, crossing the border in Pakistan, and Russia are questions that neither she nor any other potential President or VP should answer. It is a question dealing with national security and anything a President or VP says could affect their leadership abilities at a later date. I think she answered right and I wouldn’t expect anyone, whether Democrat or Republican to answer any different. In fact I would be disappointed if it was answered any other way.

Concerning another matter, I have been listening to the left cry about how bad things are. I am an old guy and I’ve been around for a while. Most of you are probably still in school or have just started in the workforce. I have seen bad times and this is not a bad time. I’ve seen times when you couldn’t even buy a house, unless you had 25 or 30% to put down. I’ve seen times when you couldn’t buy a job. I’ve seen times when loan interest rates were 20% and higher. When unemployment was 18 to 20 %. But you know what, I did what I had to do to provide for my family. I worked 2 jobs for years. 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, for years. I care about higher taxes for the workingman and for the rich. I learned this lesson, if we don’t have the rich to invest and create jobs; the workingman has no income. My dad rode a horse for transportation and farmed with mules and horses, but you know, I never had to do that. I grew up carrying water from a well and using an outhouse, but you know, my kids didn’t have to. I have been around the world, and I came to the conclusion, this is the greatest country in the world. My wife and I have a good life; we can do almost anything we want. God has been good to us.

I think it is terrible for any politician to try to divide this country, whether by race, income, male, or female. I am a lifetime union member of one of the largest union’s in the country and when they send me literature trying to divide this country and tell me whom to vote for, I throw the paper in the trash. This is a good country, where anyone can be someone. Sarah Palin is not a graduate of one of the Eastern Colleges, she is a simple woman who pulled herself up and made something of herself. Her husband is a blue-collar, union worker just like I was. I was in school when we used the old American History books, before they were re-written. And those books said anyone could be whatever they wanted. And the left attacks her because she is a common person, they attack her person, her family, her religion, and the work she has done in life. I say shame on those people. She is exactly what we want, someone who is outside of Washington. Someone who was not groomed for Washington.

I don’t support Obama because he is against every value I hold to and he is not in it to better my life. You may ask, how do you know; because I am an old guy, and I’ve been around for a while. And some things are learned by life’s experiences.


Posted by: Oldguy at September 11, 2008 11:07 PM
Comment #262763

It wasn’t a yes or no question, it was more of a depends on the situation question imo

Then say ‘it depends’. Don’t just repeat a talking point, I *hate* that.


I completely agree.

She should have just said “the situation that you present would be looked at and an appropriate decision would be made”, or something along those lines.

She did very well though all in all. She’s taken a lot of crap for her conservative ideas, and for that she is thought of very highly.

Posted by: andy at September 11, 2008 11:20 PM
Comment #262765

Also, I applaude Obama for saying it’s a mistake to invite ahmadinejad but turn away the ROTC. I don’t think he believes it’s but good to hear.

Oldguy, good post. One of the many reasons I like Palin is her diploma from Idaho.

Posted by: andy at September 11, 2008 11:38 PM
Comment #262766

I don’t think he believes it but it’s good to hear.

That’s what I meant.

Posted by: andy at September 11, 2008 11:41 PM
Comment #262769

Mary,

You seem a little confused about the difference between the ‘media’ and bloggers. You are right about the blog world piling on, but the MSM? Get serious. Once in a great while one of them will begin to say something negative about your lipstick darling, but will soon back off with almost reverent double speak…disqualifiers by the truckload.

Clearly I stated two examples of media; not bloggers. US magazine is not a blog and the “Jesus was a community organizer;Pontius Pilates was a Governor” line was from Donna Brazile (CNN analysts) and a congress woman.

If you don’t think she’s man/woman enough to put up with the very little chafe she’s actually had to face…oh, but you must be hurting…

She’s definitely man/woman enough to put up with the “chafe”; she’s faced more criticism in less then two weeks than Obama has in 19 months. The only time Obama faced tough questioning was last week when he was interviewed by O’reilly. And, O’reilly exposed Obama for how inept and inexperienced he really is and could be as President.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 11, 2008 11:45 PM
Comment #262770

Oldguy,
There is a huge difference between the interview Obama gave O’Reilly and the ‘interview’ Palin gave Gibson. Obama spoke for 90 consecutive minutes, in two separate sessions, with a potentially hostile interviewer. To the credit of both Obama and O’Reilly, it went pretty well. This is much different from the Gibson interview. This has been covered by other comments already.

Palin didn’t know about the Bush Doctrine. Meh. Where she really ran into trouble was with the discussion about Georgia and Russia. That was a perfect example of why a person with no national or international experience should be a VP nominee.

She was anxious to demonstrate all of her recently acquired knowledge. She started talking, everything flowed, and she grew overconfident, thinking ‘Hey! I actually know my stuff! I sound great!’ Gibson threw out a few hypotheticals, and next thing you know, Gibson was talking about Georgian joining NATO and an embargo on Russia.

Oh my.

It’s hard to tell whether her take on Georgia was a mistake, or she was misinformed by her preparers. For anyone who followed the story, Russia did not launch an unprovoked attack. Georgia sent in troops and tanks, killed a lot of people in an artillery attack, and got their butts kicked in a counterattack. They were probably fortunate that Russia did not take it farther than they did. Georgia may be a democracy with a lot of promise, but settling disputes with tanks and troops is NOT an indication that they are ready to join NATO. Just the opposite.

Posted by: phx8 at September 11, 2008 11:50 PM
Comment #262771

I think she did fine. She was right down the middle. She didn’t wow me as a conservative, and didn’t give you on the left the red meat you were hoping for. I think the interview tonight in the long run will be a non event.

Tomorrow’s headlines will not be the Palin blew the interview and I doubt any votes were either won or lost.

That in itself is a win for McCain. McCain gets credit (as of today) for choosing a running mate that reaches out to the his base and women.

In addition we are talking about Palin, and not George Bush, also a win for McCain.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 11, 2008 11:53 PM
Comment #262776

Phx8, your interpretation of events in Georgia is highly debatable.

The part of Georgia where Georgia “sent in troops” and reportedly killed people (reported by the Russian information ministry—but let’s not quibble) is PART OF GEORGIA. It’s part of Georgia according to all international law and recognized as such by the UN.

It would be like us invading Quebec if we thought Canada was “provoking” us by stationing troops on the Canadian side of the border. In other words, it’s ridiculous. I’m amazed that you so uncritically accept—hook, line, and sinker—what’s published in Pravda. Russia’s justification sounds a whole like Hitler’s justification for entering the Sudentland.

As for Governor Palin “not knowing” about the Bush Doctrine. I have no idea where you’re getting that. She simply tried to clarify the question—asking what about it “in particular” her interviewer was asking. It’s quite a stretch to suggest that she’d never heard the phrase “Bush Doctrine” based on her asking for a more narrow question. It would be too simplistic to merely say “Oh, I agree with the Bush Doctrine” or, “No, I disagree with the Bush Doctrine.”

There are PARTS of the Bush Doctrine that many agree with—including Obama. There are parts that are more controversial.

As you should know, there’s a lot more to the so-called Bush Doctrine than a simply sound-byte. If you want to be so picky about parsing words, then I assume you also think Obama thinks there’s 57 states in the union.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 12, 2008 12:13 AM
Comment #262777

Loyal Opposition:

Sarah did fine. She didn’t violate rule number one, “Don’t embarrass the family”

So far Sarah has been a fantastic addition to McCain’s campaign. With all of the revelations etc, has anything come out that would surprise McCain? I can’t think of anything new that has been dug up that has any weight to it. I can’t think of an “oh crap” deal at all. Everything was already known to McCain. At least what I am aware of.

That means Palin is doing just fine. It’s still a big win for McCain.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 12, 2008 12:19 AM
Comment #262778

Loyal Opposition:

A mess up is not that question with Gibson about the Bush Doctrine. Criticizing her for that is nonsense. Remember when President Ford said he didn’t believe eastern Europe was under Soviet domination? And he was a President!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 12, 2008 12:21 AM
Comment #262779
As for Governor Palin “not knowing” about the Bush Doctrine. I have no idea where you’re getting that.

I’m sorry LO, but I’m going to agree with Phx8, it appears that she simply had never heard the phrase Bush Doctrine before. I don’t think it means she is incapable of being president if necessary but it was clear she had to be told later what that phrase meant.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2008 12:24 AM
Comment #262781

Rhinehold, if you feel that way, then I believe… well, that you feel that way. You’re one a few here that seem to be led by your own lights, so all I can do is point out the part of the transcript in question.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

This does not say to me that Palin has never heard the term before. Does it to you? Had Gibson asked if she agreed with Bush’s, say, education policies and she asked “In what respect?”, would that mean that she was unaware that Bush has education policies? Or simply that she was trying to elicit a more specific question?

Gibson then went on to define the Bush Doctrine as he sees it, but that doesn’t mean that Palin needed or was asking for that definition.

I agree that she was being a bit cagey, but that’s simply because she didn’t want to be trapped into an unequivocal endorsement of something with Bush’s name on it—it’s part of McCain’s campaign efforts to distance his positions in many respect from Bush’s.

Did she give a politically-motivated, calculated response? Yes. But that’s a different thing from alleging that she’d never heard of the Bush Doctrine.

Also, I’d like to point out, that if you look at the transcript of the interview, it says that Palin’s first response to the question was “His world view.”

But watch the interview. That was not an answer. That was a question. “His world view?” was how it should read.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 12, 2008 12:36 AM
Comment #262782

phx8 said:

“There is a huge difference between the interview Obama gave O’Reilly and the ‘interview’ Palin gave Gibson. Obama spoke for 90 consecutive minutes, in two separate sessions, with a potentially hostile interviewer”

So you had preconceived ideas about O’Reilly’s interview? The Gibson interview (I’m glad you recognize it as an interview) asked 7 basic questions and they were asked over and over, to catch her:

1. Do you have the experience? He asked that question 3 times in different ways, even though she answered the first time.

2. He continued with the first question by asking about her about her national security credentials. This he asked 2 times.

3. He asked her about Russia and Georgia and continuing to press her on national security credentials. “She demonstrated a more sophisticated grasp of foreign policy than Gibson’s media perspective.” http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/08/021329.php

4. Next came NATO, of course McCain has already stated his position on this subject.

5. Then 3 times he asked her about a hypothetical situation with Israel. If we are allied to Israel, then it is our responsibility to support Israel.

6. 2 times he asked her about Crossing the border into Pakistan, and complaining about a “blizzard of words”, I guess he forgot how BHO or Biden answer question with a thesis.

7. Finally in a “Gotcha” move he asked her 3 times, the same question about her religious views.

I would consider it a hostile questioning, but I believe she handled herself well.

Here is a link to a good summation of the interview called “On Paper, An Excellent Performance”:

http://powerlineblog.com/

Posted by: Oldguy at September 12, 2008 12:37 AM
Comment #262785

I’ve heard the term Bush Doctrine before, but I don’t know the specifics. She should know it though because it will be her job in a few months. Maybe not ridiculous hypotheticals about it but she should be up to speed within the next few weeks. Don’t worry Sarah is still awesome.

Posted by: andy at September 12, 2008 12:55 AM
Comment #262786
“There is a huge difference between the interview Obama gave O’Reilly and the ‘interview’ Palin gave Gibson. Obama spoke for 90 consecutive minutes, in two separate sessions, with a potentially hostile interviewer”

As a point of fact, didn’t the entire O’Reilly interview with Obama actually only cover 30 minutes? That’s what I’ve heard a number of times from numerous sources, including O’Reilly. It was aired and stretched out over a number of days, but Obama set numerous ground-rules including a very narrow time limit.

By contrast, Palin is giving a number of interviews over two days with Gibson, who is certainly a hostile interviewer if there ever was one.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 12, 2008 12:58 AM
Comment #262787

LO,

You are leaving out the next two lines:

GIBSON: Well, what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

That may be her interpretation of the phrase as hearing it for the first time, but there is a specific definition that she, to me, hasn’t heard put that way before.


Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2008 1:01 AM
Comment #262788

Loyal O,
Read up on what happened in South Ossetia. They voted overwhelmingly to stay with Russia in 2006, which isn’t surprising, since the majority of the population is Russian. (And no, the west does not recognize the election, because the west sides with Georgia). The president of Georgia ran on a platform that included bringing South Ossetia back into their country. The Georgians sent in tanks and troops, and they launched artillery attacks against an urban area, killing many people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/08/russia.georgia1

If you don’t like the Guardian, check the BBC.

The Georgians resorted to force, hoping to catch the Russians off guard, since there were only about 1,000 Russian ‘peacekeepers’ in South Ossetia, and Putin was in Beijing for the Olympics. It didn’t work. The Georgians gambled, and they lost.

I was abroad while this happened. I don’t know what Americans were shown by the media here, but the idea that Russia “attacked” or in anyway initiated hostilities is simply wrong.

Furthermore, it is ludicrous to even discuss bringing countries like Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. What would be the point? It would make far more sense for these countries to look to the EU, and strive to meet the membership requirements.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2008 1:01 AM
Comment #262789

Those were silly questions though. I don’t remember Gore, Cheney, Biden, Edwards being asked these questions. By the way I like harder questions, these people need to be put over the fire.

Posted by: andy at September 12, 2008 1:05 AM
Comment #262792
And no, the west does not recognize the election, because the west sides with Georgia

Neither does the UN or any other country.

Except Russia.

The president of Georgia ran on a platform that included bringing South Ossetia back into their country. The Georgians sent in tanks and troops, and they launched artillery attacks against an urban area, killing many people.

Sounds much like a Civil War to me…

Do you think in the case of our Civil War, England should have had the right to come in and start killing union soldiers in defense of their long lost brothers in the south?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2008 1:14 AM
Comment #262794

Phx8, again, look at the interview—because that line “His world view” was actually phrased as a question, which gives it a different meaning.

Even the New York Times got this right—look here. Or watch the interview yourself. I have no idea why ABC has failed to transcribe this correctly. But even if Palin meant to state something rather than ask something—isn’t the Bush Doctrine Bush’s worldview or at least a key part of it? This is nothing but a trifling quibble. What matters is Palin’s response, which follows the initial exchange and explains precisely what she thinks about taking military action when there is a clear and imminent threat.

As for bringing Georgia into NATO, Obama is for it too. If you don’t like the idea, then you’re also disagreeing with Obama.

Furthermore, whatever the territorial wishes of South Ossetia are, they are by international law currently part of Georgia. Whatever disagreements they have with Georgia is between them and Georgia. If Russian troops were already there and in a position to be attacked, those Russian troops were already invaders and can make no claim to having been “provoked” into then attacking and invading the main part of Georgia.

I find it rather shocking that you feel a). Russia had any right to place troops in another country and then complain that they’re being “provoked” if attacked (which, incidentally, the very article you link to admits can’t be verified) and then b). this belief that expanding the war into Georgia proper is perfectly ok.

This isn’t the first time that somebody on the left totally buys into the propaganda of a nation hostile to its neighbors if those neighbors are friends of the United States. Why, I wonder, this propensity for siding with the enemies of America instead of its friends? Not even Obama has done that, and in fact, after a few days, he parroted the position of John McCain. I’m a bit confused by your uncritical cheerleading for Russian military expansionism.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 12, 2008 1:22 AM
Comment #262795

Rhinehold,
A civil war? It could be cast in those terms. Russia and Georgia once belonged to the USSR. They are now independent countries.

I’m not sure I understand the point of the Civil War question. In any event, war is something to be avoided, not sought. War is a last resort, not a choice. The Georgians violated that idea when they attempted to solve a territorial dispute with tanks and troops. They resorted to war, and they paid a heavy price.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2008 1:25 AM
Comment #262796
The Georgians violated that idea when they attempted to solve a territorial dispute with tanks and troops.

Truly amazing.

Georgia DEFENDED themselves within their own borders, using tanks and troops against the tanks and troops of another country that was INSIDE their own internationally recognized borders, and they are the ones guilty of “violations” and attempting to solve a territorial dispute by waging war.

Phx8, you’re embracing the Orwellian logic of 1984 where 2+2 equals 5. Maybe Pravda agrees with you, but not even Barack Obama does.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 12, 2008 1:37 AM
Comment #262797

Loyal O,
The enemies of America are those who resort to war as a matter of choice. The enemies of America are those who torture and violate the standards of human rights and decency to which good people subscribe.

Russia is not our enemy. Ordinarily, Georgia would be considered a friend; like Russia, they both have pursued democracy, and both countries are having, uh, shall we say, mixed success; but when the Georgians chose to resort to war as a means of solving a dispute, that friendship must be denied.

My source of news while I was abroad was primarily the Brits. If we now consider them the enemy too, then we might as well bag it.

Remember what this country stands for, Loyal O. It’s not about blind loyalty to political parties, or spending as much on ‘defense’ as the rest of the world combined, or exporting as many weapons as the next 14 countries combined. I’m not a Christian, but I believe many people would approve of the phrase: “Blessed are the peacemakers…”

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2008 1:49 AM
Comment #262798

> You may ask, how do you know; because I am an old guy, and I’ve been around for a while. And some things are learned by life’s experiences.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 11, 2008 11:07 PM

Old,

I’m an ‘old’ guy myself…yeah, I walked barefoot to school in winter, and it was uphill both ways (if you don’t recognise it, this is said tongue-in-cheek)…I’ve lived through a few ‘hard times’ too, and I cannot remember even one of those hard times when someone in high office wasn’t working to improve things. This current bunch are in a state of denial, will tell you in a heartbeat that things are fine. No one seems to be trying to straighten out our economy…get us out of the stupid quagmire in Iraq that is sucking the life out of us…bring us back into the family of friendly nations, etc.

I’ve had to work a full time job in the Marine Corps, plus at times two part time jobs as bartender, while my wife worked outside the home, sometimes at two jobs, just to make ends meet…but, there was concern being voiced and steps being taken to solve the problem…today is scary. Cheney/Bush lacks interest, and McPain wants to continue down the same old road we’re on right now…yeah, scary is the term to best describe it…

Rhinehold & rah,

Okay…I give up…ya’ll are right and I’m wrong…IN A LIPSTICK PIG’s EYE!!!

Posted by: Marysdude at September 12, 2008 4:49 AM
Comment #262805

When somebody has to explain the foreign policy position of the president, well known, to a candidate for national office, it’s not even a question of experience. I’ve never been in government, and I could explain to you outright what the Bush Doctrine was, and not resort to a bunch of rhetorical stall tactics while the interviewer tries to fill me in.

This is somebody in her own party, somebody who she has taken up as the fearless leader. If she can’t be bothered to look at her own party’s position in depth, much less come up with an opinion specific to it, then her inexperience becomes a double liability. There’s no denying she’s smart, but the real question is, does she have the knowledge, training, or experience to qualify her. Now Obama doesn’t have as much experience as McCain, but it’s obvious the guy knows his stuff and keeps aware of world events. Palin, meanwhile, seems to have skipped all that.

Now, here’s the thing: if you notice, even as he has explained it to her, she won’t commit. She’ll just hem and haw, give platitudes… Why should this be a problem? The main reason is that she’s so ignorant that she realizes that she doesn’t know what she’s committing to. She may also realize the potential problem with saying yes to the question: headlines that go “Palin supports Bush Doctrine”, and her opponents saying the McCain-Palin’s ticket’s foreign policy is more of the same as Bush’s.

But I think looking dumb is worse. Obama can succeed despite his relative inexperience, compared to McCain, in part because he doesn’t waste the values of his obvious intelligence by stepping out into an issue uninformed or unaware of the issues.

There is a danger in her supporters and campaign trying to continue to push this line of BS that somehow the problems aren’t problems. That, frankly, is their loss of credibility. The Republicans become increasingly good at convincing themselves and increasingly bad at convincing others. That’s how 2006 was lost.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2008 8:01 AM
Comment #262806

oldguy

I say shame on those people. She is exactly what we want, someone who is outside of Washington. Someone who was not groomed for Washington.

I don’t support Obama because he is against every value I hold to and he is not in it to better my life. You may ask, how do you know; because I am an old guy, and I’ve been around for a while. And some things are learned by life’s experiences.

Sounds like you are looking for George Bush. Wasn’t he a Washington outsider? If I remember correctly we tried that route. It hasn’t worked out so well.

I am an old guy to. When I was younger I didn’t always have the good sense to take a different route when life situations were consistently hitting dead ends. But as I got older I realized that if something isn’t working that its time to find a new approach. If I were to base the nations comfort level on my personal level alone I could, like you, make the claim that times are not too bad. I am lucky I got to retire at an early age at the tail end of relatively good times. These are not by any standard good times. We are in the early stages of a rapid regression in which it is quickly becoming increasingly difficult for working people to make ends meet. Our situation is going to get worse before it gets better. Maybe much worse. I think it is wrong to compare the good or bad of a situation against those of past generations. Each generation has realized improvements. But in order to gauge improvement one has to compare the current situation against the most recent best situation. When that has been done it is quite easy to see the direction we are taking. These last eight years have been part of my life experiences and they have taught me that a misguided government can do a whole lot of harm and be responsible for a boatload of poor policy.

I think I will take what my life experiences have taught me about continuing down a failed path and vote for heading in a new direction.

Posted by: RickIL at September 12, 2008 8:58 AM
Comment #262808
When somebody has to explain the foreign policy position of the president, well known, to a candidate for national office, it’s not even a question of experience

Stephen, way to stretch that one there…

She didn’t need the foreign policy position explained, just a term that was used five years ago to identify that position.

Continue your outrage that she wasn’t familiar with the term ‘bush doctrine’ in the connotation that the Washington political group my understand, most people in the US have moved on from that…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2008 9:04 AM
Comment #262809

Tried to ban books.
Fires anyone who doesn’t do her will.
Improperly lined her pockets with per Diem.
Doesn’t believe in science.
Lies about her earmark accomplishments.
anti-american spouse.
Little knowledge of foreign affairs.

And this is all the result of a conspiracy by the media to damage an up and coming talented politician with no baggage.

Posted by: Schwamp at September 12, 2008 9:08 AM
Comment #262810

phx8, rhinehold

You are correct about South Osettia wanting to secede from Georgia. NPR did several interviews with officials at the time. It sounded to me like they care very little for Georgian rule and are indeed actively seeking the protections of Russia. There are always two sides to a story. Depending on which news source we listen to, we don’t always get to hear both sides.

As a hypothetical I am wondering what would happen if Alaska actually decided to secede. Would we launch attacks on them?

Posted by: RickIL at September 12, 2008 9:19 AM
Comment #262812
Tried to ban books.

Wrong

Fires anyone who doesn’t do her will.

Sort of the job of a boss, isn’t it? Perhaps more specifics would explain better what you mean.

Improperly lined her pockets with per Diem.

Possibly, I’m still investigating but it doesn’t look very good.

Doesn’t believe in science.

Wrong

Lies about her earmark accomplishments.

It’s all a matter of semantics at this point, she did better than her predecessor, but is still receiving a ton. Of course, she doesn’t write the laws that request them so she is not the primary player here.

anti-american spouse.

Wrong. And irrelevant. Would you call an American Indian who moves to a reservation for a period of time to earn money from a casino ‘anti-american’?

Little knowledge of foreign affairs.

Less than some, more than others. About as much as Reagan, Clinton and Bush II had, I guess it isn’t really a good indicator, is it?

This link might help http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

Posted by: rhinehold at September 12, 2008 9:39 AM
Comment #262813

RickIL

“I am lucky I got to retire at an early age at the tail end of relatively good times.”

So, by your own confession, you are doing well.

“These are not by any standard good times. We are in the early stages of a rapid regression in which it is quickly becoming increasingly difficult for working people to make ends meet. Our situation is going to get worse before it gets better. Maybe much worse. “

I am not an economist, but I could blame the condition of our economy on several things:

1. The price of fuel has driven everything up and has caused business to slow down.
2. Taxes are too high and cause business to slow down.
3. Government oversight and control of business (Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac) is a problem looking for a place to happen. (Privatize, Privatize, Privatize)
4. The last is a news media and a political party, whose sole purpose is to preach gloom and doom.

“I think it is wrong to compare the good or bad of a situation against those of past generations. Each generation has realized improvements. But in order to gauge improvement one has to compare the current situation against the most recent best situation.”

I completely disagree with this analysis. Americans have always compared a better life style with the lifestyle of our predecessors. Comparing our success in life with our own life is like watching the stock market each day to determine what we will do in the long haul.

There is no doubt, Americans are living a better lifestyle today, than our parents or grand-parents. I have investments and my father beieved investing was something only rich people could do.

You believe a Democrat in office can heal all the wounds of our nation. There were a lot of Americans who felt the same way about a peanut farmer by the name of Carter. He almost destroyed our economy, of course he had the help of a Democratic controlled congress. I don’t remember the left crying gloom and doom then.


Posted by: Oldguy at September 12, 2008 11:01 AM
Comment #262815

Rick Il,

Yes, well, more like we’d prosecute leaders of a revolt. We would make attacks on “terrorists”, even if we had to provoke an attack much like a “Boston Massacre”.

It all depends on how you define “them”. Loyalist would be defenseless Americans and separatists would be come Commie terrorists.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 12, 2008 11:41 AM
Comment #262816

Rhinehold,

While I generally agree you are being factual, why the strong “defense” of clearly misleading statements she has made?

It may be semantics to you, but to most of us, it’s a used car salesman’s level of honesty. It doesn’t bother you that from the gate she appears to be lying?

It certainly appears from my perpective that you have an agenda promoting Palin.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 12, 2008 11:50 AM
Comment #262818

Two points, for what they’re worth. Recent polling indicates well over twice as many people believe the press supports Obama as believe they support McCain. One recent survey put the margin among likely voters at more than four to one.

Second, the Palin choice has recently obscured every effort by the Obama campaign to get their own message out (even accepting that Obama does really nonsensical stuff like the “lipstick on a pig’ comment).

I think people are just running scared all over the political landscape.

OK, back to boarding up the house.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 12, 2008 12:02 PM
Comment #262819

Rhinehold,
You say that Sarah Palin didn’t try to ban books. The evidence seems to be contrary to that statement. She posed a “hypothetical” question to the Wasilla librarian about what she would do if she was asked to ban a book. Palin then fired Mary Ellen Emmons for “Palin notified Emmons she would be fired in January 1997 because the mayor didn’t feel she had the librarian’s ‘full support.’ Emmons was reinstated the next day after public outcry, according to newspaper reports at the time,” according to Garance Burke of the AP. The citizens of Wasilla rose up and demanded her return and she was re-hired. Let’s see … asking a “hypothetical” question then firing the librarian who did not give the answer she was looking for. The book in question was by Howard Bess entitled “Pastor I Am Gay.” I can see why a fundamentalist like Palin would want to ban such a book but it still doesn’t make it right. Just because her questions were so-called “hypothetical” doesn’t give her a free pass either. Her intent was clear and made clearer still by the attempted firing of Emmons.

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2008 12:05 PM
Comment #262820

and another thing …
Palin, according to FactCheck.org, fired Emmons because she said she didn’t have her loyalty. WHAT!?! Why does the mayor need the loyalty of a librarian? It is ludicrous. She also demonstrated that monster intellect of hers by characterizing the questioning as “rhetorical.” Apparently she doesn’t understand that word (a question in which no answer is expected) it should have been “hypothetical” not “rhetorical.” Just what we need in the White House, another “C” student.

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2008 12:14 PM
Comment #262821

tcsned,
What the Palin firings and Troopergate really demonstrate is that Palin does not know how to be a manager.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2008 12:22 PM
Comment #262822

Oldguy,
I understand why people would want someone from outside the Beltway in office. However, inexperience and lack of knowledge are not virtues.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2008 12:24 PM
Comment #262823

Lee
Who is scared? Not me and apparently not Obama. Palin is a lightweight and proved it on ABC last night. I know there has been a lot of hand wringing by the Democrats about Obama not going after McCain/Palin more but even though it looks like they are starting to counter punch the outrageous and dishonorable things that the McCain/Palin campaign has been saying, Obama really isn’t in that bad of shape with the electoral college. Of the 4 battle ground states the Chuck Todd of NBC identified (VA, OH, NH, CO) Obama needs to only win Ohio or Virginia or Colorado and New Hampshire to get over the mark. McCain needs to win three of 4 of these states including Ohio or he is toast. This included the “bump” that the GOP got following their convention. Bumps usually don’t last so it will likely be even more of an uphill climb for McCain, a 26 year Washington insider running as a change candidate following 8 years of his party’s rule.

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2008 12:29 PM
Comment #262824

Tcsned, there’s about as much evidence for this notion that Palin is a book-banner as there is for the notion that Obama is a closet Muslim sleeper agent.

It’s all unproven hear-say and innuendo—and there’s also the eensy teensy fact that Palin never banned any books or even tried to.

The AP article you cite by Garance Burke (I assume this is it) says that Palin brought up this hypothetical situation with the librarian because a patron of the library was trying to get a book withdrawn and Palin wondered what the library’s policy was. There’s nothing to suggest that Palin either endorsed or disagreed with book-banning. Except for the fact that she NEVER tried to ban any books.

There is also a lot more to the story about Palin’s attempt to fire than the librarian (which she later relented on) than is being let on.

Read this.

The librarian in question had been a supporter of one of Palin’s mayorial opponents who Palin believed did not support merging the city’s museum and library operations, which Palin wished to do. She was rehired AFTER she expressed support for this measure. Frankly, whether one agrees or not, it’s a mayor’s right to fire city officials who do not support her efforts to merge departments. The connection being made between Palin’s enquiry—in response to a patron’s efforts which not even the librarian says Palin endorsed to pull a book from the library—is tenuous at best.

What’s more, the controversy in Wasilla about that Bess book had to do with people trying to remove it from bookstores. As disagreeable as such a campaign is, it’s not “book-banning”—it relates to what private businesses are selling in their stores and has nothing to do with government sponsored censorship. What’s more, there’s no evidence that then Mayor Palin had anything whatsoever to this with this protest over Bess’s book.

It’s amazing to me that these insinuations and speculation about what MIGHT have happened take the place of any examination of Palin’s actual record and public positions. The fact is that she has not only never tried to ban a book, she has never even advocated doing so. There is nothing but idle speculation and this whispering campaign to suggest otherwise, which is remarkable when her actual record is sitting right there in broad daylight for all to see.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 12, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #262826


Actually, the last thing the American people need is another Harvard elitist who knows what is best for them.

More often than not, presidential elections become a popularity contest between candidates. Obama’s popularity peaked the day of the Texas caucaus and has been tapering off since then.

Posted by: jlw at September 12, 2008 12:59 PM
Comment #262829

rhinehold
Checked your link. It refutes a whole heap of e-mails I’ve been getting about Palin. Thanks!

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 12, 2008 1:06 PM
Comment #262830

Loyal O,
“Frankly, whether one agrees or not, it’s a mayor’s right to fire city officials who do not support her efforts to merge departments.”

Like I said, she does not know how to manage people. The incident with the librarian is a classic example. Palin thinks part of leading an organization and exercising power involves firing people who disagree.

tcsned,
The McCain campaign has jumped the shark with their negative advertising and disinformation gambits. The media is getting sick of it. Even the Associate Press, which has a McCain supporter making decisions about political stories (much to the distress of liberals), even AP flamed McCain for the lies and negative ads.

And keep in mind, the two campaigns are taking two very different approaches. Obama’s campaign is relying on grass roots organization for a massive turnout on voting day, especially among people under the age of 35. This means Obama has to stay positive for the most part, and avoid the use of surrogates to attack (other than Biden).

McCain, on the other hand, is relying on a Karl Rove type of approach, which means negative advertising, and repeating a ‘narrative’ even when ‘little facts’ contradict the narration.

Negative advertising works. However, resorting to so much of it, so early, is beginning to alienate the press. They become frustrated with balancing a truth and a lie, as if they were equally valid. They’ve just about had it with the McCain campaign, and it’s only September.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2008 1:06 PM
Comment #262831
Palin thinks part of leading an organization and exercising power involves firing people who disagree.

And you disagree with that?

I don’t know what kind of world you think we live in, but being a successful manager of anything often means firing people who don’t agree with your vision. It’s just as true for a mayor as it is for Bill Gates or the manager of a Burger King.

I suppose if Obama becomes president, all those Republican appointees in government can rest assured that they’ll keep their jobs. Ridiculous.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 12, 2008 1:16 PM
Comment #262832

LO
Here’s the link to the AP article
Sorry I didn’t post it earlier. It says very clearly that she inquired “hypothetically” about banning books and that the book in question was the “Pastor I am Gay” book. None of the stuff you referenced adequately dispelled the story. Why in the world would Palin even ask such a question? What purpose would it serve?

And I don’t think when Obama becomes our next president that he will, like Bush has, require loyalty oaths, pack the civil service with political allies, politicize the Dept. of Justice, appoint unqualified cronies, etc.

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2008 1:29 PM
Comment #262834

Tcsned, either you haven’t read or haven’t comprehended your own link.

It doesn’t “very clearly say”—or even say at all—that Palin inquired hypothetically about “Pastor I am Gay.”

The author of that book, Bess, says that he suspects he was targeted, but the librarian herself never said any such thing and neither did Palin.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 12, 2008 1:41 PM
Comment #262836

Loyal O,
I’m not going to teach you how to manage people. Sorry.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2008 1:46 PM
Comment #262837

However, inexperience and lack of knowledge are not virtues.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2008 12:24 PM

But you support Obama. Ya expect the Republican candidates to have experience and knowlede but support a Democrat candidate with neither. Kinda a double standard aint it?

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 12, 2008 1:49 PM
Comment #262838

phx8

That is only your opinion; there are many who disagree.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 12, 2008 1:50 PM
Comment #262839

>And I don’t think when Obama becomes our next president that he will, like Bush has, require loyalty oaths, pack the civil service with political allies, politicize the Dept. of Justice, appoint unqualified cronies, etc.

Posted by: tcsned at September 12, 2008 01:29 PM

tcsned,

Amen, Brother…but, with all the baggage McPain brings to the table, you can bet it would be no different than it has been with Cheney/Bush.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 12, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #262841

oldguy

There is no doubt, Americans are living a better lifestyle today, than our parents or grand-parents. I have investments and my father beieved investing was something only rich people could do

You may want to invest in gold. I just heard that in addition to Lehman Bros., WaMu and Merril Lynch are next in line. What is happening now in the financial markets is unprecedented in my lifetime. What is scary is that no one has a clue where the bottom is. Good luck with your investments.

I am not looking for a democrat president. I am looking for the best person for the task at hand.

In your analysis of economic blame you forgot to mention our record high national debt and a nation that for all intent and purpose is bankrupt. The only difference is that no one has officially proclaimed it so.

I have a good friend who recently became a millionaire by way of inheritance of property and investments. He is still the same person he always was with the exception that instead of worrying about not having enough, he is now sweating bullets over keeping what he has. He has a good financial man, but in todays market it seems nothing is completely safe.

Posted by: RickIL at September 12, 2008 2:15 PM
Comment #262842

Ron,
Obama has 12 years of experience legislating in the IL and US Senate. That’s something, but I agree it is not a huge amount. I think it’s perfectly fair to look at Obama harder than other candidates. What on earth is a 47 year old black man doing running for president? How could he run against Hillary Clinton and win? Is it just hysteria?

You make a fair objection. Personally, I did not support Obama early in the primaries. He caught my attention when he did so well in the early voting. What I have found is that he holds up to scrutiny. He is smart, well educated, articulate, and a fantastic, inspiring orator. You already know about that. It takes more, right? Obama has succeeded at everything he attempted, so there is a record of success. He consistently conducts himself with grace. He displays optimism, and both allies and foes consistently speak well of him. For me, what seals the deal is the way he has created and organized his campaign. That displays a kind of organizational genius that I believe can translate into a successful presidency.

There’s always some element of risk when we vote. Anyway, you know what I think…

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2008 2:17 PM
Comment #262844

RickIL

“In your analysis of economic blame you forgot to mention our record high national debt and a nation that for all intent and purpose is bankrupt. The only difference is that no one has officially proclaimed it so.”

Is our national debt to high? Yes, but when spending bills are passed and pork is applied, they are sent to the president for his signature. So spare me the accusations against Bush. If we had a Democratic president and a Republican congress, and the debt was still climbing, you would blame the congress.

Billions every year to foreign countries for energy, if you were so concerned about the economy, you would join the ranks of 65% of the American people and say “drill baby drill”.

But the left can’t do that, because it would offend some other fringe of the kook left.

I just received an e-mail with a youtube link. It is very good:

EVERY American should see this,,,pass it on,,,,,,,,,,
*****************************************************

‘This commercial was done by a local kid. You have to watch the whole thing. When he finishes talking and walks away, you get a sense of how this could be the commercial of the campaign season.

Bob Cook and I were on the Lake County Republican Central Committee together.
His son Joe returned from Iraq last year and I was at the celebration to welcome him home.’

Hi, My son Joe just did a commercial for John McCain.

Please pass this on.

Thanks
Bob Cook

click on below:

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

Posted by: Oldguy at September 12, 2008 2:31 PM
Comment #262845

Actually, the last thing the American people need is another Harvard elitist who knows what is best for them.

Posted by: jlw at September 12, 2008 12:59 PM

If you view Obama as an elitist, then you’ve got deep biases already, by the same token a lot of the delegates at the RNC are elitist because I saw a lot of Dolce & Gabbana in the crowd there. Does that mean they are?

I’m studying to hopefully one day be a endocrinologist, if my loans don’t bury me in a mountain of debt, but I know that that path will give me, among other things, a leverage of knowledge outside of medicine to know what is best for me and others.

We’ve gone for certainly 8 years, and within the government itself, for decades, with what I’d see as uneducated people in control of aspects of our government.

There needs to be an intellectual in the White House, someone who inspires kids to read a book and go to school instead of “being brave, protecting freedom” and joining the army.

Posted by: Jon at September 12, 2008 2:39 PM
Comment #262847

I would like to add a thought about this video. One of people who maintain the site made these remarks:

“We have over 700 comments posted now, and approving each one has been laborous and intersting.

I promised this man’s father I would ensure that no disrepectful posts would be approved. I have kept my word.

But I have more commercials on the issues I want to create so I have to shut down the comments section.

In all, about 75% of the comments were positive and supportive, 15% were disagreeing but respectful, and 10% were ugly, demeaning, rude, and hateful. So much for HOPE.”

So think before you post.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 12, 2008 2:40 PM
Comment #262849

The McCain Campaign has come out with a new, rather truthful campaign video

No, not really, but I think it covers the general consensus in the media now. I know some Republicans are going to get angry about this, but they’re continuing to peddle BS that a factcheck on google could easily debunk, and nobody wants to get caught on the wrong side of a myth here.

Rhinehold-
There’s no “possibly” on the per diem stuff. They actually defended it as perfectly legal since the Governor set up shop away from the capital in Wasilla. But of course it doesn’t sound very ethical, and it isn’t. This is travel expenses we’re talking about, not “stay in your home” expenses.

She lied about being a foe of Earmarks. Under her, the state remains, per capita, the worst offender. But more to the point, she took a town that hardly ever benefited from earmarks, and made such earmarks part of the culture. She introduced partisan politics where there was little of it before.

And yes, her spouse was part of a party which advocates the secession of Alaska from the union. She attended conventions, and she recorded, not to long ago, a warm, rather sympathetic greeting for the opening of their convention. Remember, the founder of this part wasn’t even willing to be buried on Alaskan soil until it became independent. This is not like an Native American moving to a reservation. This is like them doings so and trying to take the whole state with them.

Oldguy-
Number two is unlikely to be the cause. We had massive tax cuts, and the economy’s gone downhill since. The deficit spending has had a largely negative effect, raising inflation, and weakening our dollar.

Number three reflects a misunderstanding you have. Government oversight should have been better on the Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, but they were already privatized, back in 1968. Privatization solves some problems, but done wrong, it can create more.

Number Four is just the typical GOP propaganda about Democrats and the News Media, used to cover for the fact that things really are going wrong.

The Democrat who really almost destroyed our economy was LBJ. It wasn’t his expensive war, or his expansion of entitlements or anything like that, though, it was his deficit spending. Carter reduced national debt, and the actions of the Fed prevented our money supply from going utterly out of whack.

You see, the trouble is, the GOP’s system is a free lunch system, with tax cuts forever its main mantra. Sometimes recovery and reform for the long term is painful. It’s the unfortunate tendency of the GOP to play on this avoidance of pain to support fiscally and financially irresponsible policies.

LO-
She didn’t try to ban books, and the list on the internet is bunk, but she did ask about how they might go about banning them. As for the firings? Look, there are times when you have to do such things, but it’s an extreme move, especially at that level of Government. The firings were such a threat, that for the most part an administrator did much of the heavy lifting for operations on a day to day basis for Wasilla.

Well, at least she has experience delegating her responsibilities. But her management was so controversial, she almost got recalled. Her record as governor, in less than two years, doesn’t reflect well on her either. The Republicans in regards to the trooper matter, emphasize what a bastard the trooper was. However, the incidents had already been investigated, and the Trooper had already been punished In effect, Palin seemed to be wanting them to punish him again for the same offenses.

The Republicans seem all too willing to apologize for choices like this from their political campaigns, all too willing to set a low standard. If Obama had chosen a running mate like this, he’d have lost half his followers in an instant. I know some have criticized his choice as safe, but given the function of the Vice Presidency in this country, safe is not a bad idea.

The real problem for the GOP is that their plan for success is basically voting for the Republican no matter what. Because Republicans so rarely allow their disillusionment to show, their politicians don’t see the need to avoid disappointing them. That’s, ultimately, what’s corroding the GOP.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 12, 2008 2:46 PM
Comment #262853
she did ask about how they might go about banning them.

No. A patron asking about banning a book and Palin asked the librarian what the reaction would be if she were to come to her to ban a book. That is not the same thing, Stephen.

You don’t need to fearmonger to campaign against a candidate…

“She’s going to ban books!!!”

This is what I mean about the left and right being nearly the same group…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 12, 2008 3:55 PM
Comment #262856

oldguy

As for our national debt and the state of this nation. Well, lets just say the buck stops at the top. It seems republicans are still suffering with accountability issues.

I will attempt some compromise here. I will support drill baby drill so long as renewables can get equal support. Subsidies for oil equals an equal amount of subsidies for renewables. We both want the same end. We just see a different means to get there. I think mine is more responsible. I see yours as antiquated.

The young man in the video has my respect and admiration for serving in Iraq. I am happy for the Iraqi people and hope all works out well for them. I do not deride his values and I am sure Obama would not either. It is time for the Iraqi’s and anyone else who sees the value of a democratic Iraq to step up and step in where Iraq is concerned. We have done more than enough. We have our own pressing issues to look after. It is time for an exit strategy. The neocons of this country have done enough damage. It is time they had a few years of R&R.

Posted by: RickIL at September 12, 2008 5:17 PM
Comment #262858

“Actually, the last thing the American people need is another Harvard elitist who knows what is best for them.”

Because growing up on food stamps is so elitist. You are just jealous that you couldn’t make it in to a good school. If you even went to college, the # 1 thing you learn is that the more you learn, the less you know. Is that why you know so much?


“Palin thinks part of leading an organization and exercising power involves firing people who disagree.”

This reminds me of the Bush quote of how this would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship and he was the dictator. F* the constitution. Who needs it!

Posted by: horse at September 12, 2008 5:32 PM
Comment #262860

I am looking forward to the indictments of the whole Palin clan.

Knowing the Repubs., Bush will just pardon her or no one will show for their deposition like that rat bastard Cheney. How is that for sh*tting on the constitution? (a hypothetical… I mean rhetorical question)

Posted by: Horse at September 12, 2008 5:39 PM
Comment #262862

Republicans could only hope that Democrats are so politically suicidal that they’d raise a stink over unproven allegations that Palin wanted to keep a book called “Pastor, I’m Gay” out of her small town library.

Do Democrats not realize that no matter how it came out, it’s a losing issue for them? That this is not something you want to put before the swing voters of Ohio, Michigan, and Virginia at this stage of the contest? Are they that dense or are things even worse with Obama’s tanking campaign than they appear? Do Democrats feel the need to shore up their support in San Francisco and with members of the ACLU?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 12, 2008 5:45 PM
Comment #262863

Why does everyone still sympathize with Georgia after it became clear that the United States (once again, thanks W.) had been pressuring Georgia to attack Russia.

“Russian armed forces have occupied parts of Georgia since repelling a Georgian attack last week on the tiny pro-Russian separatist territory of South Ossetia, which threw off Tbilisi’s control in the 1990s.” -Reuters

Yet McWar jumped on the opportunity to start more sh*t and wanted to ‘defend’ Georgia at the drop of a hat. So what happens when Israel attacks Iran, creates a war, and cries uncle for our help, and President Palin WONT HESITATE OR QUESTION ISRAEL! Smooth idiocy.

Posted by: horse at September 12, 2008 5:47 PM
Comment #262865

Rhinehold,

Palin twice raised the issue in 1996 of how books could be removed from the library. The librarian said she would fight any effort to ban books. The same week that Palin raised the issue she fired the librarian, claiming she was not “loyal” to the new administration. After a public outcry, Palin rescinded the dismissal of the librarian.

If you connect the dots, it seems obvious that Palin fired the town library because she refused to ban books. Maybe it couldn’t be proved in a court of law, but the entire town of Wasilla came to this obvious conclusion as well.

At the very least, there are very good reasons to believe that is exactly what she tried to do.


Posted by: Max at September 12, 2008 5:51 PM
Comment #262867
Palin, according to FactCheck.org, fired Emmons because she said she didn’t have her loyalty. WHAT!?! Why does the mayor need the loyalty of a librarian?


Do you consider a librarian that burns books loyal to you?! I certainly wouldn’t have that loyalty to someone. :0)

Posted by: rahdigly at September 12, 2008 5:55 PM
Comment #262877

Good Luck, Lee.

I’m in NW Houston (Oak Forest) I don’t expect winds much more than 60 even though they’re predicting 80. This storm is mostly about the surge.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 12, 2008 7:10 PM
Comment #262878
[T]he entire town of Wasilla came to this obvious conclusion as well.

Really, because I haven’t read that anywhere. Can you support that? In fact, in all the reports I’ve seen, I’ve never even heard that the librarian in question has herself ever claimed that she was fired for not banning books. Is she saying different? Has she ever said different?

It seems to me that this is all innuendo and leaping to conclusions based on the fact that Palin ASKED the librarian about the library’s policy when a library patron had complained.

Again, there were other reasons for firing the librarian—Palin wanted to merge the museum and the library and didn’t think that the head librarian was on board for this change of policy. In fact, the librarian HERSELF has said that she was rehired WHEN she agreed.

The key thing, however, is that even IF (and that’s a big if) Palin was tempted to ban books or try to ban books, she never did it. You can’t just ignore a fact as significant as that as if it doesn’t matter.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 12, 2008 7:26 PM
Comment #262880

SD said:

“Number three reflects a misunderstanding you have. Government oversight should have been better on the Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, but they were already privatized, back in 1968. Privatization solves some problems, but done wrong, it can create more.”

I’m sure you know Fannie Mae was chartered under the control of the FHA Admin in 1938 as part of the New Deal. Over the years several Acts (1954, 1968, 1970, 1984, 1989, 1992) were established to deal with Federal Control.

You spoke of the 1968 Charter Act which basically said, “The 1968 Charter Act split Fannie Mae into two parts: Ginnie Mae and a reconstituted Fannie Mae. Ginnie Mae would continue as a federal agency and be responsible for the then-existing special assistance programs, and Fannie Mae would be transformed into a “government-sponsored private corporation” responsible for the self-supporting secondary market operations. The reconstituted Fannie Mae was to be stockholder-owned and managed. Fannie Mae retired the last of its government stock on September 30, 1968, and transformation to a government-sponsored private corporation was completed in 1970.

The 1968 Act provided the authority to issue Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS).

The Act also established a regulatory structure to ensure Fannie Mae’s adherence to its public purpose. It provided for continuing HUD oversight of Fannie Mae, granting “general regulatory power … to insure that the purposes of this Title are accomplished.”

Now, Fannie Mae has always been under Federal Regulations through HUD.

Even under Bill Clinton, “The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act (“FHEFSSA”) of 1992 modernized the regulatory oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It created the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (“OFHEO”) as a new regulatory office within HUD with the responsibility to “ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are adequately capitalized and operating safely.”

So you see, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have always been under the control of the Feds.

In an article in the NY Times, by Stephen Labaton, Sept. 11, 2003 entitled:

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

“The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
”There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,” Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies…
The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session…


You will notice the Bush administration recognized the problem 5+ years ago. The company execs lobbied against the changes that would take away the presidents ability to appoint execs and the companies 18 members. They were not the only ones to object, and I quote:

“”The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ”Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.”

The Democrats blocked anything that would cause them to loose control. The Democrats used this agency as they have welfare. To dangle the carrot in front of minorities and low income, promising the something free for a vote.

Now see the situation we are in, it will cost the American taxpayers millions. These companies need to be split up and privatized. What you see is another example of big government trying to do the work private companies. Another example is SS. And they would also like to take control of 17% of our economy in the form of national health care. Is anyone else scared?

Posted by: Oldguy at September 12, 2008 7:55 PM
Comment #262881

Rhinehold,

It sounds to me from this interview that the town uproar that led to re-instating the librarian was related to their believing Palin fired her for not banning books…

ANNE KILKENNY, TOWN RESIDENT: Mayor Palin asked the librarian, what is your response if I ask you to remove some books from the collection of the Wasilla Public Library?
ROSS: The Wasilla librarian, Mary Ellen Edmonds, the president of the Alaska Library Association, responded with only a short hesitation.
KILKENNY: The librarian took a deep breath and said “the books on the collection, were purchased in accordance with national standards and professional guidelines. And I would absolutely not allow you to remove any books from the collection.” =
ROSS: A former town official and Palin ally says Palin’s questions were only rhetorical.
FORMER WASILLA DEPUTY MAYOR JUNE PATRICK: There were no specific books that were ever banned from the city. Mayor Palin did enquire of the librarian about the policy of removing books from the library.
ROSS: A few weeks after the council meeting, the mayor fired the librarian, although she was reinstated after a community uproar.
PATRICK: You’d like to hope the elected officials understand the role of the librarian in a democracy, that is to provide access to information to everybody in the community.
ROSS: The Wasilla librarian, Mary Ellen Edmonds, left two years later, and according to friends, because it was just too hard working for Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Max at September 12, 2008 8:28 PM
Comment #262888

Has there ever been this much fuss about a VP candidate before? If JMcC is elected, I’m sure that Cindy and the doctors and the Secret S will do their best to keep him alive and well.

On the “Bush doctrine”, isn’t this a media terminology, which they use to describe pre-emptive warfare? Gibson should just have asked her what she thought about pre-emptive warfare.

On book banning, my only experience of that with librarians was BEE’s American Psycho. Simon and Schuster refused to publish it after paying an advance. So he went to another publisher and got paid again, but many people objected to the content, which was very graphic, and my local library wouldn’t carry it.

Dolce and Gabbana at the Rpblcn convention? Among the plaid flannel wearing yahoos?

Posted by: ohrealy at September 12, 2008 10:47 PM
Comment #262891

ohrealy,
Yes, there has been this much fuss about a VP candidate before. In modern times, Eagleton, McGovern’s VP pick, had been treated for depression, and resigned prior to the 1972 election. Ferraro’s nomination in 1984 caused a huge stir too, primarily because she was a woman, and as it turned out, also a weak candidate. Finally, Dan Quayle caused a lot of jaws to drop when he was nominated. He went from being an unknown legislator from a wealthy family that controlled the media in Indiana, to become the poster child for the Peter Principle. Despite his unimpressive capabilities and a couple public humiliations, Bush went on to #41.

It’s kind of interesting that Bush #41, for whatever reason, blew the two most important political nominations of his presidency: Dan Quayle, and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. In each case, Bush #41 nominated people who were remarkable for their lack of ability to fulfill their positions.

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2008 11:28 PM
Comment #262894

Oldguy,
The article from 2003 on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac does not indicate the Bush administration recognized the subprime problem five years ago, and that turned out to be the source of the problem. The two organizations ended up eating the bad mortgages that were written by private institutions, and sadly, taxpayers will probably be on the hook for about $200 billion.

The problem was not with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, and I don’t really think it matters whether they were private or quasi-private or not. They were the major players in the mortgage markets, and if you want to lay blame, you have to look at the origins of the subprime debacle, not the structure of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

The subprime disaster is complicated. If you find this kind of thing interesting, I’d suggest reading the linked article on “The Anglo Disease.”

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4115

Posted by: phx8 at September 12, 2008 11:43 PM
Comment #262895

Ron Brown - this is what your way has done for the tax payers of the United States over the last 8 years.

1. Let Osama bin Laden go free with the blessing of you and the President. There is video proof of the president saying he doesn’t care about bin Laden.
2. As for weapons of mass destruction thanks to you and the president of the United States it was all a big joke. There is a video proof of him making a joke about WMB. “I wonder if there are weapons of mass destruction under here? Nope, none under her.” You and the Republicans in the audience heartily laugh.
3. You murdered 4000+ Americans in Iraq in an attempt to secure control of Iraqi oil deposits.
4. The United States has lost 3 million good paying manufacturing jobs thanks to your trade politices.
5. The United States has become the greatest debtor nation in the world, sponsoring the greatest transfer of wealth from one society to another in the name of corporate profits.
6. The United States has allowed itself to become an economic hostage of the Communist Chinese who hold $1 trillion in U.S. dollars in National Debt.
7. The administration has so badly taken care of the nation’s highway that bridges are falling down.
8. Under 20 years of Republican presidents not one oil refinery has been constructed in this country and yet you want us to continue using oil as or national fuel. Right now yo want to drill for oil but not construct any refineries. Exactly to which countries will all that new oil be exported since we don’t have the refining capacity here at home?
9. For 170 years American’s were able to travel freely across the borders of Mexico and Canada. But in your effort to cause American’s to live in fear passports are now needed.
10. Once again under a Republican administration you and your leaders have allowed business interests to speculate in oil to allow for massive corporation and investor profit at the expense of the American tax payer.
11. Once again, 20 years ago it was the Savings Bank scandals, you and a Republican administration have allowed the nations banks to screw up the nation’s unregulated financial system in return for a federal bailout. You sure as hell don’t like Socialism when it comes to medicine, but love it to pieces when it comes to saving the butts of the nation’s top 1%.
12. You should be on your knees begging for the forgiveness of the American public for what you have done to this country over these past 8 years rather than worrying about what Obama will do. An organ grinder and his monkey could have run this country better than you people.

Posted by: Mike Wrona at September 12, 2008 11:46 PM
Comment #262897

phx8 said: I think it’s perfectly fair to look at Obama harder than other candidates.

I don’t know if it’s fair or not. But he’ll sure get looked at harder than the others. IMO all the candidates need to be looked at very hard.

phx8 said: What on earth is a 47 year old black man doing running for president?

I can’t say exactly why he decided to run for the Democratic nomination. But it seems he’s running now because y’all nominated him.

phx8 said: How could he run against Hillary Clinton and win?

He managed to get more delegates than Hillary. How? I’m sure someone will come up with a theory before it’s all over.

phx8 said: Is it just hysteria?

Just might be.


Mike Wrona said: Ron Brown - this is what your way has done for the tax payers of the United States over the last 8 years.

MY WAY??????????????????????????????
Reckon your wrongly assuming I’m a Republican.
Well here goes for about the 10,000th time.
I am not a Republican. I’m a Conservative Independent. A very rare animal I know. But we do exist.
I haven’t claimed a political party over 38 years. I left the Republican party in 1970 because it was to liberal. And it’s worse now.
So your list doesn’t apply to me. I don’t owe anyone an apology for the mess this country is in. I’ve been trying to keep it out of this mess by not voting for any of major party lackeys that they’ve put up for President, Senator, or Representative.
The Republicans and Democrats are the ones that owe an apology to the good folks of this country.
But I do like your list. Just show how much Democrats hate anyone that disagrees with them.
And I’m gonna worry about what Obama will do if he wins. Just like I’m gonna worry about McCain will do if he wins. I don’t trust either one of them as far as I can throw my house.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 13, 2008 12:20 AM
Comment #262898

Mike, is your laundry list of complaints supposed to be some kind of joke?

We lost jobs as a result of Bush’s trade policies? Which trade policies? NAFTA, which was spearheaded by Bill Clinton? There was no national debt before George Bush? Right.

The president has not only let Bid Laden go free but “blessed” his freedom? We “murdered” the American soldiers who have died in Iraq?

The absolute most ridiculous item there is that “under 20 years of Republican presidents not one oil refinery has been constructed.”

That is a serious laugh-attack, and not only because of the inconvenient fact that during the last 20 years, 8 of them were presided over by a Democrat. No, it’s ridiculous because Republicans are accused of being for big oil and more oil refineries is exactly what big oils wants but cannot get because DEMOCRATS have prevented every single attempt to expand our oil-refining capacity.

Being wrong is one thing. But being totally hysterically off-base like that actually brinks over into comedy.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 13, 2008 12:21 AM
Comment #262900

Yes, there was Dolce and Gabbana, Versace and Yves St. at the RNC, this goes to show you why having gay fashion designer friends pays off :) (Stereotype but it’s true).

I don’t see how you can support the Republican party after the screw-ups this administration has had over 8 years, even as a Republican, I’d fire every single elected Republican, including McCain, Palin and crew, put Karl Rowe in the corner without internet access, and then start a roll call.

“Hey this is the American public, yea, we’re gonna rebuild the Republican party, this is the line for applicants, if you have any record of misconduct, taking money from “buddies” that happen to be from the oil, insurance, drug, television, or religious circles, you will be disqualified.

No sir, we will ban the job title of “lobbyist”, there’s only 2 possible positions someone can have that can speak to candidates or officials to solicit their agenda, it’s either “I work for PBS” or “I work for the Red Cross”.

Why can’t it be that simple? I know it’s one thing to stand backing a candidate because he/she represents what you (the people) want in government. From half this country’s perspective, that want is the gradual dumbing down of our culture, sensationalist media, a “ME ME ME NOW NOW NOW” sense of national identity, and lack of regard for what the rest of the world thinks.

Do you realize how ****ty it is to walk to school every day, see, in this order, a homeless guy that’s clinically insane because the hospital that kept guys like him in had to shut down, then some 12 year olds, honest-to-god 12 year olds, selling marijuana on the corner, go by the newspaper stand of the guy who immigrated here from some Balkan country, has a degree, and has been working at that same crap stand for 20 years, still lives in an 1 bedroom apartment. And then of course, seeing on the newspaper of the day stuff like “Progress in Iraq! Surge working!”.

Hey, how about some progress on the corner of 56th and Walnut in Philly man, maybe a surge there could work.

Posted by: Jon at September 13, 2008 1:53 AM
Comment #262901


Chops points out “McCain’s VP choice has successfully driven the last two weeks of news.”

Chops it’s not so much that Palin has driven it , it’s more like she has successfully avoided the media while the McCain camp has successfully manipulated the media. Lucky for you guys the coprorate media is so easily manipulated. It seems to me that if they had any intelligence at all, media outlets would have ignored the Gibson interviews instead of groveling for bits and peices.

The McCain campaign is the tail wagging the dog and they deserve credit for doing it so well. Of course the media and the American people deserve a slap upside the head for falling for it.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080912/pl_mcclatchy/3043822

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2008 2:39 AM
Comment #262903

Jon -

Well said, sir. Well said indeed.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 13, 2008 3:00 AM
Comment #262906

LO,

Regardless of political affiliation or bias, all of the things that Wrona listed actually happened,
and, as Americans, they happened in our collective name.
We are all to blame.
It doesn’t truly matter which party was/is in “power” we Americans need to take the responsibility for the actions of the people we put in office.

S*&t doesn’t just “happen”.
We, the people, are either the cause or the effect of our government.
When we are at the effect, all of the things on the aforementioned list take place.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 13, 2008 5:30 AM
Comment #262907

LO,

“That is a serious laugh-attack, and not only because of the inconvenient fact that during the last 20 years, 8 of them were presided over by a Democrat.”

Gee, 8 of the last 20 years. That’s about 40%.
How about 12 of the last 40?

By all means, laugh it up.

BTW, the negotiations for NAFTA were initiated by Bush 41.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 13, 2008 7:04 AM
Comment #262918

LO,

Regardless of political affiliation or bias, all of the things that Wrona listed actually happened,
and, as Americans, they happened in our collective name.
We are all to blame.
It doesn’t truly matter which party was/is in “power” we Americans need to take the responsibility for the actions of the people we put in office.

S*&t doesn’t just “happen”.
We, the people, are either the cause or the effect of our government.
When we are at the effect, all of the things on the aforementioned list take place.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 13, 2008 05:30 AM

Very well stated.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 13, 2008 11:44 AM
Comment #262938

Well stated, Rocky Marks, we all have some blame for the situation, and we all have some responsibility to correct it. Do you think McPain/Palin are best suited to help guide us through that correction?

Wonderful run-down Mr. Wrona…hardly gave me time to catch my breath…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2008 3:23 PM
Comment #262939

Off thread…at least two of you suggested that I switch to Firefox…one of the best moves I’ve ever made…my thanks.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2008 3:27 PM
Comment #262953

dude

No problem. I noticed your spelling has improved. Just kidding of course. :)

Posted by: RickIL at September 13, 2008 5:57 PM
Comment #262954

Mike

You should be on your knees begging for the forgiveness of the American public for what you have done to this country over these past 8 years rather than worrying about what Obama will do. An organ grinder and his monkey could have run this country better than you people.

Are you telling me that it wasn’t and organ grinder and monkey all along? I had no idea!

I love it! Good stuff Mike.

Posted by: RickIL at September 13, 2008 6:01 PM
Comment #262962

Off Thread:

RickIL,

Thanks, again for Firefox…I had a perfectly good spell checker before, but in the heat of the battle, kept forgetting to use it. Firefox solved that problem.

Mike hit it better than I ever would have…my brain quits after about two paragraphs…but, boy, what a list and what a condemnation…again, good job Mike.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2008 7:30 PM
Comment #262964

McSame: Sarah Palin is George W. Bush.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 13, 2008 8:03 PM
Comment #262966

More disclosure about the GOP’s lying liar campaign: Palin never visited Iraq.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 13, 2008 8:14 PM
Comment #262968

Veritas, you left out the charge that Sarah Palin molests teenage boys

Honestly, the extent to which mud is being thrown at this woman has become positively abnormal. It’s like we’re living in some kind of Twilight Zone episode. And I marvel at how Governor Palin is simultaneously accused of being “the same” as Bush, but also accused of not knowing Bush’s policies. So which is it?

It’s downright bizarre that she would be accused of “hiring friends,” as if that is some kind of unprecedented practice. How many people from Arkansas, exactly, were suddenly elevated to Washington jobs when Clinton was elected? Who was John Kennedy’s Attorney General? Who cares? The attempt to spin the mundane into scandal is just desperate.

And as for McCain’s campaign rhetoric during the primaries about governors and national security—why not talk about Joe Biden’s claim that Barack Obama is not ready to be President? It seems to me that we’ve elected a number of governors in the past to the presidency.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 13, 2008 9:22 PM
Comment #262970

>And I marvel at how Governor Palin is simultaneously accused of being “the same” as Bush, but also accused of not knowing Bush’s policies. So which is it?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 13, 2008 09:22 PM

LO,

Maybe she wears his pants, but not his lipstick? We just think she uses her head the same way he does. If it’s good for HER it’s good for America. If it advances her agenda, it must be the right direction to go…see? She uses her head the same way the President does. To hell with anyone else…they just don’t exist…and, if they do exist, they exist for her. In the olden days we’d say…she thinks she’s the center of the universe, everything revolves around HER. No humility or humanity…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2008 9:36 PM
Comment #262971

Addendum:

And, she’s not too bright…well, that’s the same as Cheney/Bush too…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2008 9:38 PM
Comment #262972

L.O. -

A recommendation - IGNORE the false charges that both sides make. While I see the great majority of the false charges do come from the Republicans, I do see some false charges by the Dems.

But I ignore the false charges, and I look for what is PROVABLE. What is the PROOF? Forget who you think you like, L.O., and find what is the PROOF of what one says! That, and compare what is said to what was said - and done - in the past.

McCain recently said that he NEVER flip-flopped on ANYthing, that no one could show him where he’d ever flip-flopped. Like torture, offshore drilling, whether he supports Bush, and global warming, perhaps?

And Palin flip-flopped on global warming, the Bridge to Nowhere, and earmarks. And then there was the fact that Wasilla was the only town in Alaska that charged rape victims for being issued a rape kit. And then there’s ‘Troopergate’…wherein every indication points to Palin using the power of her governorship to ruin her ex-brother-in-law’s career (remember what Bush did to the Valerie Plame and her husband?).

These, sir, are all facts as far as I’ve been able to find. When it comes to flip-flops, it’s not the fact that a politician has flip-flopped on something (because sometimes it’s good that one has the capacity to change his mind), but it’s on WHAT they flip-flopped on, and then claimed they did not flip-flop.

L.O. - again, ignore the false accusations on both sides and stick with the ISSUES: the economy, the war in Iraq, the energy policy (WHY was Cheney’s 40-odd meetings with oil execs and lobbyists kept secret?)…and whether the candidates have shown a pattern of honesty and good character…or not.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 13, 2008 9:59 PM
Comment #262973

Glenn, please don’t ask me “to ignore the false accusations on both sides” if you’re going to trot out a whole series of them. It doesn’t seem like YOU are ignoring them at all. In fact, you’re repeating them.

But I ignore the false charges, and I look for what is PROVABLE.

What an amazing statement—especially when it precedes this:

{R}emember what Bush did to the Valerie Plame and her husband?).

What is “provable” in that question? Didn’t we sit through several years of an investigation that never proved any such thing? You may have an opinion about it, but your opinion, sir, was never proved!

And then there’s ‘Troopergate’…wherein every indication points to Palin using the power of her governorship to ruin her ex-brother-in-law’s career.

This may be an issue that is revisited in the future, but as of now not one damn thing about it is “proved.” Her ex-brother in law, as I understand it, far from having his career ruined, is still in his job. And this is despite the fact that he’d done a number of things that might have “ruined” his own career, such as making death threats to the governor’s family and tazing a child.

We don’t know what will come of all that in the future, but please don’t call your own partisan opinions “all facts as far as I’ve been able to find.”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 13, 2008 10:24 PM
Comment #262975

LO,

I think there’s a difference between what bloggers or news outlets publish and the candidates themselves. The slime that’s being published about Obama is endorsed by McCain.

Frankly, I’m surprised you think the amount of slime being thrown Palin’s way is abnormal. I’m sure McCain realized that by picking an unknown candidate at the last minute he was counting on inviting this kind of firestorm. Honestly, I’ve seen a lot worse said about the Clintons, including that they committed murder. I don’t pay attention to crazies, but I do pay attention to the candidates and to the truth. The way McCain has been behaving is shameful.

Also, this isn’t a court of law. While Palin has not been “proven guilty” of banning books, we are allowed to use our common sense and question why she was asking a librarian about removing books from the library, and then firing that librarian a week later.

Finally, I think it’s strange that one would promote their highschool friends to high ranking positions in the government when they have no relevant experience. Maybe this is okay in your book, but definitely not in mine.

Posted by: Max at September 14, 2008 3:14 AM
Comment #262977

Anyone who supported Hillary and switches to Palin does so because he/she was paying attention to the wrong end of her anatomy. - Pianofan

That’s an interesting thing to say, because you just described about 1 in 4 Hillary Clinton supporters who have a positive view of Palin. White, middle class women (especially those with children) are defying the Oprah Oracle and deserting the Obama cult in droves. As a political junkie, I must say it is an amazing turnabout in modern political history. Palin has singlehandedly turned this race from an Obama romp into a tossup.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 14, 2008 3:20 AM
Comment #262978

LO posted “DEMOCRATS have prevented every single attempt to expand our oil-refining capacity.”
please tell me how many refinery applications have been submitted and denied in the past 30 years. If no facts to back up — I will have to think its a falsehood. — Savage

Posted by: A Savage at September 14, 2008 6:16 AM
Comment #262984

Speaking of liberals on Palin, how about those Republicans disowning their choice certainty of Bush and Cheney be the right people for the job? And we are to trust these people who voted for Bush and Cheney not once, but twice, in their selection of McCain and Palin?

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me thrice and we are both damned fools because you won’t ever get another chance to fool me again.

American moderates and independents aren’t, by a majority, going to be fooled three times by Republicans. It’s why they moved to the Center and Independent voter registration. They wised up. What the polls don’t show is the cell phone generation and how they are going to vote. That will be the November surprise to most Republicans.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 14, 2008 11:06 AM
Comment #262985

Didn’t we hear that in 2004? And are you serious in thinking that polling firms don’t take that into consideration.

Consider Rasmussen, who was the one who got 2004 right. He weighs his polling information to ensure that those are taken into account.

And right now he has McCain getting over 50% of the vote.

Will that be the same in November? Probably not, as I have always said, it will be a close race just like 2000 and 2004. But it always seems to amaze me that those who are winning in the polls will point to them to show how they are doing, but when they are losing in the polls, well the polls are just polls and they are just wrong!

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 14, 2008 11:19 AM
Comment #262986

Did you see the latest August report? ‘O’ has signed on half million donors (voters?) in the one month alone…they helped raise $63 million toward his campaign. Cell phone, internet, young, enthused, etc.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 14, 2008 11:20 AM
Comment #262987
And then there’s ‘Troopergate’…wherein every indication points to Palin using the power of her governorship to ruin her ex-brother-in-law’s career

You say you only deal with what is provable and then throw this line out?

I think you just invalidated your whole argument…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 14, 2008 11:21 AM
Comment #262988

As more information comes out about Palin the less appealing she becomes.

Here management style sounds too close to that of Bush/Cheney. Hire your friends who are not qualified for the position because they are loyal. “Great job Brownie” comes to mind. We need a qualified, competent people running the government, not friends and family. Haven’t we learned anything over the last 8 years?

She also seems to value secrecy above all else. Seems she uses personal email for state business because she believes it can not be subpoenaed.

I also find the the argument that she is some sort of energy expert to by ironic. Dick Cheney and Bush where also oil men and look at where their leadership and experience has lead us.

Posted by: DCC at September 14, 2008 12:16 PM
Comment #262989

And then there’s ‘Troopergate’…wherein every indication points to Palin using the power of her governorship to ruin her ex-brother-in-law’s career

You say you only deal with what is provable and then throw this line out?

I think you just invalidated your whole argument…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 14, 2008 11:21 AM

How is that invalidating? We haven’t seen a lick of coverage on television or from the McCain campaign explaining what went on and the details of the supposed scandal. From NBC, ABC, BBC, AP, CNN, even FOX, CBS, all either point to this topic and don’t give us anything but vague “there’s rumors of..”.

Don’t close that subject by denying like this woman is what the right calls Obama as a messiah, apparently this woman can do no wrong?

Either she answers concrete questions, without a script, to her face, same with Biden, Obama and McCain so, live, or they can all get the **** out and we’ll just do without federal government for a while.

As for me and my family and friends, we’re tired of seeing happy go-lucky crowds at rallies, when most of the people I see, or they see, are wallowing in the worst economic or social years of their lives?

Here’s a tip, try and connect this with this topic:

Social justice is what we need, the right to say that people who’ve never read Voltaire, or Jefferson, or Franklin, Dawkins are in the wrong about NOT being exposed to it. By all accounts, from speeches to interviews, the two Republican candidates are seriously pushing the ignorance factor even further, and while Obama I doubt would do anything significant to change that system, if a small change happens, all the better.

On the other hand, if you’re arguing about morality, and family values, then this quote probably serves that best:

If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum themselves. The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation. This often divisive struggle among the parts must be balanced by a clear and oft-repeated commitment to guarding the precious coherence of the whole. America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together, so our flag, our founding fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral importance that many liberals find hard to fathom.

Posted by: Jon at September 14, 2008 12:28 PM
Comment #262991

David

American moderates and independents aren’t, by a majority, going to be fooled three times by Republicans. It’s why they moved to the Center and Independent voter registration. They wised up.

I would like to think you are correct about the fool me analogy. I have voiced the same here recently. I am not so sure though that many have wised up. I have been weighing over the course of the last year the value of registering as an independent. At this point I am not sure there would be much value in doing so. I have been following the opinions and leanings of so called independents pretty closely during that time and am not sure they are really any different than duopoly voters where responsibility is concerned. It seems to me that the majority of them are closet republicans with definite conservative leanings. I think that perhaps the label of independent is more one of convenience as a means of avoiding the embarrassment and responsibility of supporting a party, liberal or repub, that has proven to be a failure. I obviously consider myself a dem. I have however in the past voted republican when I felt it was best to do so. I wonder how many ex rebub or dem indies have actually voted their conscience since making the switch. I am not voicing this piece in an effort to inflame or deride. This is merely what I am seeing at this point in time. Perhaps my view is too limited to get a clear picture. I do hope for the sake of this country that I am wrong and that indies will not show the same lack of insight they did with Bush.

Posted by: RickIL at September 14, 2008 12:52 PM
Comment #262992

Rhinehold,

Why? He says “there is every indication”, and there is. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence backing up the claim. Even the Senator overseeing the investigation has said that is will “likely be damaging to Palin.”


Anyway, you want facts?:

- Palin is a proponent of teaching creationism in schools.

- Palin fired the town librarian a week after asking her “what if” questions regarding banning books. She rehired her, because the town was in uproar.

- Palin did not kill the bridge to nowhere. Congress stopped earmarking the money for the bridge.

- Palin’s town of Wasilla only started requesting significant federal funds when she came to office. She hired a lobbyist and asked for hundreds of millions.

- Palin’s Alaska receives more earmark money per person than any other state. In Illinois it’s about $20. In Alaska, it’s around $500.

It goes on and on. I don’t know how you can defend these lies.

Posted by: Max at September 14, 2008 1:07 PM
Comment #262993
It goes on and on. I don’t know how you can defend these lies.

Um, if you’re going to give us a list of lies, shouldn’t you be the one defending them?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 14, 2008 1:27 PM
Comment #262994

You can’t blame the earmarks on Palin, she has no control over that. The only ones you can blame are the U.S. Senators and Congressmen from Alaska. Palin can only request. Now BHO and his earmarks is a totallty different story. The other things you are bringing up PROVE THEM. Here in the U.S. are innocent until proven guilty except when your not a liberal Democrat.

Posted by: KAP at September 14, 2008 2:26 PM
Comment #262995

A few thoughts;
Republicans decrying Obama, first “he’s completely unknown, he simply must be thoroughly VETTED”. Obama goes through months and months of B.S. harangue-ing over such weighty matters such as Jeremiah Wright or the Madrassa they wished he had gone to.When he comes through it substantially unscathed, they said, “Why, he’s just a CELEBRITY! nothing behind the talk”.

Now those same republicans are sweating bullets as their own new, decidedly un-vetted celebrity has to face tough questions. What’s that you say? Only one interview? Done in stages, so she could go back to her handlers, and ask for help? Should be fascinating to see her debate Biden soon. Live. In front of millions of Americans. The inescapable conclusion; a cynical choice, made on a strictly political basis.

Is anyone having second thoughts about all their posts on Watchblog demanding tough questions and scrutiny for Obama. How do you think she would handle a George Stephanopolous style badgering, live, with millions watching? Are you sweating yet? Well, you should be!

She doesn’t know WTF the Bush Doctrine is?!??!!
This woman is not qualified to TOUR the Whitehouse! My nine year old son knows that the largest single U.S. policy change in a long, long time.
PRE-EMPTIVE warfare based on the supposition that a foreign power may be planning, or is even capable of doing us harm, is all the justification that the greatest nation on earth needs to bomb and/or invade them. “IN what respect, Charlie?” Puahhhh ha ha ha ha!!!
It’s just too good to be true!

But wait, it gets even better! I swear! McCain tries to paint Obama as “elitist” My friends, the truth really IS stranger than fiction. Obama, see; HE’s the elitist; the guy who was raised by a single mom, who, at one time, relied on food stamps to keep him fed. And the guy calling him elitist? Son of a son of an admiral, tools around in his private jet, visiting whichever one of NINE homes (in three different time zones, no less) he likes.

Posted by: steve miller at September 14, 2008 2:32 PM
Comment #262996

I think that the owners of watchblog are some of the people who are happiest at the nomination of Palin. Over a thousand posts in a week on Palin topics. I wish people would post that much when we’re talking about issues rather than personalities. Palin’s nomination has apparently diverted a lot of people everywhere from discussion of the current and future debt, the economy, and those overseas wars and occupations. Maybe that was the point of it.

It makes me wonder exactly what the point was of nominating Biden. Was he the only person who would accept the VP spot with BHO? Do they all know what I think they know, that he’s unlikely to get elected? We already had this election 20 years ago, and Dukakis lost. JMcC is a better candidate than GHWB, the winner in that election. Democrats told Rpblcns that they should nominate JMcC, and they did it. Romney would have been better for a Democratic win.

That infamous Rovian Karl Rove was on this morning, claiming that there are only 7 states in play this year, WA, NV, CO, MI, OH, PA and VA. My guess would be that he’s low-balling the Rpblcns chances to keep himself employed, and claim responsibility for victory.

RickIL, our idiot governor is turning me Green. I guess you’re seeing the same ads for Roskum and Kirk. I don’t even care at this point if they win or lose. What has the USHOR done for us lately? We were better off with Hastert.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 14, 2008 2:43 PM
Comment #262999

L.O. -

See, that’s what happens when you refuse to listen to what goes against your personal beliefs.

I posted not one, not even one false accusation. You used ‘troopergate’ as an example of false accusations, but did you do the RESEARCH? DID you? How about reading this from CBS news?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/politics/washingtonpost/main4415043.shtml

You see, L.O., I want FACTS whether I like them or not. It does NOT matter to me whether I like them or not, because a FACT that goes against my belief…means my belief is wrong.

In my experience, however, most Republicans and conservatives, when presented a FACT that goes against their own beliefs, have a tendency to ignore the fact, tear down the source of the fact, hide the fact…just ask NASA and the CDC what happened when their research supported the prevailing understandings of global warming….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 14, 2008 3:27 PM
Comment #263000

The same goes with the Democrats when presented a fact,I’ve seen it time and time again on this blog. You give excuses for your side and hang the other and vice versa.

Posted by: KAP at September 14, 2008 3:38 PM
Comment #263015

Looks like Lehman Brothers is going under tomorrow. Merrill Lynch is being taken over by BofA. AIG is looking for a bridge loan from the Fed.

So, the dominos continue to fall, slowly and quite inexorably. The 2nd, 4th, and 5th largest investment banka are either down or about to go down. Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac are done.

Going into this slow motion meltdown, the Fedeal Reserve had @ $800 billion to work with. After tomorrow, they will be down to @ $375 billion.

A big bank failure will probably be the next blow, and if its WaMu or Wachovia, that will bust the FDIC. reserves, which the Federal Reserve will absolutely have to cover.

So! What all THAT means is the Fed will have to issue addiitonal treasuries, additional debt. The dollar will continue tanking. We’re running out of options, and our moves are being forced upon us by circumstances. In other words, the financial situation is ever-so-slowly slipping out of control.

McCain and Palin are cooked. They have no economic plan, other than a continuation of the catastrophic Bush econonomic policies, and the economy will be the main issue- the only issue- by November. Doesn’t matter what Obama and McCain want.

Maintaining the War on Terror will be financially impossible, as will the occupation of Iraq, and Afghanistan too.

Bush: Worse. President. Ever.

Posted by: phx8 at September 14, 2008 11:36 PM
Comment #263017

phx8,

So what you’re saying is that a war in Afghanistan has figured prominently in the financial meltdown of the two most powerful countries on the planet.

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 15, 2008 4:25 AM
Comment #263019

>So what you’re saying is that a war in Afghanistan has figured prominently in the financial meltdown of the two most powerful countries on the planet.

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 15, 2008 04:25 AM

Rocky,

I don’t think phx8 is saying that at all. Almost everyone believes Afghanistan was necessary…but, most of us also believe Cheney/Bush didn’t go there to get ben Ladin, which was acceptable, but to occupy, which is UNexceptable. Going there…okay…staying there…not okay…BIG difference.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 15, 2008 6:30 AM
Comment #263021

Lot’s of financial problems ongoing in the credit markets.
We need to hold on for awhile until Palin get’s into office. I’m confident once she appoints her high school graduating class to key positions the right team will be in place to solve this.

Posted by: Schwamp at September 15, 2008 10:08 AM
Comment #263022

In economic terms, the problem with Afghanistan and Iraq was spending on credit. Afghanistan was small compared with the sums spent on Iraq, but it is ironic that Afghanistan- a country with almost no infrastructre- played a role in the fall of both the USSR and the US.

That’s just a poliical take based on economics, not whether the wars were justified. Basically, we should never have gone to war without the willingness to for it.

Posted by: phx8 at September 15, 2008 11:08 AM
Comment #263024

Phx8, the only difference I’m aware of between Obama and Bush’s Afghanistan policy is that Obama wants to INCREASE our involvement in Afghanistan. In economic terms, I’m not sure shifting forces from Iraq to Afghanistan really changes anything.

As far as the banking crisis goes, of course Obama is going to try to exploit it for political gain, but he’d better be careful, considering how his campaign has received something like THREE times as much Wall Street cash as the McCain campaign.

If Obama actually has some specific, workable ideas about the banking situation that goes beyond what the Fed is already doing, then by all means, I for one will hear him out. But simply blaming it all on Republicans is not accurate, or probably, good politics for him, considering that he’s arguably more closely tied to the Wall Street status quo than McCain.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 15, 2008 12:21 PM
Comment #263026

Shhh, don’t tell anyone, but Katrina 2 is happening in Houston.

While the storm was not nearly as powerful as Katrina, there are about 5 million people affected by the storm. Power is slowly coming back on inland. DHS and the Republican Governor have already screwed up delivery of relief supplies, fortunately Dem Mayor Bill White and Rep County Judge Ed Emmett has expedited some of that.

DHS and the State are keeping the media out of some of the worst hit areas. Areas where bodies are likely floating and swelling up.

They’ve opened some relief sites, but 48 hours since the storm, they quickly ran out of supplies. Ice and Gas are very difficult to find, even 70 miles inland.
The coastal areas will likely be without power or water for a month or more.

The locals are acting fine, the DHS (FEMA) and State are still complete morons led by two of the biggest morons ever seen in politics.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 15, 2008 12:42 PM
Comment #263029

Loyal O,
Obama is making speeches pointing the finger at conservative philosophy as the source of the debt and the collapse of the credit markets: a lack of regulation, too much spending, unwise tax cuts, wars waged without the willingness to pay for them. Some fingers point at the repeal of Glass Steagal in 1998 and in particular at Phil Gramm. Others point at Greenspan, who maintained artifially low interest rates in order to prevent a recession from short circuiting the Bush Recovery, which played its part in the real estate price run-up. ‘The greatest story never told.’ The roots can arguably be traced back to the Reagan years. I’m sure there will be a lot of arguments about how it all happened. It’s complex, for sure, and like I said before, I don’t really think either Obama or McCain will be able to deliver on their economic platforms, because the scene will have changed too much, and not for the better…

The best article I have seen is one I previously linked, on “The Anglo Disease.” The WSJ won’t publish it, but I think that European article nails the cause about as well as anyone is likely to…

Posted by: phx8 at September 15, 2008 12:59 PM
Comment #263044

“I can see Russia from my house”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a2zykFatZY

Tina Fey is the queen of comedy. NBC already had the copywright cops on duty early today, so far only the ones with commentary and Fux’s logo are still up.

This forum is a lot like War Eagle Auburn(AIP, cow college, the barn) and Roll Tide Alabama(AIT, Union of Animals, the Tuskaloosa correctional facility off I20) fans arguing with eachother. In this election, we have Team Alaska vs Team Hawaii.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 15, 2008 5:16 PM
Comment #263049

Marysdude,

“I don’t think phx8 is saying that at all. Almost everyone believes Afghanistan was necessary”

My point was rather obtuse but phx8 got it none the less.
I think it is ironic that a third world country like Afghanstan is capable of draining the resources of three world powers.
Regardless of whether it was the right thing to do, or whether Obama wants to us stay, the British and the Soviets failed before us to exert their will on Afghanistan.
Why do we think it will be any different this time?

On a weirder note, apparently 2007 was the best year ever for opium poppies.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 15, 2008 6:14 PM
Comment #263100

How about because the people of Afghanistan actually want us there.

Posted by: Max at September 16, 2008 1:27 PM
Comment #263102

Max,
The minority groups formerly known as the Northern Alliance want the US in Afghanistan, not because they identify with any of our values or anything like that, but because they need the US to defeat the Pashtun tribes. The Pashtun are the majority, and they ruled Afghanistan for most of its existence. They are notoriously xenophobic, and most do not identify with US values either.

The last I heard, Kharzai cannot trust his own troops to protect him. He relies upon US troops for his personal security. It’s a puppet government with virtually no chance of succeeding. At some point, we’ll have to come to an understanding with the Pashtun, just like we did with the Iraqi Sunnis. We’ll stop calling them Taliban or terrorists, and refer to them as Awakening Councils or some such nonsense, and that will be that.

Posted by: phx8 at September 16, 2008 1:43 PM
Comment #263117

“Kudos to Governor Palin for standing up to dermatologists and other members of the sun scare industry who are trying to frighten Americans away from UV light.”

Just talk to Palin’s running mate about the benefits of UV radiation. Can you say “Melanoma?”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 16, 2008 4:14 PM
Comment #267542

Hi everyone, it is nearly election time in the US. So it’s time for you to send your message to American voters by posting a photo message in the hope of a better world.


Time is running out, and it might be the last chance for you to raise your voice.

Please do not hesitate to post your message or if you did so already, just send a message to your friends to view our page or site.

Take part in making OUR world better, take action now,

Give US a hope

GIVE USA HOPE!

www.giveusahope.com

Posted by: giveusahope at October 20, 2008 10:47 AM
Post a comment