Talk about a bad choice...

[Enigma]

Joe Biden, perennial loser of yore. First rate obnoxious whiner. Chosen merely to broaden ticket appeal to the liberal elitists. What a stroke of genius - NOT!

The ss obama just struck a reef folks, and she's taking on water. :D

[Mr_Cheeze]

So... are you saying this because you are an Obama supporter, and you wanted a different selection? Or are you a McCain supporter who was likely to make a negative comment regardless of Obama's choice? I'm just guessing the latter.

We'll see if you hold the same gusto when Biden sweeps the debate floor with Romney, should he be McCain's selection.

BTW, I'm saying this not as an Obama supporter. I won't be voting for him, but I do think Biden is the best choice. Although I may not agree with his politics, he has the experience Obama lacks, and the intelligence and media savvy that the ticket needs. And it will reenergize the Democratic base. Obama made the right choice.

So the question remains, will Romney be McCain's best choice? I know of a large segment of southern and evangelical Christians who think otherwise.

[Slider]

Lessee....years of experience, versed in foreign and domestic policy, and one of the strongest critics of the most disastrous foreign policy we've seen in generations.

Seems pretty clear why Enigma would be dismayed.

Slider

[MTBME]

Biden has a bad habit of open mouth, wider, wider, now insert both feet. He's sure to add some distractions along the way with his legendary gaffs. And why release this on a weekend when you typically want to get a story burried? But we'll see. Right now polls show him pulling even with McCain. Are you kidding me. Can you say buyers remorse. As far as re-energizing the base? Not so sure about that one. It might have taken Hillary to get that done. We'll see how Hillary supporters fall in line this week. If the Republicans had a half way decent candidate, the race would be over right now.

[Mr_Cheeze]

He didn't release it on purpose. The pick was leaked and picked up by the main stream media.

Again, is there any candidate Obama could have picked which would not be subject to the same criticisms that you and others have put forth? The answer is no. I'll bet that you'll have plenty good to say about whomever McCain chooses, though. Funny how that works.

[Slider]

Biden makes a great attack dog, and we haven't seen enough of that lately from the Dems. They lost ground when McCain brought back the Bush gang to get is own campaign out of the doldrums, and the negative stuff started to play more of a role. Obama has a loaded weapon ready for the next round now.

Slider

[MTBME]

He didn't release it on purpose. The pick was leaked and picked up by the main stream media.

Again, is there any candidate Obama could have picked which would not be subject to the same criticisms that you and others have put forth? The answer is no. I'll bet that you'll have plenty good to say about whomever McCain chooses, though. Funny how that works.

The weekend release was planned all along. And don't assume you know how I'll feel about McCains pick. I don't like McCain so whoever he picks won't do much to sway my opinion. Funny how that works.

[Enigma]

1. I stand on my opening salvo.

2. MTBME is right about the "leak" ploy. I've written my name in the snow with better leaks.

3. Before either of you two talking heads (yes you cheeeese & sli-duh)get too fired up about attacking what you insist is my choice (without a hint of a clue as to how I vote or why, or anything else for that matter), you should read what your "mainstream media" has to say about the Biden family tree. Now there's a couple of apples that didn't fall far from the tree. The Bidens ply that greed real well.

4. Sen. Biden isn't even the best of the worst of the so called "attack dogs" that your ninny could have picked.

5. This one's going to be another yawner.

E

[Mr_Cheeze]

The weekend release was planned all along. And don't assume you know how I'll feel about McCains pick. I don't like McCain so whoever he picks won't do much to sway my opinion. Funny how that works.

Well it's hard to think otherwise, what with everyone but Slider and me having an Obama bash party coupled with a stick up for the Republicans and FOX News fest.

But honestly, is there any person that Obama could have chosen that wouldn't have you lashing out the criticism. Certainly, there were worst choices to be had. Hillary for one. Any state governor who lacks foreign policy experience, for two.

Biden was the best choice, hands down. I expect the right and FOX News to have a field day, regardless. Hell, they have 30 years worth of Biden to dredge up. But he's a good pick for Obama. Maybe great. We'll have to see how McCain counters. IMO, Romney does not help him at all. In fact, it will hurt him with the religious base.

[kernel crash]

what with everyone but Slider and me having an Obama bash party coupled with a stick up for the Republicans and FOX News fest.

And you've never been critical of Obama in these threads? Obama is an empty suit with a paper thin resume. He's got no paper trail of producing any of the results that he's proposing. See anything wrong with that? Take away the teleprompter and he's got nuthin.

[Slider]

Experience means ****. You could argue that Bush/Cheney brought experience, and look what it got us. Johnson had tons, and dragged us into a terrible no-win war. Nixon, well, 'nuff said. Reagan had none, but Iran/Contra didn't destroy the economy, like Iraq has done.

What matters is a level-headed approach to managing the country. McCain's war support alone disqualfies him, and the rest of his Bush-backing just makes it worse.

What we need is a new approach, exactly what we get with Obama. He is smart - no 'I don't understand economics' from him, as from McCain. No pointless saber-rattling, as from McCain. No chance of further trashing of the constitution, like we'd get from McCain.

Good enough for me.

Slider

[catbbq]

Experience means ****. You could argue that Bush/Cheney brought experience, and look what it got us. Johnson had tons, and dragged us into a terrible no-win war. Nixon, well, 'nuff said. Reagan had none, but Iran/Contra didn't destroy the economy, like Iraq has done.

What matters is a level-headed approach to managing the country. McCain's war support alone disqualfies him, and the rest of his Bush-backing just makes it worse.

What we need is a new approach, exactly what we get with Obama. He is smart - no 'I don't understand economics' from him, as from McCain. No pointless saber-rattling, as from McCain. No chance of further trashing of the constitution, like we'd get from McCain.

Good enough for me.

Slider

Why do you say McCain would further trash the constitution? Please, some actuals and not just "he's Bush III".

[Slider]

Take the laudable stance McCain took on torture, getting an amendment to the defense appropriations bill. Bush signed the bill, then played his 'get outta jail free' card, adding a "signing statement." McCain, man of principles, called him on it and objected strongly, right? Not exactly.

Despite saying he'd "be one of the first to support going to the United States Supreme Court" if Bush tried to undermine the authority of the amendment, but did absolutely nothing despite the middle finger that Bush clearly raised.

Bush and his signing statements are a tremendous threat to the constitution, the balance of power built into our government, and to democracy as a result. McCain says "he'll never issue one" yet he went spineless in a clear opportunity to oppose them.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

And you've never been critical of Obama in these threads? Obama is an empty suit with a paper thin resume. He's got no paper trail of producing any of the results that he's proposing. See anything wrong with that? Take away the teleprompter and he's got nuthin.

Not that I haven't specifically been critical of Obama. I have clearly stated my intention to not vote for either Obama or McCain. That said, I've not gone out of my way to hop on the Bash Obama Bandwagon other then in general terms that apply to Democrats and why I don't like any of them. If not for Slider, however, these threads have generally been heavily imbalanced against one side. I am simply stating that fact. And nobody has of yet bothered to deny that it matters not who Obama chose as a running mate. The negativity would have flown regardless.

As for Obama, he never impressed me. Joe Biden, however, as much as any Democrat can, has impressed me at times. IMO, there isn't a smarter Democratic Senator in Congress, and that includes Billary. Aside from his "gaffs" which are going to be played ad nauseum, he fills out Obamas ticket better than any other possible choice. You can criticize Obama all you want. Hell criticize Biden, too. I don't care. But tell me who you think would have been a better choice if you disagree with my sentiment that Obama's pick would have been ripped apart, even if it was the Democratic incarnation of Mother Theresa.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Why do you say McCain would further trash the constitution? Please, some actuals and not just "he's Bush III".

McCain-Feingold bill. The left loved it. The right... not so much.
The Patriot Act. Enough said.
The McCain-Kennedy Immigration bill. Enough said.

[kernel crash]

Bush and his signing statements are a tremendous threat to the constitution, the balance of power built into our government, and to democracy as a result. Slider

There he goes again.

A: A “Signing Statement” is a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation. Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs. The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to “faithfully execute” the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).

Q: Is George W. Bush the first President to issue signing statements?

A: NO. Several sources trace “signing statements” back to James Monroe. Interesting early statements that include discussions about presidential doubt about legislation and the issue of how the president should proceed are found from Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Ulysses Grant. A brief overview can be found in the ABA Task Force cited below.

Monroe’s messages did not look like what are today considered “signing statement.” Rather he informed Congress in a message January 17, 1822, that he had resolved what he saw as a confusion in the law in a way that the thought was consistent with his constitutional authority. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=66281

Q: Is it true that George W. Bush has issued many more signing statements than any other president?

A: No, Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements. The controversy is about the kind of signing statements Bush has issued.



http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php#q2

[Slider]

You cite the problem yourself: "The controversy is about the kind of signing statements Bush has issued." Pointing out that a particular law appears unconstitutional is something that has been done in the past. Using signing statements to ignore clear directives from the Legislative branch is another matter entirely. Try "checks and balances" on your next Google expedition.

Torture is a perfect example. It is specifically outlawed here, and the US has signed many, many pacts agreeing to ban it. Bush claims the right, as Commander in Chief, to ignore those and any other restrictions. Pure fantasy, and a direct threat to our form of government.

McCain tried to help out on the torture thing, but caved when the time came to stand up for one of the most fundamental aspects of our form of government. Whether he was misguidedly trying to protect presidential authority, or simply didn't have the balls to stand up to a budding fascist, he showed either a serious lack of judgement or of character.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

Before Slider drags us too far afield with his "Republicans are scum" hissing...


What matters is a level-headed approach to managing the country. Slider

100% correct! Which is why none of the current assembly of senators is even remotely qualified to take on the responsibility. You can't go from being the biggest part of the problem to the role of managing the problem. That is why very few senators even get the chance, and even fewer (maybe one), succeed.



What we need is a new approach, exactly what we get with Obama. He is smart....Slider

Duh, no, YOU are stupid for believing his "chicken in every pot" campaign promise is going to cause anything but higher taxes on the middle class.

No matter who wins, we lose. This election will prove I am right and you knee jerk, dyed in the polyester, democrat hugging ninnies are oh so wrong.

U

[Slider]

Wow, can't even get a sentence out without making it personal. Where have we seen that before?"

But I see no point other than "no one is good enough, all candates suck", which isn't really a point, more of a whine, like a two year old saying "I don't WANNA".

You are saying Obama isn't smart? So how many stupid people you know with degrees from Columbia and Harvard? Of the two major candidates, who do you prefer and why?

The tax burden on the middle class has exploded over the last eight years. Spouting nonsense doesn't make any point at all. Name calling just makes you seem childish.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

Obviously I gave you too much credit. Because you either failed to recognize, or (like those polyticians you adore) you chose to ignore my point and argue another

Do you really think no one will check to see how grossly you misrepresented my previous post?

I never said obama wasn't smart.

I said you were stupid to swallow his "Chicken in every pot" line (you probably have no idea where that came from either)

Your last post merely proves that observation.

[Slider]

Since I never said anything about chicken in every pot, you're fabricating. My point was that a fresh look, and intelligence, are what we need.

If you have a point, make it.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

You just did, and so much more clearly than I.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Since I never said anything about chicken in every pot, you're fabricating. My point was that a fresh look, and intelligence, are what we need.

If you have a point, make it.

Slider

Hmm... I don't see how Obama is necessarily a "fresh" look at all. I have severe doubts that he has the fortitude to pull out of Iraq, and if so, without us having to foot the bill for any consequences. All of that remains to be seen.

And how is raising taxes, which he has already stated he would do, in any way, a fresh approach to government? It's an overly simple solution to a complex problem, one in which a government that is way too big for its britches is the main culprit. None of these people on either side have the guts to scale back the budget the way it needs to be. We need less government, not more. Less government means less tax burden on the precious "working families", a term that I friggin' hate. As if an engineer making $250,000 is not "working" hard for their keep.

These socialists have no fresh ideas.

[kernel crash]

Is this a good idea? People are already getting suspicious about these elaborate staged events that attempt to make their candidate bigger than life. Might this make him seem out of touch? I mean the European feel good tour didn't do much to improve his ratings. I wonder who's advising this guy. If elected I hope he shows more common sense than this.

DENVER (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple. Some 80,000 supporters will see Obama appear from between plywood columns painted off-white, reminiscent of Washington's Capitol building or even the White House, to accept the party's nomination for president.

[Slider]

Hmm... I don't see how Obama is necessarily a "fresh" look at all. I have severe doubts that he has the fortitude to pull out of Iraq, and if so, without us having to foot the bill for any consequences. All of that remains to be seen.

And how is raising taxes, which he has already stated he would do, in any way, a fresh approach to government? It's an overly simple solution to a complex problem, one in which a government that is way too big for its britches is the main culprit. None of these people on either side have the guts to scale back the budget the way it needs to be. We need less government, not more. Less government means less tax burden on the precious "working families", a term that I friggin' hate. As if an engineer making $250,000 is not "working" hard for their keep.

These socialists have no fresh ideas.

We have a record deficit, thanks to, well, you know. We need to rein in the tax cuts that took the weight of the wealthy and place it back where it belongs. I see no alternative to a tax-raise, since the debt-service alone amounts to far more of a drag on the economy than the taxes needed to rein it in will be.

We are up the creek, thanks to Bush. The Fed can't pump in any more money due to inflation. Business tax contributions are in the toilet due to the recession. There is no alternative to belt tightening, some on the expenditure side for sure, but some has to come from the revenue side, too.

The $trillion or so annually that ending the war would represent would do nicely from the expenditure side. Obama won't miss that.

Slider

[Enigma]

for the economy and the middle class if B.O. gets elected. The visual is clearly designed to convince the 'unwashed masses' that he's their guy.

He77, he's already got slider fooled, the rest, as they say is a cake walk......

We're doomed

[Slider]

Where do you think the Bush tax cuts went? Hint, not to the middle class, despite the token handouts. McCain is more of the same.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

We have a record deficit, thanks to, well, you know. We need to rein in the tax cuts that took the weight of the wealthy and place it back where it belongs. I see no alternative to a tax-raise, since the debt-service alone amounts to far more of a drag on the economy than the taxes needed to rein it in will be.

We are up the creek, thanks to Bush. The Fed can't pump in any more money due to inflation. Business tax contributions are in the toilet due to the recession. There is no alternative to belt tightening, some on the expenditure side for sure, but some has to come from the revenue side, too.

The $trillion or so annually that ending the war would represent would do nicely from the expenditure side. Obama won't miss that.

Slider

Universal healthcare does not equal belt tightening. Neither does expanded education spending. Tell me that Obama with a Democratic Congress won't increase spending on both counts.

Belt tightening. Democrats??
:har:

[Slider]

Ummmm....who we using for comparison, Bush and Clinton, maybe? Check the numbers.

Can't spend much more than we have over the last eight years.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Ummmm....who we using for comparison, Bush and Clinton, maybe? Check the numbers.

Can't spend much more than we have over the last eight years.

Slider

Its like comparing apples to oranges. Bush wasn't sitting in the White House during the dot com boom and Clinton didn't have to deal with a post 9/11 world. But I'm not defending the millions pissed away to defense contractors with no accountability. That's some serious money there.

Also Slider I never hear any critical concerns you may have concerning Obama. Do you have anything negative to say about him? What about the thinking behind this event tonight in Denver. Do you find this stage setup a little over the top or would he have to be a Republican to warrant such criticism?

[Slider]

Primaries are all marketing now, nothing more. There was a time when you really didn't know who the candidates would be, or the platform. All long gone.

The first fully scripted one was Nixon's first, and it was all downhill from there. That is the ballgame you gotta play; there's no going back. Kinda like negative campaigning. Once it's outta the bottle, you can't stuff it back in. See Nixon for dirty tricks, too, at least the modern incarnation. Politics has been pretty slimy for a long time.

You'll see the same prepackaged crap from the Republicans, too. I don't watch either one.

Obama negatives - sure. Most glaring, support of the FISA bill inlcuding immunity for the telcomms. I am hoping it was a campaign move and doesn't really reflect a lack of respect for the constitution.

Slider

Since I haven't tuned in, literally, for even a minute of the convention, I hadn't seen that stage before. My interpretation is that it's obvious throwback to classical times is a reference to the roots of our own democracy, and a need to return to them.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Kind of begs the question... who IS watching that shite? I picture a bunch of Irish lawyers in a bar wearing their Obama pins, hushing each other because Senator Biden is about to speak.

Oh yea, the Republican will be doing it too, except they'll be sitting in the wine and tapas bar, smoking stogies, awaiting the scintillating speech of the current standard bearer and Commander in Chief.

[BG]

I really don't give a crap waht the stage looks like...just so long as they don't join in a chorus of "Aquarius" from Hair, That would just make me f##cking puke.

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius!
Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revalation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius!
Aquarius!

[W4LRU5]

Brrraaaaaaaaaahhp!!!

Turn in yer pea shooter :D

[Mr_Cheeze]

McCain picks Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

I have to say, an intriguing choice on many levels. Still not enough to win over this disaffected independent, but I can see what McCain is going for here. It's Romney without the Mormonism and a woman for all of the bitter, superficial Hillary supporters.
And not hard on the eyes. Not at all.

Let's face it. America is, by and large, very shallow when it comes to reasons for voting one way or the other. I'm not sure I like Obama's chances unless he wipes the floor with McCain in the debates. I don't see that happening, either.

Slider won't admit he's worried, but I have to believe that he is.

[Slider]

Good choice, since lots of the Hillary-backers were one-issue types, and remain very angry. Romney would have been a disaster.

Worried? Just about the economy and the constitution. Hell, with no kids and maybe 35 years left, my life won't be too bad no matter what.

Slider

[catbbq]

It's Romney without the Mormonism and a woman for all of the bitter, superficial Hillary supporters.
And not hard on the eyes. Not at all.



And Hillary without the penis.

[roost]

Sarah Palin .....a great looking woman who can handle a machine gun!! Whats not to love about that!! did you see the video of her firing off an m-16!! Maybe it was an ar-15 .... who cares... Can't tell me that girl ain't ready for washington!!

[kernel crash]

Talk about thinking outside the box. Could be risky because of the experience factor but if your looking for change... She's got more executive experience than Obama for Christ sake. Not hard on the eyes either. This just got very interesting.

[Yeti_Ken]

Personally, I think it was a worse choice for McCain than Obama's pick of Biden...which if you look back, was the premise for this thread. I think anyone out there thinking that Palin will help get the undecided female vote is mistaken. I believe women are smarter than that and will recognize this premise and be offended.

Let's face it, McCain made a bad choice. I was watching CNN last night and was amazed at a GOP supporter claiming she has more experience than Obama does and would be a better leader in the White House (after McCain kicks-it of course). Huh? Essentially, the guy was saying that being a governor gave her more experience than being a Senator because it was an "Executive" position (i.e. like a President). That's funny. I guess he forgot how many people live in IL vs AK, and that a law degree from Harvard most likely trumps a communications degree (or whatever) from Idaho(or whereever).

Just my thoughts. feel free to respond, but don't try to "debate". I am a bad debaterator :rolleyes: and only make myself look stupid like Bush.

K

[Slider]

If McCain is after the estranged Dem females, it's a steep climb to get past her pro-life slant. Choice is probably the most common issue after 'nominate Hillary' that group has.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I think you and Yeti underestimate the shallowness factor of many, if not most, voters. I've already read of a couple of accounts of women who were previously undecided but have now sworn allegiance to McCain based on Palin. It's pretty sad, yet, but an unfortunate reality of the voting majority. Most people don't go beyond one or two issues. Many of those "issues" are nothing more than who seems to be nicer or more handsome or speaks better. Or that Palin is for offshore drilling and that means (wrongly) lower gas prices. The personality cult of Obama is a great example of the phenomenon. People get easily bored and frustrated with politics. Thinking is too difficult for many. And we get stuck with a President like Bush as a result.

Palen, it seems, is quite the conservative. Apparently she supports the teaching of creationism in science classes. God damned evangelicals are unbelievable.

Yea, pun intended.

[Slider]

I don't see the women who would not have voted Republican changing sides over Palin/Clinton issues. Once they get a good look, the bump will smooth out.

Either way, I think the war and the economy will drive the vote. I'll be interested to see the viewer stats for the GOP later this week. I'd be real surprised if it comes close to the Dems. If it does, that's the women's vote. If not, then it was all smoke.

Slider

[Slider]

A little more background on the GOP veep:

Pushes creationism in the classroom. Denies global warming. Strong anti-abortionist.

There is now way she'll draw any of Clinton's liberal backers. Any creationist in a position of power, especially a heartbeat from an aging McCain, is scary. Might help with the far right, but that won't be enough.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Yea, the pro-Huckabee crowd is going to go gaga for Palin. She's not a Mormon, and she believes in the bible hoodoo. I have to believe, now, that Huckabee was probably McCain second choice, after Romney, but both preferred to wait until 2012 for another shot at the big seat.

[hogboy]

Talk about a bad choice indeed. ZOMG! Her 17 year old daughter is pregnant. Now.

what kind of family values is that ?

McCain 100% without a doubt will lose. He is a crappy choice anyway, and he is showing just how incompetent he is by surrounding himself with jackasses and fools.

I lean towards republicans, but not this time. We need a shakeup in govt. and lets have the dems run things for at least 4 years. It has to be better. at least different anyway.

[W4LRU5]

Yeah, Lets see how quickly the next two (any two, stripes don't matter) from the "Spends Money Like Drunken Sailors Club" can bring the U.S. economy to it's knees.

Electing legislators (especially from the majority party) to lead the Executive branch is a bad idea - kinda like asking the fox to watch the hen house.

[kernel crash]

I don't think anybody knows how this will turn out. The election will be decided after October the 15th. Who will slip up in the debates? What are the Russians up to? What surprises are yet to be revealed? McCain was always a long shot with the media fawning all over Obama. He had to do something bold and out of the box. Obama the candidate of change played it safe with Biden. Obama is already sounding like a different candidate then the one we saw during the primaries. Anybody paying attention? Anybody care? So the choice is do you want experience at the top of the ticket or at the VP slot. I don't like any of them but I do have some sympathy for Palin because of what she will be put through. Who knows. The bar is so low that if she beats expectations, she may slip one past the goalie.

[hogboy]

for me I don't really care. give me more junk miles on my bike that is all I want.


repeat until dead
...maybe 'ride my bike and roost a fair bit too' added in there for effect :D

[Mr_Cheeze]

I don't think anybody knows how this will turn out. The election will be decided after October the 15th. Who will slip up in the debates? What are the Russians up to? What surprises are yet to be revealed? McCain was always a long shot with the media fawning all over Obama. He had to do something bold and out of the box. Obama the candidate of change played it safe with Biden. Obama is already sounding like a different candidate then the one we saw during the primaries. Anybody paying attention? Anybody care? So the choice is do you want experience at the top of the ticket or at the VP slot. I don't like any of them but I do have some sympathy for Palin because of what she will be put through. Who knows. The bar is so low that if she beats expectations, she may slip one past the goalie.

I don't know if she makes it. McCain is getting it from his own party, those who aren't so starkly set to the far right are questioning his VP pick. Frankly, the more I read, the more I too wonder about his judgment. Apparently the vetting process was pretty much skimmed over. Was this a spontaneous gamble, or was he forced into it by somebody else dropping out? I mean, she is scary conservative. It seems obvious, based on polling, that if he thought this would garner disaffected Hillary women voters, he was way, way wrong. I'm hearing more of women feeling insulted by the implication.

Why did McCain feel it necessary to pander to the far right, anyway? They weren't going to vote for Obama no matter what. He can't be afraid of Bob Barr being a spoiler, can he? Or Ron Paul's "Campaign for Liberty", which seems to completely undermine the Republican agenda?

Something gave. I'm just not sure what. All I do know is that I think McCain may have written his own losing ticket, unless Palin somehow blows people away when she finally stand on a podium across from Joe Biden. That seems highly improbable.

This is a great video of a CNN anchor scouring a Palin aide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qCL3G4DZSc

I agree with kernel. I'm starting to feel bad for this woman. She may be in way over her head.What was McCain thinking?!?

[kernel crash]

I think we need to know how tough she really is and we should be finding out real soon. If she can remain standing after getting this kind of punishment and give some back, I think she’ll be all right. The feeding frenzy from the mainstream media is at an all time low. Did you know her husband was arrested for DUI… about 22 years ago!!! Where’s the media scrutiny of Obamas connection to that radical Ayers that he has such high regard for. Ya Ya Ya there was some stuff thrown out there but not the red meat feeding frenzy were seeing now. Barney Frank says its OK to go after the daughter because it reflects back on the mother or something like that. Barney Frank, that gay pimp. What are the chances that we see a backlash across the country for the way the press is absolutely trashing this woman. A woman who has done quite well for herself without the assistance of the Washington establishment. And is this what some of them are really afraid of? Can you imagine if an ordinary citizen like say you or me, were able to rise to the challenge and be able to compete on the big stage. Well that’s not the way its done around here is it.

http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

[Mr_Cheeze]

You seem like you like her. Haven't you had enough Evangelical foolishness in our supposedly secular government?

[kernel crash]

You seem like you like her. Haven't you had enough Evangelical foolishness in our supposedly secular government?

Sure. True enough. I don't have to share all her beliefs and they won't all trickle down and affect my life. I do like the fact that she is a self made woman in what is still a man's world. The exact opposite of Hillary.

[Slider]

Seems to me that she's getting from the press the kind of vetting that McCain neglected. She does have a pregnant, unmarried daughter. God knows we heard heaps about Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins in past elections. What is different in this one? All time low - not close. See any Rove-led effort for the real slime.

But the daughter thing had its moment. Thee are lots more significant things that McCain seems to have missed, with her address to the Independence Party's convention at the top. I mean, this is secession. How does that fit ANYONE'S idea of a patriot?

And she's some sort of earmark-fighter? Um, no. See the bridge to nowhere, and the charge she led to close the deal. The firing thing - kinda muddy. Ought to get clearer as the prosecution advances.

What this all really says is that McCain is far to impulsive for the presidency. He barely looked at this neophyte and tapped her anyway. Scary.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Sure. True enough. I don't have to share all her beliefs and they won't all trickle down and affect my life. I do like the fact that she is a self made woman in what is still a man's world. The exact opposite of Hillary.

How is that the opposite of Hillary? Who do you think "made" her?

Look, I'm no defender if Mrs. Clinton, but she can hardly be called the opposite of self made. You could almost say that she comes closest to epitomizing the feminist movement in main stream politics.

As for the Evangelicals and Palin, I think that they are dangerous. I'm not just talking about a simple belief in Adam and Eve, here. These people believe in the Rapture and the return of the Messiah and welcome WWIII as a means to that end. I kind of think that wars trickle down on everybody.

[Slappy]

Well, now both parties have once again lost my vote. Bible thumpers vs socialists, oh joy.

Looks like another year of voting against the 2 party system.

:(

[kernel crash]

How is that the opposite of Hillary? Who do you think "made" her?

Why Bill of course. She's been riding his coat tails since Arkansaw. You think the Rose Law Firm would have hired her if she wasn't married to the guvner. As far as that other stuff, I went to catholic schools from 1st to 8th grade and look how welll balanced I turned out.

[kernel crash]

"She does have a pregnant, unmarried daughter."
Maybe McCain though the press would leave the kids out of it. Go figure.

"Thee are lots more significant things that McCain seems to have missed"
Like her husbands DUI 24 years ago?

"with her address to the Independence Party's convention at the top"
And do we know what exactly what she said at that convention?

"See the bridge to nowhere, and the charge she led to close the deal."
She was for it before she was against it. Hey you gave John Kerry a pass for the same thing.

"What this all really says is that McCain is far to impulsive for the presidency."
Maybe he was feeling the pressure of going against Obama, the DNC and the main stream media.

"He barely looked at this neophyte and tapped her anyway."
Tapped Her!!! Where are the photos.

Slider[/QUOTE]

[Mr_Cheeze]

Well, now both parties have once again lost my vote. Bible thumpers vs socialists, oh joy.

Looks like another year of voting against the 2 party system.

:(

I'm with you, brother. I'm resorting to a write-in unless one of these other 3rd party people sparks my interest. Normally I would default to the Libertarian party, but they sold out big time with Bob Barr, who is neither a Libertarian nor a departure from typical big government politics.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Tapped Her!!! Where are the photos.



:eek:

Evoking images of a scene in Office Space, the "Lumberg f**ked her" dream sequence... except with McCain. "Yea... I'm gonna need you to get me those RNC reports, m-kay?"

[Slider]

"She does have a pregnant, unmarried daughter."
Maybe McCain though the press would leave the kids out of it. Go figure.

Meaning it is a fact, not something manufactured like, say, Swiftboating. And I don't see anyone clobbering her for it, certainly not the mainstream media. Just mentioning it, like they would about any other family member of any other candidate.


Thee are lots more significant things that McCain seems to have missed
Like her husbands DUI 24 years ago?

And any other DUI of any other candidate's relative. Your point is that she's being treated differently, or so it seems, and all candidates are equally vetted in the media.


"with her address to the Independence Party's convention at the top"
And do we know what exactly what she said at that convention?

Yeah, she said "STOP IT NOW CHILDREN, this is the USofA dammit. Can't we all just get along?"


"See the bridge to nowhere, and the charge she led to close the deal."
She was for it before she was against it. Hey you gave John Kerry a pass for the same thing.

She clearly isn't againt earmarks, which is a specific point that McCain made. Hailed as a cost-cutter by McCain, she actually hired lobbyists to get funding for her town of 9,000 from DC. Now, I have no problem with that. It's part of the gig. But I didn't paint the opposing picture that McCain did. Either he didn't realize that she didn't fit the picture, or lied about it. Take your pick.


"What this all really says is that McCain is far to impulsive for the presidency."
Maybe he was feeling the pressure of going against Obama, the DNC and the main stream media.

He ought to feel the pressure from the opposition, but the mainstream media isn't any different for him than for any other candidate.


"He barely looked at this neophyte and tapped her anyway."
Tapped Her!!! Where are the photos.

Wait long enough. The mainstream media ought to come up with something soon.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

...Barney Frank, that gay pimp. What are the chances...

Here here!!! Don't pick on Barney Frank because he's a gay pimp!!!

Pick on him because he's an obnoxious, loudmouthed, oafish a$$hole.

[Unbreakable]

Amen!!! She's a lawyer turned career politician of the worst kind - with the attitude that she knows better than all the rest of us how we should live our lives distribute our "wealth" etc...

Well, that $hit don't flush with me!!!

[Unbreakable]

Hey if Slider wrote it you know he read the 'truth' in some liberal rag somewhere.

[Unbreakable]

Meaning it is a fact, not something manufactured like, say, Swiftboating. And I don't see anyone clobbering her for it, certainly not the mainstream media. Just mentioning it, like they would about any other family member of any other candidate.

So what did the press say about Palin's other children? They don't even give the others a mention because the Press is all about selling copy.


And any other DUI of any other candidate's relative. Your point is that she's being treated differently, or so it seems, and all candidates are equally vetted in the media.

Not true. Gore was made to look like an idiot by the press during his campaign. What about Ted? He ditched his car and left a woman to suffocate, but mommy got him off with a little $$$. You do recall he ran for president. But wait, that was before your watch so it doesn't count.

[Slider]

Lessee - you're saying Gore got trashed in the press, and seem to know lots of details about Kennedy, but they weren't covered as thoroughly? Makes about as much sense as any of your other posts.

Slider

[kernel crash]

The liberal blogs were all lit up yesterday about what are the odds that McCain dumps Palin in the next few days. They were citing betting parlors in Ireland. They were so sure that she was a goner. I wonder what there thinking today?

[Slider]

I bet they are thinking she's just as unqualified as she ever was, more poorly vetted than any other choice, and an absolute neanderthal on ALL the issues. We'll see if there's another shoe to drop.

Meanwhile, for laughs, the Daily Show. My bud, Karl Rove, leads off in the clips and Bill O'Reilly follows, each trying to outdo the other in duplicity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1lCMH8rlHE

Slider

[kernel crash]

and an absolute neanderthal on ALL the issues. We'll see if there's another shoe to drop.
Slider

I'm sure there will be more shoes and high heels dropping in the weeks to come. By the way, if you think she is a bit to extreme how would you describe Obamas support of killing babies that survive the abortion process. Were talking about viable babies that have cheated death only to be put down like diseased dogs. Obama voted for that but he doesn't like to talk about it much. My point is we have extremism on both sides. I can admit it. Can you?

[Slider]

Well, you'd have to be specific. What bill, what vote?

Slider

[kernel crash]

Well, you'd have to be specific. What bill, what vote?

Slider

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted. BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery. The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.


Senate Bill 1082
3/12/2003

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA (Born Alive Infants Protection Act), with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

The bill that Chairman Obama killed, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law; the only remaining differences were on minor points of bill-drafting style.To see the official "Senate Committee Action Report" on this meeting, see

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaKills2003amendedBAIPA.htm

In this report, the left-hand column shows the roll call vote on adoption of "Senate Amendment No. 1," which was verbatim the neutrality clause copied from the federal bill. The right hand column shows the roll call by which Obama and his Democratic colleagues then killed the amended bill - the bill that was virtually identical to the federal law that Obama, starting in 2004, claimed he would have supported if he'd had the opportunity.

[Slider]

As usual, there is a far bigger picture than NRLC paints. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act as proposed in IL was an attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade on many other points than partial birth. It was a battle in the broader attempt to ban all abortion since it did not distinguish between a fetus in utero and one post birth.

The IL bill was not the same as the one that reashed the US Senate before Obama was elected there. He's said he would have supported the federal bill if he'd had a chance to vote on it, due to the the distinction that was lacking in the IL version.

Slider

[kernel crash]

That's pure bullsh!t. Now your choking on the kool aid. The provision was put in to make it the same as the governments bill. Google it. It's not hard to find. Typical Obama two step dance.

[Slider]

I read the IL bill that Obama opposed. Did you?

It covered any fetus "born alive". Even a week old fetus has a beating heart. This takes all judgement away from the woman's' own physician, and the woman herself. Exactly what NRLC wants, but it is against all other abortion law.

Slider

Here's the IL bill:


LRB093 10540 MKM 10794 b

1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding
5 Section 1.36 as follows:

6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person",
11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Yea, but how do they all feel about a real issue like...
http://www.stopbirdporn.org/

These interesting folks were at both conventions. And I think I agree with them.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Good info on Sarah Palin. Snopes won't let me cut and paste this so the link will have to suffice.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp

[Slider]

I heard Kilkenny interviewed on PBS. She says she wrote the letter after being asked by many friends for the inside scoop on Palin. She wrote down everything she could think of and emailed it to 40 or so of them. She asked that the letter not be posted to the Web, but there it was, within hours.

Everyone wants to talk with her now, which helps since the GOP has locked down direct access to Palin until they can school her in Rovian politics. It is nice to have an insider view, especially one that can't be dissed as being 'mainstream media.' Nothing but straight shooting there, but I am sure that won't stop some from spinning it.

Slider

[Yeti_Ken]

Makes me wonder if Kilkenny isn't more qualified than Palin to be VP. She sounds like a straightshooter that won't give the same song-and-dance routine that most politicians do. But then again, I'd have to give the edge to Palin because
"she's like the most popular girl in middle school".

:confused: Hmmm, middle school? Why not high school?

[MTBME]

Everyone wants to talk with her now, which helps since the GOP has locked down direct access to Palin until they can school her in Rovian politics. It is nice to have an insider view, especially one that can't be dissed as being 'mainstream media.' Nothing but straight shooting there, but I am sure that won't stop some from spinning it.

Slider

I didn't see anything to spin in that article. Its one persons opinion. She called her "smart" and tough I believe. Sounds like she cleaned out the old hacks when she got elected. Slider didn't waste any time putting Palin and Rove in the same sentence.

[Unbreakable]

When he said:

... I am sure that won't stop some from spinning it
Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I didn't see anything to spin in that article. Its one persons opinion. She called her "smart" and tough I believe. Sounds like she cleaned out the old hacks when she got elected. Slider didn't waste any time putting Palin and Rove in the same sentence.

Well, you seem to be spinning it, though, aren't you? Conveniently leaving out the huge part where she complete exposes Palin for being another in a long line of fraudelent "less government, low taxes" Republicans. ****... Bill Clinton was smart. Highly intellegent, in fact. I'll bet you're not so keen on him, though.

[Slider]

And the Rove/Palin thing - whose team do you think spent the last week locked in a room coaching her? Same players as for Bush, hand picked by Rove and crew last time around. Not spin, fact.

So if you guys think Rove is a bad connotation for McCain/Palin, you must agree that he was poison for Bush, too. Interesting.

Slider

[kernel crash]

And the Rove/Palin thing - whose team do you think spent the last week locked in a room coaching her? Same players as for Bush, hand picked by Rove and crew last time around. Not spin, fact.

So if you guys think Rove is a bad connotation for McCain/Palin, you must agree that he was poison for Bush, too. Interesting.

Slider

Facts you say. Prove it. Who said Rove is a bad connotation for McCain/Palin. You have this incredible Rovian obcession. Nobody said Palin is squeaky clean. Nobody is. On balance that article had more positives than negatives for Palin. That's just my opinion. No spin needed. Ask yourself in a year when the Republicians have no business being anywhere near 20 points down, they find themselves up in some polls. Must be Rove.

[Slider]

Prove it, sure. Like I've said before, McCain, Bush, same ole same ole.

Slider

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/02/bushies-come-to-palin-s-rescue.aspx

Posted Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:35 PM
Bushies Come to Palin's Aid
Michael Isikoff
By Michael Isikoff

The McCain team has hastily assembled a team of former Bush White House aides to tutor the vice-presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, on foreign-policy issues, to write her speeches and to begin preparing her for her all-important Oct. 2 debate against Sen. Joe Biden. \

Steve Biegun, who once served as the No. 3 National Security Council official under Condoleezza Rice at the White House, has been hired as chief foreign-policy adviser to the Alaska governor, campaign officials told NEWSWEEK. After taking leave from his job as vice president for international affairs at Ford Motor Co. last Friday, Biegun flew to St. Paul and, together with McCain’s foreign-policy guru Randy Schuenemann, began briefings for Palin on national-security issues—an area where her resume is conspicuously thin.

Biegun is hardly the only Bushie to be tapped for Palin duty. Among others:

Matt Scully, a former Bush White House speechwriter who helped draft some of the major foreign-policy addresses during the president’s first term, is working on Palin’s acceptance speech to the convention Wednesday night.

Mark Wallace, a former lawyer for the Bush 2000 campaign who served in a variety of administration jobs including chief counsel at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and deputy ambassador to the United Nations, has been put in charge of “prep” for the debate against Biden.

Wallace’s wife, Nicolle Wallace, the former White House communications director, has taken over the same job for Palin.

Tucker Eskew, another senior Bush White House communications aide, is serving as senior counselor to Palin’s operation.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former chief economist at the Council of Economic Advisers who has been serving as top economics guru for the McCain campaign, has moved over to serve as Palin’s chief domestic-policy adviser.

The proliferation of former Bush White House aides in the Palin team may strike some as ironic—and could even provide some fodder for the Democrats—given the McCain camp’s efforts to distance itself from the unpopular president. (It has been widely noted, for example, that while the president is addressing the convention tonight by satellite, neither the president nor Vice President Cheney will be coming anywhere near St. Paul. And when Palin's selection was announced last week, McCain aides touted it as an example of the senator returning to his "reformer roots" and rebelling against the GOP establishment.)

One administration critic, Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation, said today that while he personally liked Biegun and viewed him as “extremely competent,” his retention as Palin’s foreign-policy tutor could have unpleasant consequences. Describing Biegun—a Russia expert who once served as staff director for Sen. Jesse Helms at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—as a “big gun” in conservative foreign-policy circles, Clemens said “he will turn her into an advocate of Cheneyism and Cheney’s view of national-security issues.”

But another former colleague, Matthew Waxman, said that he saw Biegun as more of a pragmatist than ideologue when they worked together at the NSC under Rice. “Steven Biegun was one of the steadiest hands I worked with in government,” said Waxman. “He was kind of the chief of staff of the NSC. He was running day-to-day operations, and he did so extremely effectively.”

How effective he is in instructing Palin on the fine points of national-security and foreign-policy issues may now turn out to be one of the biggest questions of the campaign.

[kernel crash]

I didn't see Roves name anywhere in that article. Is it really that surprising to you that they would bring in the heavy hitters to work with her. Nobody's suggesting she some foreign policy expert. They can have her up to speed in about 6 months. Was Jimmy Carter a peanut farmer up to speed on foreign affairs when he was running for President? Of course not. All this is nothing new, yet you act like this is a first.

[Slider]

Maybe you need to reread what I said. Rove was a primary architect of the Bush strategy and, as his principal advisor until forced to resign for his role in the political BS regarding the firing of the US Attorneys, played a key role in all policy and staffing decisions. The team he essentially hand picked is the one now tutoring the neophyte GOP veep nominee.

How much more connecting of the dots do you need to see 'more of the same'?

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I think it has less to do with Rove than Cheney, actually, handpicking a cadre of people to show her the neo-Conservative way. It's not difficult. She's smart enough to figure it out. Being an evangelical, she's already pro-Zionist. Everything else falls in line from that stance.

[Slider]

I didn't mean to lessen the role of the other co-conspirators. But, at this level, we're talking more about what to say to get elected rather than how to invade countries for their oil, so the lies are couched a little differently.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Maybe you need to reread what I said. Rove was a primary architect of the Bush strategy and, as his principal advisor until forced to resign for his role in the political BS regarding the firing of the US Attorneys, played a key role in all policy and staffing decisions. The team he essentially hand picked is the one now tutoring the neophyte GOP veep nominee.

How much more connecting of the dots do you need to see 'more of the same'?

Slider

I'll give you that one. Your second explanation is framed a little better than just blaming Rove for everything, as is usually the case. But if the Democrats had a Rove in the wings, (and I'm sure they do), they would be riding him or her all the way to the White House. It's all about getting elected. I don't see one side having the higher moral ground than the other. That's the difference between me and you.

[Slider]

I guess that is where we differ. I won't claim moral high ground for the Dems, but think that the last eight years put the GOP in the deepest moral morass possible. The swamp needs draining, and McCain is too close to the power structure to have the will to pull the plug.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I didn't mean to lessen the role of the other co-conspirators. But, at this level, we're talking more about what to say to get elected rather than how to invade countries for their oil, so the lies are couched a little differently.

Slider

Not really. Defend the surge. Invoke 9/11. Defend foreign holding cells. Invoke 9/11. Talk about our "good friends" in Israel. Invoke 9/11. Remind us about Al Quaeda. Invo.... you get the picture.

All of the other righty stuff she won't have to make up.

[Slider]

Something about 'bipartisan' in there, too. The GOP needs to distance itself from the GOP, and it knows it.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Makes me wonder if Kilkenny isn't more qualified than Palin to be VP. She sounds like a straightshooter that won't give the same song-and-dance routine that most politicians do.

Ah not so fast. Looks like there's a lot of lies in Kilkenny email. So who is this person really?

False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn't cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time.

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She's been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."


http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986

[kernel crash]

Looks like we now see the playbook for how the left plans on attacking Sarah Palin. Just throw everything out there until something sticks.

CNN Duped by Sarah Palin Bikini Photoshops

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/09/08/cnn-duped-by-sarah-palin-bikini-photoshops/

[Slider]

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn't cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

The special needs funding thing was a misread of consecutive budgets, when some items were move to a separate line item. She did sign a budget that raised spending on special ed, but the issue was more of a misinterpretation of the budget than a lie. Kilkenny provides a self-qualifier about her own interpretation of the numbers in the letter, admitting room for error.



She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time.

This blogger offers a concise summary with citations from local papers. Palin did raise the censorship issue, says the librarian in question, but did not provide a list. Kilkenny never mentions a list and is accurate in her description of Palin's attempt to terminate the librarian after the conversation described below. Palin did write a termnation letter for the librarian and backed down after protest as Kilkenny describes.

"The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, the local Wasilla newspaper, has reposted a 1996 article covering the censorship inquiries that Palin put to local librarian Mary Ellin Emmons. This piece clearly states that "Palin said Monday she had no particular books or other material in mind when she posed the questions to Emmons." That should put an end to the inaccurate lists that are circulating.

Here's what the Valley Frontiersman says: "Emmons said Palin asked her outright if she could live with censorship of library books. This was during a weak [sic] when Palin was requesting resignations from all the city's department heads as a way of expressing loyalty."

The article continues: " 'This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy,' Emmons stressed Saturday. 'She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library.'"

Palin described her inquiries as "rhetorical" and told the paper, in a written statement issued in 1996, that "she was only trying to get acquainted with her staff at the time."

Rhetorical? Well, OK ... if she says so. Still, it seems like an odd getting-to-know-you question to me.

— Carolyn Kellogg"


She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She's been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Kilkenny never mentions the AIP. Palin did address their convention.


Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Creatonism has nothing to do with science. It is myth-based theology only. Debating it in a science class IS pushing it.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Well, I wanted to give women more credit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN097920080909

[Slider]

McCain got a big bump from the convention, and I would guess it is from the women who are suporting Palin. If she can actually get them to the polls, she'll help. So far, the Dems have had the turnout edge.

You gotta think that only true Republicans would support the Palin stance just about any 'women's issue'. I think the Clinton anger thing will abate once reality sets in.

Slider

[kernel crash]

You gotta think that only true Republicans would support the Palin stance just about any 'women's issue'. I think the Clinton anger thing will abate once reality sets in.

Slider

Or Obama might keep some of them angry right up until election day with things like his "lipstick on a pig" comment. In a campaign where everything is scripted, speeches are tested before given and words are carefully evaluated before being spoken, why did he say what he said? Is he getting desperate? Did he want to turn the conversation back to him? Was he throwing red meat out to the left wing of his party? Or all of the above. He even stumbled a bit before saying it like he may not have been entirely comfortable with it.

Yes McCain said it earlier in the primaries but there is a big difference here. Since the Republican convention the word lipstick was taken on a new meaning. If you put 20 people in a room and asked what is the first thing that goes through their head when they hear the word lipstick, I bet 17 make a reference to Sarah Palins convention speech. So when Obama used the word lipstick, at a conscious or sub conscious level, most think about Sarah Palin. He had to know that before he said it. I think he is sinking into slime ball territory here. A man, a black man at that, calling a woman, a white woman at that, a pig in a poorly disguised phrasing of words. It looks like an act out of desperation and shows a bit of a character flaw we have not seen before.

[Slider]

Gimme a break. You are swallowing the 'personality' strategy hook, line and sinker, as if Rove himself scripted your post. The plan is to ignore issues and use any distraction that can possibly be generated and jump all over it.

How, in any way, is the quote anything other than a metaphor for bad policy? Surely that's how McCain meant it when he used the same phrase. It is how anyone else would interpret it, unless they get cued in but the strategists to run in some other direction.

The fact that it echoed Palin's quote only makes it more effective. She is, after all, a politcal pig dressed up for the ball. Her POLICIES are offensive. Piggish. But the reference wasn't even directed at her. It was at the policies of McCain, not Palin. I am not sure he even mentioned her in the speech.

If the Republicans want to go off in some other direction, it's surely not unexpected considering the team that is calling the shots for McCain now. I just hope Obama jumps all over this BS.

Slider

[kernel crash]

I never believed that Obama woke up yesterday morning and said to himself, I'm gonna call Palin a pig today. And I also understand the framework in which the comment was said. But my point is he had to know that the word lipstick was going to be taken, by some, as a direct low ball shot at her and he choose to use the word anyways. I find that sleazy, actually Rovian to steal a phrase. Now the fact that you framed it as "She is, after all, a politcal pig dressed up for the ball", makes me start to wonder if I'm giving Obama too much credit. And by the way, keep up those cheap shots at Palin. Obama sinks lower in the polls every time she gets attacked in a personal way like that.

[Slider]

How is it a cheap shot to talk about policy?

The only 'some' that would take the word lipstick to be a cheap shot are going to grasp at any straw to find offense, even straws that aren't there.

Slider

[kernel crash]

How is it a cheap shot to talk about policy?

Slider

"She is, after all, a politcal pig dressed up for the ball. "

I'd say that was a cheap shot and personally insulting. What has that to do with policy?

[Slider]

Try rereading the whole paragraph:

"The fact that it echoed Palin's quote only makes it more effective. She is, after all, a politcal pig dressed up for the ball. Her POLICIES are offensive. Piggish. But the reference wasn't even directed at her. It was at the policies of McCain, not Palin. I am not sure he even mentioned her in the speech."

See, we're talking policy. If you don't get that, then it is no wonder you think Obama insulted Palin somehow.

Slider

[kernel crash]

I think he knew what he was saying and how it would be taken. The cheap shot I'm refering to is your quote not his. He didn't say she was a political pig dressed up for the ball, you did. That's a cheap shot.

[Slider]

Um, no. It is a metaphor. You got your panties in a wad over a non-issue. BTW - that's another metaphor.

Slider

[Slappy]

Gimme a break. You are swallowing the 'personality' strategy hook, line and sinker,

Hell, isn't that what got Obama this far? Let's call a spade a spade here.

[kernel crash]

Um, no. It is a metaphor. You got your panties in a wad over a non-issue. BTW - that's another metaphor.

Slider

Your Unbelievable. It's still an insult. But because your never wrong, you can hide behind your metaphor.

[Slider]

Anyone can take insult wherever they choose. Had McCain said something similar, and he did, you'd have had no objection, and you didn't.

Slider

[Slider]

Can't resist one more poke. I'm offensive because a use "pig" in a metaphor for Palin's political positions. With the quote below in mind, what does that make you?

Hypocritical comes to mind.

Bear in mind I really didn't dig very far at all for this example.

Slider


Looks like Hillary will go down swinging tonight or the next few days. Its all over but the post analysis which come to think of it, has been out there since Super Tuesday. Whew. That was too close for comfort. Now lets see some substance to what Obama got and lets see if McCain can make people forget he almost 100 years old. Maybe the VP slot might spice things up a bit unless they decide to bring the Hill back. Damn. I guess it aint over till the fat lady takes off her pant suit.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Hell, isn't that what got Obama this far? Let's call a spade a spade here.

:har:

Spade... I get it!

Oh wait, that's not supposed to be funny.

Let the record show that it wasn't me this time.:D

[Unbreakable]

You don't have to dig far... everyone was making fun of her 'phant suits, along with her now shut pie hole! :D

[Slider]

Seems 'everyone' has switched to making fun of Palin. Talk about a bad choice.

Slider

Obama widens lead in national pollStory Highlights
Barack Obama doubles lead over the past month, according to national CNN poll
6 of 10 questioned said they expect Obama to win
Financial crisis, President Bush, Palin could play a roll in Obama's gains
Bush is only 2 points higher than worst presidential approval rating in history

By Paul Steinhauser
CNN Deputy Political Director

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (CNN) -- A new national poll suggests Barack Obama is widening his lead over John McCain in the race for the White House.

Sen. Barack Obama leads Sen. John McCain by 8 points, according to CNN's latest poll.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Monday afternoon suggests that the country's financial crisis, record low approval ratings for President Bush and a drop in the public's perception of McCain's running mate could be contributing to Obama's gains.

Fifty-three percent of likely voters questioned in the poll say they are backing Obama for president, with 45 percent supporting McCain.

That 8-point lead is double the 4-point lead Obama held in the last CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, taken in mid-September. Watch why the economy is hurting McCain

Monday evening's CNN national Poll of Polls -- incorporating our new CNN survey, as well as new tracking numbers from Gallup and Hotline taken October 3-5 -- shows Obama leading McCain by 6 points -- at 49 to 43 percent.

President Bush may be part of the reason why Obama's making gains. Only 24 percent of those polled approve of Bush's job as president, an all-time low for a CNN survey. See the latest polling

"Bush has now tied Richard Nixon's worst rating ever, taken in a poll just before he resigned in 1974, and is only 2 points higher than the worst presidential approval rating in history, Harry Truman's 22 percent mark in February 1952," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

And that's bad news for McCain, because the poll suggests a growing number of Americans believe the Republican presidential nominee would have the same policies as the current Republican president. Fifty-six percent say McCain's policies would be the same as Bush, up from 50 percent a month ago.

The financial crisis also appears to be contributing to Obama's increased lead in the poll. Sixty-eight percent are confident in the Democratic presidential nominee's ability to handle the financial crisis, 18 points ahead of McCain, and 42 points ahead of Bush.

More Americans appear to have an unfavorable view of Gov. Sarah Palin, and that may also be helping Obama in the fight for the presidency. Forty percent now have an unfavorable view of Palin, up from 27 percent a month ago and from 21 percent in late August, when McCain surprised many people by picking the first-term Alaska governor as his running mate.

"A majority of Americans now believe that Sarah Palin would be unqualified to serve as president if it became necessary, and her unfavorable rating has doubled," Holland said.

Another hurdle for the Arizona senator is expectations. Six in 10 questioned in the poll predict that Obama will win the November election.

The poll was conducted Friday through Sunday, just after President Bush signed the $700 billion federal bailout into law. By a 53 percent to 46 percent margin, Americans oppose the bill.

"One in five might have supported a different bill, but one in three believe that the government should have stayed out of the crisis completely and let the markets attempt to recover on their own.

"A majority think that the bailout package will not prevent the economy from going into a deep and prolonged recession -- but they turn thumbs-down to another bailout package if this one does not work. Only one in five would support more assistance beyond Friday's $700 billion package," Holland said.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted by telephone on October 3-5. The survey questioned 1,006 people. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

The Poll of Polls does not have a sampling error.

[kernel crash]

There's no surprises in that poll. Obama moved ahead so now people expect him to win. The economy by some very strange coincidence got very bad very fast after McCain moved up in the polls. People naturally want to punish the party in power. No surprises there. Obama has been successful in painting McCain as another George Bush. McCain hasn't responded effectively. No surprises there. Palin has taken a beating like I've never seen for somebody that's not on the top of the ticket. I think that shows the level of panic that set in after she was selected and McCain jumped over Obama in the polls. What really surprising in that Obama doesn't have a double digit lead and that almost 10% are still undecided. This could swing in the other direction real soon.

By the way you cite the CNN poll that gives Obama an 8 point lead. Why didn't you cite the CBS poll or the Zogby poll that gives Obama a 3 point lead? How many people who tell pollsters that they will vote for Obama will actually vote for Obama in the privacy of the voting booth. Think Bill and Hillary will be voting for Obama?

[Slider]

"The economy by some very strange coincidence got very bad very fast after McCain moved up in the polls. "

Huh? Democratic bankers bought bad paper so they could loose control of their institutions to sway the election? Thousands of subprime borrowers decided to wait until September to walk from their loans? Investors decided to bail on their stocks and buy money market and bonds at a loss so McCain/Palin would look like idiots? Not sure where you are going with this, but it sure sounds paranoid.

Summarizing what you said: Obama is a better candidate and campaigner than McCain, and Palin is an anchor. That's what the poll said, so you seem to agree. Percentage points matter lots less than trends, and I don't know of a poll that says anything else.

But the real reason I posted it was to call attention to the post that started this thread. Can't get much more wrong than that one.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Most voters, or at the very least, poll takers, aren't as informed as one would hope. The trend towards Obama has everything to do with the present economic nosedive being identified with the current White House, however unfair and wrong that may be, and McCain being seen as... well, McSame, which is not unfair at all, because he really is no different than Bush.

I think Obama ends up winning in a landslide... and he'll have a lot to prove and to try and suage a lot of bitter people looking to the government for handouts.

[kernel crash]

"sure sounds paranoid."

No not really. It is quite a coincidence that this election was suppose to turn on the war in Iraq. Well the surge that Obama opposed put an end to that strategy. So the only thing that Obama could wish for is an economy that turned South real fast and furious. Remember the unemployment rate a few months ago was less than 6 percent. Palin came on the scene and all of a sudden Obama was falling behind. Then everything hits the fan. Hmm. If I was really paranoid, I would be asking about someone like George Soros who has been known to manipulate markets for his own interests in the past. But this may be a bit more than even he could even pull off. Someday this will all get fleshed out a bit more than it is today. At this point in my life nothing surprises me anymore. As far as Palin in hindsight Romney would be a better VP choice given the turn in the economy. I think that would have sealed the deal for McCain who I won't be voting for anyways. I won't vote for anyone who votet for the bailout.

[Slider]

C'mon. That's crazy talk.

For one thing, the war is as unpopular as it ever was, regardless of whose status report you buy. And for you to complete the idea that someone is manipulating the market for election purposes, you'd have to come up with a motive, or at least one that is shared by enough people to pull it off. Most of the immensely wealthy are pro-Republican, with the promise of tax cuts being the prime attraction. You think they'd let George Soros and a few friends take that from them?

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

That's a conspiracy theory that was bound to come about. You might find more people receptive to the idea in a forum for the so-called "9/11 Truthers" or Zionist world domination subscribers. Probably the latter group are already pondering such conspiracies. Check this out: http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/8195 . When all else fails, blame the Jews.

Crazy talk indeed.

[Slider]

You want paranoia? This one is a lot more fun. We'd get to riot in the streets, just like in the 60's!

Slider

ALEX BEAM
Postponing the election: It's a joke, or is it?
By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist | October 11, 2008

Thank heavens for the Internet; it's put the surprise back in October Surprise.

Here is the latest big-picture conspiracy theory, which has been gathering strength on the blogosphere the way a hurricane feeds on Caribbean waters: It is widely believed, both online and, increasingly, offline, that the Bush administration intends to declare martial law and postpone next month's elections. To prevent Barack Obama's inevitable ascension to the Oval Office, obviously.

This theory/rumor/delusion dates back almost a year and a half, with the appearance on the White House website of National Security Presidential Directive 51, which outlined a policy for "continuity of government" in the event of a national emergency. Such emergency is defined as "any incident . . . that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel says the new directive supplants a Cold War-era emergency memorandum that is no longer valid in the post-9/11 world, with the country at risk of a "no-notice terrorist attack." But on websites with names such as justanothercoverup.com and abovetopsecret.com, the public document - often described as "secret" - was read quite differently. "FEMA Official States Bush Is Planning to Implement Martial Law," is a headline from justanothercoverup. "Pelosi Declared Martial Law Last Night," was a September headline from abovetopsecret.

Like a much-awaited Messiah (I am channeling the famous sociological text "When Prophecy Fails"), the date of the martial law takeover keeps moving forward. This spring it was to coincide with the bombing of Iran, this summer with the devastation wrought by Hurricane Ike. In the minds of conspiracy theorists, the current economic crisis seems like a propitious moment for the suspension of the November election.

The martial law paranoia has an engaging adjunct: the "FEMA coffins" story. If you Google those words, you will find pictures, videos, and reams of text explaining that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has stockpiled 30,000 - or is it 50,000? - coffins (or are they coffin liners? or . . . boxes?) in anticipation of a vast civil disturbance, presumably triggered by the imposition of martial law. "We do not have FEMA coffins," says spokeswoman Debbie Wing.

On the one hand you say, OK, this is Internet madness. On the other hand, you note that Ireland's largest bookmaker, Paddy Power, is laying 20-1 odds that the American election will be postponed. When I first checked that site on Tuesday, the odds were 40-1.

We've seen this movie before, right? Writer Ron Rosenbaum remembers a 1972 story averring that Richard Nixon asked the RAND Corporation to study whether he could postpone that election, which he won, handily. University of California historian Kathryn Olmsted, author of the forthcoming "Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11" notes that Franklin Roosevelt's many enemies were convinced that he would assume dictatorial powers and cancel the election of 1944, which he won handily.

"There are all kinds of trends coming together now to feed the paranoia," Olmsted says. "The financial meltdown evokes Americans' longtime fear and hatred of bankers, and people on the right think Obama's candidacy might mean the end of civilization. What's scary to the left right now is that Obama has a good chance of winning, and there is a segment of the far left that thinks 'they' will never let this happen."

And of course, there is this inconvenient, animating truth: "Sometimes the government does engage in real conspiracies, like Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the assassination plot again Castro," Olmsted explains.

I am sure you remember William S. Burroughs's famous observation: A paranoid is a man with all the facts at his disposal.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Oh yea, that's an old one. I worked with this guy who subscribes to all that garbage. One of these Zionist world domination wackos. (Oh, but he wasn't an anti-Semite. :rolleyes: ) Everything that happens politically in the world has six degrees of separation from some Zionist (read: Jewish) control. George Bush is a neo-con, a member of the Skull & Bones, and is the grand-prodigy of a man who wheeled and dealed with Jewish bankers (Prescott Bush). That makes him a puppet of Zion.

I could go on, but you have better things to do than to read more of this shite. Lucky for me I've grown calloused to it all, having to listen to that stuff every day. But the martial law thing has been kicking around for about four years or so.

[Slider]

Past that hurdle, unless Bush can come up with something prior to the inauguration that offically makes him Fascist for Life or something. He really does have nothing to lose at this point. He's now gotta look up to see Nixon on the approval ratings list, having sunk to the lowest position ever.

Back to the theme of this Topic, Bush is now, officially, considered the worst choice ever, or at least for the 60+ years since they first started tracking approval ratings.

Gloating? Maybe. I am more regretful that we didn't end it with impeachment hearings a long time ago.

Slider

November 10, 2008
Bush leaving office more unpopular than Nixon
Story Highlights
Over three-quarters, 76 percent, disapprove of President Bush

Bush approval rating is lower than President Nixon's after Watergate

Majority, 57 percent, believe transition to President Obama will be relatively easy

By Paul Steinhauser
CNN Deputy Political Director
WASHINGTON DC (CNN) -- On the day that President-elect Barack Obama is visiting the White House, a new national poll suggests that the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the most unpopular president since approval ratings were first sought more than six decades ago.

Seventy-six percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday disapprove of how President Bush is handling his job.

That's an all-time high in CNN polling and in Gallup polling dating back to World War II.

"No other president's disapproval rating has gone higher than 70 percent. Bush has managed to do that three times so far this year," says CNN polling director Keating Holland. "That means that Bush is now more unpopular than Richard Nixon was when he resigned from office during Watergate with a 66 percent disapproval rating."

Before Bush, the record holder for presidential disapproval was Harry Truman, with a 67 percent disapproval rating in January of 1952, his last full year in office.

As Obama visits the White House to start the transition from the Bush administration to an Obama administration, 57 percent of those questioned think the transfer of power will be relatively easy and free from tension, with 39 percent saying the transition will be difficult. Watch what Bush and Obama may talk about »

"A majority say that the transition from Bush to Obama will go smoothly, although nearly one in four predict a lot of tension between Bush aides and Obama aides in the next few weeks. That sentiment is highest among Democrats, but even among them, a majority believes that the transition will be relatively easy," Holland said. Watch Obama's ambitious agenda »

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted Thursday through Sunday with 1,246 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[kernel crash]

At least his ratings are higher than congress according to Rasmussen. So be consistent. Take your shots at Congress. I'm waiting...

"Congress has consistently scored lower this year in voter approval than even President Bush who has hit record lows for his presidency. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters, given the option in early October of keeping or replacing the entire Congress, said they would like to throw them all out and start over again."

[Slider]

Congress DOES suck. They failed to impeach Bush, after all.

The recent high for Congressional approval was in 2002, soon after the Republicans took control of the Senate and thus ruled both houses. It's been in a nose dive ever since. So, my guess is you want to tie this to the Democrats somehow. They just inherited the mess that we are now struggling to correct, and the **** is so deep that there's no overnight fix.

Congressional approval ratings rarely climb higher than the sitting President's. Let's watch the trends going forward.

Slider