Media Gives Palin a Pass
By Richard CohenReading William Kristol's column in The New York Times, I discover that Sarah Palin and I have something in common. Kristol, who was once Dan Quayle's chief of staff and therefore, shall we say, has a Mister Rogers approach to certain politicians, got Palin on the phone and reported Monday that she does not "have a very high opinion of the mainstream media." This is where we are in agreement. On account of Palin, neither do I.
In the debate, she mischaracterized Barack Obama's tax plan and his offer to meet with foreign adversaries. She found whole new powers for the vice president by misreading the Constitution, if she ever read it at all. She called one moment for the federal government to virtually disappear and a moment later lamented the lack of its oversight of the financial markets. She asserted that she "may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you (Biden) want to hear" because, apparently, the rules don't apply to her on account of her being a... (Read Full Article)
(Click Here to Comment on All RCP Articles)
Join the Discussion | 281 Comments | | | Post Comment |
|
Oct 09, 11:09 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Mr. Cohen,
Thank you for articulating what I've been feeling since Palin joined the Republican ticket. At first, I found her remarks humorous.... now she is down right scary. This woman will be our next Vice President? I shudder at the thought and so should the rest of this country. Conservative, Liberal or in-between, it should be readily apparent that this woman is NOT capable of leading this country. Her running mate questions the judgment of Obama. I must ask...."What was he thinking?!"
BTW, I am undecided voter who while a registered Democrat has crossed party lines in both national, state and local elections.
Thank you for articulating what I've been feeling since Palin joined the Republican ticket. At first, I found her remarks humorous.... now she is down right scary. This woman will be our next Vice President? I shudder at the thought and so should the rest of this country. Conservative, Liberal or in-between, it should be readily apparent that this woman is NOT capable of leading this country. Her running mate questions the judgment of Obama. I must ask...."What was he thinking?!"
BTW, I am undecided voter who while a registered Democrat has crossed party lines in both national, state and local elections.
|
|
Oct 09, 08:47 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
One thing stands out clearly; everyone seems to have an "opinion."
I recall one college professor stating; "Unless you are a recognized authority on the subject matter being covered, or unless you are 'published' regarding the matter at hand, you shoud preface your remarks with 'In my opinion."
Wouldn't it be great if all the opinionated people on TV and in the printed media would honor such a precept?
I recall one college professor stating; "Unless you are a recognized authority on the subject matter being covered, or unless you are 'published' regarding the matter at hand, you shoud preface your remarks with 'In my opinion."
Wouldn't it be great if all the opinionated people on TV and in the printed media would honor such a precept?
|
|
Oct 08, 07:44 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
OK, fair enough. In fact, it would perhaps be long overdo to have the mainstream media weigh in on something as important as, oh, WHO OUR NEXT PRESIDENT WILL BE (or vice-president)--so by all means, why don't we gather the mainstream media together, with the full knowledge that they will be present to do their JOBS, and and by all means put Sarah Palin through pleasures of Torquemada in getting to the bottom of EVERY LAST OUNCE of knowledge about her past and present considerations, associations (financial, social, and ideological), intimacies, and passing fancies. And let us not leave the room until the job is done. My only caveat to our little inquisition being this:
That once the hyenas, jackals, and assorted other sycophants of the mainstream media get a taste for blood, perhaps they'll get a taste for courage as well and do the same job on the only other person I'd have waiting in line--Barack Obama--
That once the hyenas, jackals, and assorted other sycophants of the mainstream media get a taste for blood, perhaps they'll get a taste for courage as well and do the same job on the only other person I'd have waiting in line--Barack Obama--
|
|
Oct 07, 11:30 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Sarah Palin is the only good thing that has come out of this election. Thank God for her. The other 3 candidates are all much too alike and put me to sleep.
McCain, who I much prefer to Obama, is still to liberal for my taste. I want a strong conservative in the White House, who can communicate the conservative philosophy in a strong and effective manner.
I want Sarah Palin to be President.
McCain, who I much prefer to Obama, is still to liberal for my taste. I want a strong conservative in the White House, who can communicate the conservative philosophy in a strong and effective manner.
I want Sarah Palin to be President.
|
|
Oct 07, 09:58 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
What planet is the guy on? The media has tried to destroy Palin with personal attacks bringing her family thru the mud first and then attacking her. If anyone has gotten a free pass, it has been Obama. His associations with radicals Reverend Wright, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and his radical socialist and even communist beliefs as written in his books have been literally ignored by the main stream media.
|
|
Oct 07, 09:58 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
She gave memorized speeches and didn't answer any of the questions. A debate is a contest and Palin was clearly the loser.
|
|
Oct 07, 07:34 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
kdunn, how do you feel about McCain's connections to BIN LADEN??
Great article. It kills me that the pundits called Palin a winner or the debate a tie. And they can't figure out why all the polls show that people thought Biden trounced Palin. The media is out of touch.
Great article. It kills me that the pundits called Palin a winner or the debate a tie. And they can't figure out why all the polls show that people thought Biden trounced Palin. The media is out of touch.
|
|
Oct 07, 06:12 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
You have some great points. I think i'll vote for a guy who is friends with a terrorist. What is wrong with you people?
|
|
Oct 07, 05:02 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Jim, good point, but my point in raising the Birth Certificate was only to highlight Obama's obsessive secrecy about his past.
Btw, do you really think Pelosi and Reid will make it two years? :-)
jimtzx12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romeo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And how about three minutes unfettered access
> to
> > his Birth Certificate?
>
>
> It's silliness like this that is going to lose the
> election for the Republicans. They keep focusing
> on irrelevant minutiae and missing the big
> picture.
> As a conservative, I've concluded that the best
> thing that can happen is for McCain to lose this
> election. He's run an awful campaign and he's a
> faux conservative. Let Obama get in there for a
> term, and after four years of him, Pelosi and
> Reid, we can then run a real conservative in 2012
> - someone who truly believes in small government,
> reduced spending, lack of interventionism and
> lower taxes.
Btw, do you really think Pelosi and Reid will make it two years? :-)
jimtzx12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romeo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And how about three minutes unfettered access
> to
> > his Birth Certificate?
>
>
> It's silliness like this that is going to lose the
> election for the Republicans. They keep focusing
> on irrelevant minutiae and missing the big
> picture.
> As a conservative, I've concluded that the best
> thing that can happen is for McCain to lose this
> election. He's run an awful campaign and he's a
> faux conservative. Let Obama get in there for a
> term, and after four years of him, Pelosi and
> Reid, we can then run a real conservative in 2012
> - someone who truly believes in small government,
> reduced spending, lack of interventionism and
> lower taxes.
|
|
Oct 07, 05:01 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
That's what happens when lowered expectations drop below sea level. In a democracy, you get the government you deserve; hopefully, we will deserve better than Governor Palin.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:59 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Actually, the original subject was Obama's educational records (see below).
When Dewey tried to dodge the question of Obama's gag order on his educational records, he suggested that McCain had kept his medical records secret.
As it is clear now that McCain has not kept his medical records secret, we can return to the original subject.
The DECIDER Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romeo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So you found what I said was ... true! What a
> > shock.
>
> No... What I found was that McCain tried to dump
> 1200 pages of documents on reporters in a 3-hour
> period, which suggests that he didn't want anyone
> to look too carefully at the records. So I ask
> you again: if he has nothing to hide, why not
> simply provide copies of his records to the press,
> so that his medical condition may be examined
> without artificial time constraints?
>
> Please respond, rather than trying to change the
> subject. Thanks in advance.
When Dewey tried to dodge the question of Obama's gag order on his educational records, he suggested that McCain had kept his medical records secret.
As it is clear now that McCain has not kept his medical records secret, we can return to the original subject.
The DECIDER Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romeo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So you found what I said was ... true! What a
> > shock.
>
> No... What I found was that McCain tried to dump
> 1200 pages of documents on reporters in a 3-hour
> period, which suggests that he didn't want anyone
> to look too carefully at the records. So I ask
> you again: if he has nothing to hide, why not
> simply provide copies of his records to the press,
> so that his medical condition may be examined
> without artificial time constraints?
>
> Please respond, rather than trying to change the
> subject. Thanks in advance.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:56 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Romeo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And how about three minutes unfettered access to
> his Birth Certificate?
It's silliness like this that is going to lose the election for the Republicans. They keep focusing on irrelevant minutiae and missing the big picture.
As a conservative, I've concluded that the best thing that can happen is for McCain to lose this election. He's run an awful campaign and he's a faux conservative. Let Obama get in there for a term, and after four years of him, Pelosi and Reid, we can then run a real conservative in 2012 - someone who truly believes in small government, reduced spending, lack of interventionism and lower taxes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> And how about three minutes unfettered access to
> his Birth Certificate?
It's silliness like this that is going to lose the election for the Republicans. They keep focusing on irrelevant minutiae and missing the big picture.
As a conservative, I've concluded that the best thing that can happen is for McCain to lose this election. He's run an awful campaign and he's a faux conservative. Let Obama get in there for a term, and after four years of him, Pelosi and Reid, we can then run a real conservative in 2012 - someone who truly believes in small government, reduced spending, lack of interventionism and lower taxes.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:55 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Btw, Dewey, thanks for the links. However, in all of them I found only one of Obama's professor who was interviewed (Charles Ogletree of Harvard). But I admit I read them quickly.
One of the more interesting quotes in your linked articles was this, from a former Obama classmate (and now a professor):
“He then and now is very hard to pin down,” said Kenneth Mack, a classmate and now a professor at the law school, referring to the senator’s on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand style.
He could've referred to Obama's biography as well.
One of the more interesting quotes in your linked articles was this, from a former Obama classmate (and now a professor):
“He then and now is very hard to pin down,” said Kenneth Mack, a classmate and now a professor at the law school, referring to the senator’s on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand style.
He could've referred to Obama's biography as well.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:50 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Romeo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you found what I said was ... true! What a
> shock.
No... What I found was that McCain tried to dump 1200 pages of documents on reporters in a 3-hour period, which suggests that he didn't want anyone to look too carefully at the records. So I ask you again: if he has nothing to hide, why not simply provide copies of his records to the press, so that his medical condition may be examined without artificial time constraints?
Please respond, rather than trying to change the subject. Thanks in advance.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you found what I said was ... true! What a
> shock.
No... What I found was that McCain tried to dump 1200 pages of documents on reporters in a 3-hour period, which suggests that he didn't want anyone to look too carefully at the records. So I ask you again: if he has nothing to hide, why not simply provide copies of his records to the press, so that his medical condition may be examined without artificial time constraints?
Please respond, rather than trying to change the subject. Thanks in advance.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:48 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
And how about three minutes unfettered access to his Birth Certificate?
|
|
Oct 07, 04:48 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Biden and Cohan get it completely wrong on the Constitutional role of the VP:
1) Biden's statements notwithstanding, Article I is about the legislative body, not the executive.
2) Biden states that the VP's only role in the Senate is to break ties. In fact Article I states that he is the president of the Senate and he can preside over it at will.
3) The VP gets his pay check from the Senate, not from the executive branch (by law).
4) The VP's only official role in the executive branch as defined in Article II and amendment 25 is to take over for a disabled (dead, resigned, etc) President.
Who hasn't read the Constitution? I think it is Biden and Cohan. Palin and I have.
1) Biden's statements notwithstanding, Article I is about the legislative body, not the executive.
2) Biden states that the VP's only role in the Senate is to break ties. In fact Article I states that he is the president of the Senate and he can preside over it at will.
3) The VP gets his pay check from the Senate, not from the executive branch (by law).
4) The VP's only official role in the executive branch as defined in Article II and amendment 25 is to take over for a disabled (dead, resigned, etc) President.
Who hasn't read the Constitution? I think it is Biden and Cohan. Palin and I have.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:47 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
So you found what I said was ... true! What a shock.
Now, how about Obama doing as McCain did by providing 20 reporters with three hours of unfettered access to his education records -- no copies, but notetaking allowed. And the pages need not even be numbered.
Now, how about Obama doing as McCain did by providing 20 reporters with three hours of unfettered access to his education records -- no copies, but notetaking allowed. And the pages need not even be numbered.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:34 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Romeo Wrote:
> As to your lie about McCain's health records, he
> allowed 20 reporters -- including the famed Dr.
> Sanjay Gupta of CNN -- three hours of unfettered
> access to his health records.
McCain has refused to provide copies of his medical records. Instead, he provided very limited access to a handful of reporters. And since you mentioned Dr. Sanjay Gupta, here's what he had to say about the process of providing limited access to those records:
"We were given three hours to go over 1,200 pages of records. That is a lot to go through. It was very sort of cloak and dagger and I'm sure they had their reasons. Given that I had my medical training, I was able to hone in on what it thought was important more quickly. But the pages weren't numbered, so I had no way of knowing what was missing... As a reporter I can only comment on what I saw but I can't say by any means that this was complete... As far as the secretiveness of it, what they said to us is that you can't take anything out of the room, but you could make notes. So it was a lot to go through in a short period of time."
Using the standard you articulated, if Sen. McCain has nothing to hide, why not provide complete copies to the press? Why try to rush them through the process?
> As to your lie about McCain's health records, he
> allowed 20 reporters -- including the famed Dr.
> Sanjay Gupta of CNN -- three hours of unfettered
> access to his health records.
McCain has refused to provide copies of his medical records. Instead, he provided very limited access to a handful of reporters. And since you mentioned Dr. Sanjay Gupta, here's what he had to say about the process of providing limited access to those records:
"We were given three hours to go over 1,200 pages of records. That is a lot to go through. It was very sort of cloak and dagger and I'm sure they had their reasons. Given that I had my medical training, I was able to hone in on what it thought was important more quickly. But the pages weren't numbered, so I had no way of knowing what was missing... As a reporter I can only comment on what I saw but I can't say by any means that this was complete... As far as the secretiveness of it, what they said to us is that you can't take anything out of the room, but you could make notes. So it was a lot to go through in a short period of time."
Using the standard you articulated, if Sen. McCain has nothing to hide, why not provide complete copies to the press? Why try to rush them through the process?
|
|
Oct 07, 04:28 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
jake747 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, one more point on divided government. I would
> have loved to see the outcome of the Bush
> presidency if he had a Democrat congress to deal
> with from day 1. I bet he wouldn't be seen as
> near the failure he is. The trouble with the
> split in just his last 2 years of office is that
> it was in his "lame duck" stage. He had no
> appetite for consensus at that point. Just
> "veto." However, if he had to compromise from Day
> 1, when he had energy and wanted to get things
> done, I bet his legacy would be very different. I
> also bet the legacies of Reagan and Clinton would
> be very different if they had same party rule
> during their years. But, we will never know what
> might've been...(I'm not saying Bush would've been
> a superstar, but I would almost guarantee his
> approval ratings would be at least 10 points
> higher, consistently). Heck, he was pretty
> successful working with a Democrat legislature in
> Texas.
I'd add one more point to your point. I don't see Bush as being a failure in most respects, and I suspect he'll look a LOT better to history than many people seem to assume right now...especially if a successor lets our guard down and we get smacked by terrorists or Iran or whoever during the next term.
The one area (besides your probably valid point about opinion polls) that I think would be MASSIVELY different over the last 8 years if Bush had had to contend with an opposition congress from the get-go would be spending.
Democrats get a bad rap, and deservedly so, for being too free with the purse strings. I personally feel that's the main reason they lost congress in '94, and I think it's still their biggest handicap. But holy @#$%&, did Bush ever allow the Repub congress to give them a run for their money. He would NEVER have allowed the Dems to do that. And that is why the GOP is on the ropes right now, and I think it's a major source of the disillusionment many on both sides seem to have with government in general. To recycle a tired Orwell reference, we're looking at the pigs, and can no longer tell them from the farmer.
The problem I have is, I sort of like some of the Dems' social policies and I like they way they watchdog the Repubs, but man, do they ever still love to spend. And now there's the prospect of a president who wants to spend even more than congress, gut the military (one of the VERY few responsibilities the constitution actually explicitly gives to the federal government) and so forth. And somehow they've got a largish percentage of the population believing that they can deal with money more effectively than anybody else.
My misgivings about the lack of history on Obama and all the questionable links he drags in tow aside, probably the biggest reason I prefer McCain is because he's a stubborn prick and has a record of being at least SOMETHING of a budget hawk. I absolutely guarantee that he'd be more likely to break out the veto pen on spending bills. Just as Bush would have, if he had had people he didn't like asking him for the same types of things his party asked for. Because Bush is a stubborn prick too.
Sometimes a stubborn prick is the guy for the job.
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, one more point on divided government. I would
> have loved to see the outcome of the Bush
> presidency if he had a Democrat congress to deal
> with from day 1. I bet he wouldn't be seen as
> near the failure he is. The trouble with the
> split in just his last 2 years of office is that
> it was in his "lame duck" stage. He had no
> appetite for consensus at that point. Just
> "veto." However, if he had to compromise from Day
> 1, when he had energy and wanted to get things
> done, I bet his legacy would be very different. I
> also bet the legacies of Reagan and Clinton would
> be very different if they had same party rule
> during their years. But, we will never know what
> might've been...(I'm not saying Bush would've been
> a superstar, but I would almost guarantee his
> approval ratings would be at least 10 points
> higher, consistently). Heck, he was pretty
> successful working with a Democrat legislature in
> Texas.
I'd add one more point to your point. I don't see Bush as being a failure in most respects, and I suspect he'll look a LOT better to history than many people seem to assume right now...especially if a successor lets our guard down and we get smacked by terrorists or Iran or whoever during the next term.
The one area (besides your probably valid point about opinion polls) that I think would be MASSIVELY different over the last 8 years if Bush had had to contend with an opposition congress from the get-go would be spending.
Democrats get a bad rap, and deservedly so, for being too free with the purse strings. I personally feel that's the main reason they lost congress in '94, and I think it's still their biggest handicap. But holy @#$%&, did Bush ever allow the Repub congress to give them a run for their money. He would NEVER have allowed the Dems to do that. And that is why the GOP is on the ropes right now, and I think it's a major source of the disillusionment many on both sides seem to have with government in general. To recycle a tired Orwell reference, we're looking at the pigs, and can no longer tell them from the farmer.
The problem I have is, I sort of like some of the Dems' social policies and I like they way they watchdog the Repubs, but man, do they ever still love to spend. And now there's the prospect of a president who wants to spend even more than congress, gut the military (one of the VERY few responsibilities the constitution actually explicitly gives to the federal government) and so forth. And somehow they've got a largish percentage of the population believing that they can deal with money more effectively than anybody else.
My misgivings about the lack of history on Obama and all the questionable links he drags in tow aside, probably the biggest reason I prefer McCain is because he's a stubborn prick and has a record of being at least SOMETHING of a budget hawk. I absolutely guarantee that he'd be more likely to break out the veto pen on spending bills. Just as Bush would have, if he had had people he didn't like asking him for the same types of things his party asked for. Because Bush is a stubborn prick too.
Sometimes a stubborn prick is the guy for the job.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:28 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Speaking of records Obama refuses to produce: Why won't he produce his Birth Certificate?
|
|
Oct 07, 04:28 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Romeo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll type slowly for the dimwitted.
It's always smart to play to your base. Good decision.
> The reason that Obama's college records are
> relevant are (1) his campaign is portraying him as
> a "super-intellectual"; a review of his college
> records could reveal that to be a lie, and (2) he
> has very little history, so we need to know more
> about what little he has.
Well, we finally have an answer. That wasn't so hard, was it? Well, maybe it was, since all you could come up with was a pathetically superficial effort to justify a blatantly desperate Hail Mary pass. I especially like the straw man that his campaign is somehow trying to portray him as a "super-intellectual." Moreover, even if they were, is it really your position that one's performance in college is a good measure of intellectual ability? If so, I guess you must not have a high regard for John "894 out of 899" McCain.
> As for McCain and Palin, they have not blocked
> access to their records.
They have provided no more access than Obama has. By the way, with respect to your assertion that a Google search couldn't reveal information about Obama or his professors at Harvard, your search capabilities are apparently as poor as your debating skills. These stories - which include interviews with professors and fellow classmates, in addition to his actual Law Review note - took all of about 45 seconds to locate.
[www.boston.com]
[www.nytimes.com]
[www.politico.com]
But thanks for playing. Make sure to grab a parting gift on your way out.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll type slowly for the dimwitted.
It's always smart to play to your base. Good decision.
> The reason that Obama's college records are
> relevant are (1) his campaign is portraying him as
> a "super-intellectual"; a review of his college
> records could reveal that to be a lie, and (2) he
> has very little history, so we need to know more
> about what little he has.
Well, we finally have an answer. That wasn't so hard, was it? Well, maybe it was, since all you could come up with was a pathetically superficial effort to justify a blatantly desperate Hail Mary pass. I especially like the straw man that his campaign is somehow trying to portray him as a "super-intellectual." Moreover, even if they were, is it really your position that one's performance in college is a good measure of intellectual ability? If so, I guess you must not have a high regard for John "894 out of 899" McCain.
> As for McCain and Palin, they have not blocked
> access to their records.
They have provided no more access than Obama has. By the way, with respect to your assertion that a Google search couldn't reveal information about Obama or his professors at Harvard, your search capabilities are apparently as poor as your debating skills. These stories - which include interviews with professors and fellow classmates, in addition to his actual Law Review note - took all of about 45 seconds to locate.
[www.boston.com]
[www.nytimes.com]
[www.politico.com]
But thanks for playing. Make sure to grab a parting gift on your way out.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:24 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Mr. Cohen,
You claim that Palin received a pass? Palin?
If the leader of some anti-abortion group who had advocated, organized, and praised the bombings of abortion clinics in the 1970s when Sarah Palin was a young girl, then as an adult Governor Palin, having full knowledge of his history, had nonetheless attended a fund raiser at his house, would the news media have reported that?
Answer: Yes, they would have. But of course, she did not attend such a fund raiser. Barack Obama did attend such a fund raiser.
Barack Obama claims ignorance about: (1) William Ayers, (2) Pastor Wright, (3) Father Pfleger, and (4) Tony Rezko. His claims of ignorance are simply not credible.
You claim that Palin received a pass? Palin?
If the leader of some anti-abortion group who had advocated, organized, and praised the bombings of abortion clinics in the 1970s when Sarah Palin was a young girl, then as an adult Governor Palin, having full knowledge of his history, had nonetheless attended a fund raiser at his house, would the news media have reported that?
Answer: Yes, they would have. But of course, she did not attend such a fund raiser. Barack Obama did attend such a fund raiser.
Barack Obama claims ignorance about: (1) William Ayers, (2) Pastor Wright, (3) Father Pfleger, and (4) Tony Rezko. His claims of ignorance are simply not credible.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:21 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Thank you for your article...finally Mr. Cohen, you have said the obvious and the media should be castigated for its "analysis" of the VP debate. Irrespective of ones political views, McCain and Palin have made a mockery of the due process that should exist in an advanced democracy.
Like Bush, they promote ignorance and arrogance as political traits to be admired. If any politician enters a formal debate and says the rules do not apply to them, they would be politically castigated....but here they are admired....by our press (with literally only a handful of exceptions) that can go down in history as the "worst generation" in their failure to speak up when all other institutions in the country have caved in to political intimidation and admiration for extreme views in terms of ultra nationalism, religious fundamentalism and lack of social concern for the underprivileged in our society.
This says more about the sad state of our country than it does about McCain and Palin. The country got what it voted for in Bush and still does not seem to understand the danger these next generation of candidates bring.
Like Bush, they promote ignorance and arrogance as political traits to be admired. If any politician enters a formal debate and says the rules do not apply to them, they would be politically castigated....but here they are admired....by our press (with literally only a handful of exceptions) that can go down in history as the "worst generation" in their failure to speak up when all other institutions in the country have caved in to political intimidation and admiration for extreme views in terms of ultra nationalism, religious fundamentalism and lack of social concern for the underprivileged in our society.
This says more about the sad state of our country than it does about McCain and Palin. The country got what it voted for in Bush and still does not seem to understand the danger these next generation of candidates bring.
|
|
Oct 07, 04:21 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Obama is on record and tape admitting to friendships and associations with the following:
Saul "The Red" Alinski author of "Rules for Radicals"
Frank Marshall Davis - a registered communist who Obama notes in his book as being a long time mentor
William Ayers - domestic terrorist who still states he only wishes he bombed more American buildings
Bernardine Dohrn - former FBI "10 Most Wanted" for her domestic terrorist activities
Antoin "Tony" Rezko - convicted felon, loaned Obama money for his house
Father Michael Pfleger - the hate-spewer - received $225,000 grant money via Obama
Pastor Jeremiah Wright - yeah, you've heard his tapes but apparently Obama say he never heard them in 20 years attending his church.
Okay, either Obama knew about the hate filled and felonious activities of these people chose them as friends/associates anyway. Or Obama is completely clueless on reading the people around him. What kind of cabinet can we expect him to put together? How can we trust him to conduct these "sit down" discussions with contentious foreign leaders? Is this a man we can trust with the national checkbook?
Saul "The Red" Alinski author of "Rules for Radicals"
Frank Marshall Davis - a registered communist who Obama notes in his book as being a long time mentor
William Ayers - domestic terrorist who still states he only wishes he bombed more American buildings
Bernardine Dohrn - former FBI "10 Most Wanted" for her domestic terrorist activities
Antoin "Tony" Rezko - convicted felon, loaned Obama money for his house
Father Michael Pfleger - the hate-spewer - received $225,000 grant money via Obama
Pastor Jeremiah Wright - yeah, you've heard his tapes but apparently Obama say he never heard them in 20 years attending his church.
Okay, either Obama knew about the hate filled and felonious activities of these people chose them as friends/associates anyway. Or Obama is completely clueless on reading the people around him. What kind of cabinet can we expect him to put together? How can we trust him to conduct these "sit down" discussions with contentious foreign leaders? Is this a man we can trust with the national checkbook?
|
|
Oct 07, 03:56 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I'll type slowly for the dimwitted.
The reason that Obama's college records are relevant are (1) his campaign is portraying him as a "super-intellectual"; a review of his college records could reveal that to be a lie, and (2) he has very little history, so we need to know more about what little he has.
As for McCain and Palin, they have not blocked access to their records.
As to your lie about McCain's health records, he allowed 20 reporters -- including the famed Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN -- three hours of unfettered access to his health records.
Obama's college records are far more extensive than McCain's medical records, but when will Obama allow 20 reporters three hours of unfettered access them?
Obama can't ask people to vote for him while he blocks all inquiries about his past.
Well, he can't ask intelligent people.
Dewey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romeo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If there's nothing for Obama to be afraid of in
> > his college records, why does he keep hiding
> > them?
>
>
> So, by my count, we now have 5 separate instances
> in which you have refused to explain why you think
> these records are relevant. No wonder you like
> Palin so much - hey, when you get a question you
> can't answer, just ignore it!
>
> Moreover, by your "logic," we should be equally
> concerned about McCain's and Palin's refusal to
> disclose their college records. And what to make
> of McCain's refusal to make public his medical
> records? Gosh, he must have something to hide!
The reason that Obama's college records are relevant are (1) his campaign is portraying him as a "super-intellectual"; a review of his college records could reveal that to be a lie, and (2) he has very little history, so we need to know more about what little he has.
As for McCain and Palin, they have not blocked access to their records.
As to your lie about McCain's health records, he allowed 20 reporters -- including the famed Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN -- three hours of unfettered access to his health records.
Obama's college records are far more extensive than McCain's medical records, but when will Obama allow 20 reporters three hours of unfettered access them?
Obama can't ask people to vote for him while he blocks all inquiries about his past.
Well, he can't ask intelligent people.
Dewey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romeo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If there's nothing for Obama to be afraid of in
> > his college records, why does he keep hiding
> > them?
>
>
> So, by my count, we now have 5 separate instances
> in which you have refused to explain why you think
> these records are relevant. No wonder you like
> Palin so much - hey, when you get a question you
> can't answer, just ignore it!
>
> Moreover, by your "logic," we should be equally
> concerned about McCain's and Palin's refusal to
> disclose their college records. And what to make
> of McCain's refusal to make public his medical
> records? Gosh, he must have something to hide!
|
|
Oct 07, 03:48 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
OK, one more point on divided government. I would have loved to see the outcome of the Bush presidency if he had a Democrat congress to deal with from day 1. I bet he wouldn't be seen as near the failure he is. The trouble with the split in just his last 2 years of office is that it was in his "lame duck" stage. He had no appetite for consensus at that point. Just "veto." However, if he had to compromise from Day 1, when he had energy and wanted to get things done, I bet his legacy would be very different. I also bet the legacies of Reagan and Clinton would be very different if they had same party rule during their years. But, we will never know what might've been...(I'm not saying Bush would've been a superstar, but I would almost guarantee his approval ratings would be at least 10 points higher, consistently). Heck, he was pretty successful working with a Democrat legislature in Texas.
Agoraphobic Plumber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jake747 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And how much experience in local government do
> you
> > have?
>
> None, thanks for asking.
>
> > I stand strongly behind my view that a
> > mayor of a town of 6,000 is not valid executive
> > experience for a VP candidate.
>
> It's not, except in comparison to the experience
> of the candidate(s) her detractors are
> supporting.
>
> > So, you think
> > McCain picked Palin because of this great
> > experience?
>
> No. But it's one factor. She probably made the
> screen because she's been a governor.
>
> > Are you kidding me? There's SCORES
> > of folks with more executive experience.
>
> Yeah, but not on the other ticket.
>
> > Heck,
> > just about any of the other 50 governors, not
> to
> > mention mayors of major cities. He picked
> Palin
> > for political reasons and trying to woo Hillary
> > supporters. That's obvious.
>
> Her femininity is definitely a factor, and
> probably a bigger one than her executive
> experience. I never said otherwise.
>
> > I don't deny that the Dems lack executive
> > experience.
>
> Whew. Because for a minute there it didn't seem
> like you recognized that fact.
>
> > But, they aren't touting it either.
>
> And yet they, without having any executive
> experience whatsoever between the two of them, are
> in a position to pass judgement on her executive
> experience? Curious.
>
> > It's conservatives who are pounding this notion
> > Palin has so much of it. It's a joke.
>
> They're not "pounding" anything, unless "pounding"
> means pointing out that if you want to talk about
> executive experience, Palin has more than the
> other ticket does.
>
> > If you read my other posts, you'll see that I
> > generally don't think either ticket is
> > presidential material. But, alas, it's the
> only
> > choices I have.
>
> Ah. Then we are mostly in the same boat after
> all.
>
> > So, my main motivation is
> > balance. After 8 years of Republicans at the
> > executive helm, and 6 of those years in control
> of
> > the legislature also...given I have to choose
> > between to less-than-redeeming tickets, I'll
> just
> > go democrat to bring back some balance.
>
> So in order to achieve "balance", you wish to see
> both elected branches of government controlled by
> the same party, and one of those branches likely
> turn the third branch, currently fairly evenly
> divided, in the same direction. Gotcha.
>
> > Our
> > country is cyclical as is the economy, I don't
> > think we really want either party in power for
> > more than 2 consectutive terms. Almost always
> > leads to trouble...
>
> I liked the way things worked when the prez was
> Dem and congress was Repub. Lots of gridlock, but
> when they did something it never seemed to be too
> outrageous, and it was usually a pretty
> well-reasoned compromise. Mostly the same type of
> thing happened in the 80s with a Repub prez and
> Dem congress. If balance is what you crave,
> McCain is your only choice.
Agoraphobic Plumber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jake747 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And how much experience in local government do
> you
> > have?
>
> None, thanks for asking.
>
> > I stand strongly behind my view that a
> > mayor of a town of 6,000 is not valid executive
> > experience for a VP candidate.
>
> It's not, except in comparison to the experience
> of the candidate(s) her detractors are
> supporting.
>
> > So, you think
> > McCain picked Palin because of this great
> > experience?
>
> No. But it's one factor. She probably made the
> screen because she's been a governor.
>
> > Are you kidding me? There's SCORES
> > of folks with more executive experience.
>
> Yeah, but not on the other ticket.
>
> > Heck,
> > just about any of the other 50 governors, not
> to
> > mention mayors of major cities. He picked
> Palin
> > for political reasons and trying to woo Hillary
> > supporters. That's obvious.
>
> Her femininity is definitely a factor, and
> probably a bigger one than her executive
> experience. I never said otherwise.
>
> > I don't deny that the Dems lack executive
> > experience.
>
> Whew. Because for a minute there it didn't seem
> like you recognized that fact.
>
> > But, they aren't touting it either.
>
> And yet they, without having any executive
> experience whatsoever between the two of them, are
> in a position to pass judgement on her executive
> experience? Curious.
>
> > It's conservatives who are pounding this notion
> > Palin has so much of it. It's a joke.
>
> They're not "pounding" anything, unless "pounding"
> means pointing out that if you want to talk about
> executive experience, Palin has more than the
> other ticket does.
>
> > If you read my other posts, you'll see that I
> > generally don't think either ticket is
> > presidential material. But, alas, it's the
> only
> > choices I have.
>
> Ah. Then we are mostly in the same boat after
> all.
>
> > So, my main motivation is
> > balance. After 8 years of Republicans at the
> > executive helm, and 6 of those years in control
> of
> > the legislature also...given I have to choose
> > between to less-than-redeeming tickets, I'll
> just
> > go democrat to bring back some balance.
>
> So in order to achieve "balance", you wish to see
> both elected branches of government controlled by
> the same party, and one of those branches likely
> turn the third branch, currently fairly evenly
> divided, in the same direction. Gotcha.
>
> > Our
> > country is cyclical as is the economy, I don't
> > think we really want either party in power for
> > more than 2 consectutive terms. Almost always
> > leads to trouble...
>
> I liked the way things worked when the prez was
> Dem and congress was Repub. Lots of gridlock, but
> when they did something it never seemed to be too
> outrageous, and it was usually a pretty
> well-reasoned compromise. Mostly the same type of
> thing happened in the 80s with a Repub prez and
> Dem congress. If balance is what you crave,
> McCain is your only choice.
|
|
Oct 07, 03:47 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Romeo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there's nothing for Obama to be afraid of in
> his college records, why does he keep hiding
> them?
So, by my count, we now have 5 separate instances in which you have refused to explain why you think these records are relevant. No wonder you like Palin so much - hey, when you get a question you can't answer, just ignore it!
Moreover, by your "logic," we should be equally concerned about McCain's and Palin's refusal to disclose their college records. And what to make of McCain's refusal to make public his medical records? Gosh, he must have something to hide!
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there's nothing for Obama to be afraid of in
> his college records, why does he keep hiding
> them?
So, by my count, we now have 5 separate instances in which you have refused to explain why you think these records are relevant. No wonder you like Palin so much - hey, when you get a question you can't answer, just ignore it!
Moreover, by your "logic," we should be equally concerned about McCain's and Palin's refusal to disclose their college records. And what to make of McCain's refusal to make public his medical records? Gosh, he must have something to hide!
|
|
Oct 07, 03:40 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Indeed they are. I stand corrected. But do you really believe 1 party could be elected that many times in a row? It would be unprecedented...
OK, I've been a major blog hog. I'm out. Been fun!
TheEnforcer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jake747 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wow, a scary partisan here! They have it
> mapped
> > out for the next 12 years! Could you imagine 1
> > pary in power for 20 years?!? Heck, I lean
> Obama
> > right now, but I wouldn't want dems in control
> > permanently.
> >
> > News flash -- neither party has all the
> answers,
> > balance is what makes this country strong.
> >
> >
> > TheEnforcer Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > KBinIA Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > What I don't understand is how a candidate
> > who
> > > is
> > > > CURRENTLY under investigation for misuse of
> > an
> > > > elected office, can be applauded for
> throwing
> > > > 'guilt by association' stones at Obama. She
> > > does
> > > > appear to be getting a pass in that
> > department.
> > > > Oh, well. The polls would seem to indicate
> > that
> > > > people are not impressed with the maverick
> > mud
> > > > slingers.
> > > >
> > > > Obama '08
> > >
> > >
> > > 'guilt by association' my butt.
> > >
> > > McCain/Palin '08, '12.
> > >
> > > Palin/Romney '16, '20
>
>
> I am not a partisan.
>
> I am just predicting.
>
> Two different things.
OK, I've been a major blog hog. I'm out. Been fun!
TheEnforcer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jake747 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wow, a scary partisan here! They have it
> mapped
> > out for the next 12 years! Could you imagine 1
> > pary in power for 20 years?!? Heck, I lean
> Obama
> > right now, but I wouldn't want dems in control
> > permanently.
> >
> > News flash -- neither party has all the
> answers,
> > balance is what makes this country strong.
> >
> >
> > TheEnforcer Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > KBinIA Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > What I don't understand is how a candidate
> > who
> > > is
> > > > CURRENTLY under investigation for misuse of
> > an
> > > > elected office, can be applauded for
> throwing
> > > > 'guilt by association' stones at Obama. She
> > > does
> > > > appear to be getting a pass in that
> > department.
> > > > Oh, well. The polls would seem to indicate
> > that
> > > > people are not impressed with the maverick
> > mud
> > > > slingers.
> > > >
> > > > Obama '08
> > >
> > >
> > > 'guilt by association' my butt.
> > >
> > > McCain/Palin '08, '12.
> > >
> > > Palin/Romney '16, '20
>
>
> I am not a partisan.
>
> I am just predicting.
>
> Two different things.
|
|
Oct 07, 03:40 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
If there's nothing for Obama to be afraid of in his college records, why does he keep hiding them?
Btw, a google of "Obama Harvard professor interviews" comes up empty as well. Apparently the Obama campaign has a gag order in affect for all his college information.
Dewey Wrote:
> > So, the question is, Why can't we see Obama's
> > records from his days at Colombia and Harvard?
>
> No, the question - the one that you assiduously
> avoid answering, even after it's been put to you
> mulitple times - is why it's relevant. Do you
> want to at least try to articulate some rationale?
> Or is this just a mixture of idle curiosity and
> the vague, desperate hope that maybe a fishing
> expedition will turn up something - anything -
> that could be useful in the last 4 weeks of the
> campaign?
Btw, a google of "Obama Harvard professor interviews" comes up empty as well. Apparently the Obama campaign has a gag order in affect for all his college information.
Dewey Wrote:
> > So, the question is, Why can't we see Obama's
> > records from his days at Colombia and Harvard?
>
> No, the question - the one that you assiduously
> avoid answering, even after it's been put to you
> mulitple times - is why it's relevant. Do you
> want to at least try to articulate some rationale?
> Or is this just a mixture of idle curiosity and
> the vague, desperate hope that maybe a fishing
> expedition will turn up something - anything -
> that could be useful in the last 4 weeks of the
> campaign?
|
|
Oct 07, 03:39 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
BigPapi34 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agoraphobic Plumber wrote:
> "And yet they, without having any executive
> experience whatsoever between the two of them, are
> in a position to pass judgement on her executive
> experience? Curious."
>
>
> Hmmm..... So, are you suggesting that unless
> you've been a U.S. Senator, you can't really "pass
> judgment" on the legislative accomplishments of
> Obama, Biden or McCain?
Well, I wouldn't say you can't make your own judgements about them. Perhaps I didn't write that correctly. How about this: a professional football coach is considering two guys to fill a roster spot. One of them had an unspectacular, but steady, college career at a Big 10 school. The other has roughly the same build, strength and so forth but had gone with basketball in college. Which one is likely going to have the best chance to survive in an NFL position? And should the basketball player or his fans be dissing the football player because of his lack of NFL experience?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agoraphobic Plumber wrote:
> "And yet they, without having any executive
> experience whatsoever between the two of them, are
> in a position to pass judgement on her executive
> experience? Curious."
>
>
> Hmmm..... So, are you suggesting that unless
> you've been a U.S. Senator, you can't really "pass
> judgment" on the legislative accomplishments of
> Obama, Biden or McCain?
Well, I wouldn't say you can't make your own judgements about them. Perhaps I didn't write that correctly. How about this: a professional football coach is considering two guys to fill a roster spot. One of them had an unspectacular, but steady, college career at a Big 10 school. The other has roughly the same build, strength and so forth but had gone with basketball in college. Which one is likely going to have the best chance to survive in an NFL position? And should the basketball player or his fans be dissing the football player because of his lack of NFL experience?
|
|
Oct 07, 03:38 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Actually, yes. I agree with you on the power of "divided" government. The Wall St Journal did an interesting analysis that determined split government has always been best for markets. So, why then do I want Obama when congress will likely stay demo? Good question. Because we recently had 1 party in full power for 6 years. So, the republicans got their shot. 6 years of control. I think it's a fair balance if the democrats are given 4. If Obama wins, within 2-4 years I'll be screaming for a republican congress!
And, regarding the Court. Good issue to bring up. Right now it's 4 libs-4 cons-and 1 swing (though collectively, Kennedy, the "swing" has leaned conservative over his full career). While somewhat unpredictable, it is most likely that 2 will retire in the next 4 years -- both liberal (Ginsberg and Stevens). So, if Obama is the president, it will likely be status quo on the court, 2 libs replaced by 2 libs. BUT, if McCain wins, it will turn to 6 cons-2 libs-1 swing. I would be scared of a court controlled by EITHER. In the past, presidents didn't make largely partisan picks for the Court (Ford's pick of Stevens or Reagan's of O'Connor). But, in our modern era of black-and-white politics, Clinton and Bush have made largely partisan picks, and I expect that to continue.
So there's my "balance" logic. Don't expect everyone to buy it, but it makes sense to me. IF HOWEVER, we weren't on the recent heels of 6 years of 1-party rule, I probably would be saying lets see what a McCain Presidency and a Dem congress can do. And, if that happens, I'll be OK with it. Just not my first choice right now.
Agoraphobic Plumber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So in order to achieve "balance", you wish to see
> both elected branches of government controlled by
> the same party, and one of those branches likely
> turn the third branch, currently fairly evenly
> divided, in the same direction. Gotcha.
>
> > Our
> > country is cyclical as is the economy, I don't
> > think we really want either party in power for
> > more than 2 consectutive terms. Almost always
> > leads to trouble...
>
> I liked the way things worked when the prez was
> Dem and congress was Repub. Lots of gridlock, but
> when they did something it never seemed to be too
> outrageous, and it was usually a pretty
> well-reasoned compromise. Mostly the same type of
> thing happened in the 80s with a Repub prez and
> Dem congress. If balance is what you crave,
> McCain is your only choice.
And, regarding the Court. Good issue to bring up. Right now it's 4 libs-4 cons-and 1 swing (though collectively, Kennedy, the "swing" has leaned conservative over his full career). While somewhat unpredictable, it is most likely that 2 will retire in the next 4 years -- both liberal (Ginsberg and Stevens). So, if Obama is the president, it will likely be status quo on the court, 2 libs replaced by 2 libs. BUT, if McCain wins, it will turn to 6 cons-2 libs-1 swing. I would be scared of a court controlled by EITHER. In the past, presidents didn't make largely partisan picks for the Court (Ford's pick of Stevens or Reagan's of O'Connor). But, in our modern era of black-and-white politics, Clinton and Bush have made largely partisan picks, and I expect that to continue.
So there's my "balance" logic. Don't expect everyone to buy it, but it makes sense to me. IF HOWEVER, we weren't on the recent heels of 6 years of 1-party rule, I probably would be saying lets see what a McCain Presidency and a Dem congress can do. And, if that happens, I'll be OK with it. Just not my first choice right now.
Agoraphobic Plumber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So in order to achieve "balance", you wish to see
> both elected branches of government controlled by
> the same party, and one of those branches likely
> turn the third branch, currently fairly evenly
> divided, in the same direction. Gotcha.
>
> > Our
> > country is cyclical as is the economy, I don't
> > think we really want either party in power for
> > more than 2 consectutive terms. Almost always
> > leads to trouble...
>
> I liked the way things worked when the prez was
> Dem and congress was Repub. Lots of gridlock, but
> when they did something it never seemed to be too
> outrageous, and it was usually a pretty
> well-reasoned compromise. Mostly the same type of
> thing happened in the 80s with a Repub prez and
> Dem congress. If balance is what you crave,
> McCain is your only choice.
|
|
Oct 07, 03:30 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Agoraphobic Plumber wrote:
"And yet they, without having any executive experience whatsoever between the two of them, are in a position to pass judgement on her executive experience? Curious."
Hmmm..... So, are you suggesting that unless you've been a U.S. Senator, you can't really "pass judgment" on the legislative accomplishments of Obama, Biden or McCain?
"And yet they, without having any executive experience whatsoever between the two of them, are in a position to pass judgement on her executive experience? Curious."
Hmmm..... So, are you suggesting that unless you've been a U.S. Senator, you can't really "pass judgment" on the legislative accomplishments of Obama, Biden or McCain?
|
|
Oct 07, 03:29 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
jake747 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, a scary partisan here! They have it mapped
> out for the next 12 years! Could you imagine 1
> pary in power for 20 years?!? Heck, I lean Obama
> right now, but I wouldn't want dems in control
> permanently.
>
> News flash -- neither party has all the answers,
> balance is what makes this country strong.
>
>
> TheEnforcer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > KBinIA Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > What I don't understand is how a candidate
> who
> > is
> > > CURRENTLY under investigation for misuse of
> an
> > > elected office, can be applauded for throwing
> > > 'guilt by association' stones at Obama. She
> > does
> > > appear to be getting a pass in that
> department.
> > > Oh, well. The polls would seem to indicate
> that
> > > people are not impressed with the maverick
> mud
> > > slingers.
> > >
> > > Obama '08
> >
> >
> > 'guilt by association' my butt.
> >
> > McCain/Palin '08, '12.
> >
> > Palin/Romney '16, '20
I am not a partisan.
I am just predicting.
Two different things.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, a scary partisan here! They have it mapped
> out for the next 12 years! Could you imagine 1
> pary in power for 20 years?!? Heck, I lean Obama
> right now, but I wouldn't want dems in control
> permanently.
>
> News flash -- neither party has all the answers,
> balance is what makes this country strong.
>
>
> TheEnforcer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > KBinIA Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > What I don't understand is how a candidate
> who
> > is
> > > CURRENTLY under investigation for misuse of
> an
> > > elected office, can be applauded for throwing
> > > 'guilt by association' stones at Obama. She
> > does
> > > appear to be getting a pass in that
> department.
> > > Oh, well. The polls would seem to indicate
> that
> > > people are not impressed with the maverick
> mud
> > > slingers.
> > >
> > > Obama '08
> >
> >
> > 'guilt by association' my butt.
> >
> > McCain/Palin '08, '12.
> >
> > Palin/Romney '16, '20
I am not a partisan.
I am just predicting.
Two different things.
|
|
Oct 07, 03:26 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
jake747 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And how much experience in local government do you
> have?
None, thanks for asking.
> I stand strongly behind my view that a
> mayor of a town of 6,000 is not valid executive
> experience for a VP candidate.
It's not, except in comparison to the experience of the candidate(s) her detractors are supporting.
> So, you think
> McCain picked Palin because of this great
> experience?
No. But it's one factor. She probably made the screen because she's been a governor.
> Are you kidding me? There's SCORES
> of folks with more executive experience.
Yeah, but not on the other ticket.
> Heck,
> just about any of the other 50 governors, not to
> mention mayors of major cities. He picked Palin
> for political reasons and trying to woo Hillary
> supporters. That's obvious.
Her femininity is definitely a factor, and probably a bigger one than her executive experience. I never said otherwise.
> I don't deny that the Dems lack executive
> experience.
Whew. Because for a minute there it didn't seem like you recognized that fact.
> But, they aren't touting it either.
And yet they, without having any executive experience whatsoever between the two of them, are in a position to pass judgement on her executive experience? Curious.
> It's conservatives who are pounding this notion
> Palin has so much of it. It's a joke.
They're not "pounding" anything, unless "pounding" means pointing out that if you want to talk about executive experience, Palin has more than the other ticket does.
> If you read my other posts, you'll see that I
> generally don't think either ticket is
> presidential material. But, alas, it's the only
> choices I have.
Ah. Then we are mostly in the same boat after all.
> So, my main motivation is
> balance. After 8 years of Republicans at the
> executive helm, and 6 of those years in control of
> the legislature also...given I have to choose
> between to less-than-redeeming tickets, I'll just
> go democrat to bring back some balance.
So in order to achieve "balance", you wish to see both elected branches of government controlled by the same party, and one of those branches likely turn the third branch, currently fairly evenly divided, in the same direction. Gotcha.
> Our
> country is cyclical as is the economy, I don't
> think we really want either party in power for
> more than 2 consectutive terms. Almost always
> leads to trouble...
I liked the way things worked when the prez was Dem and congress was Repub. Lots of gridlock, but when they did something it never seemed to be too outrageous, and it was usually a pretty well-reasoned compromise. Mostly the same type of thing happened in the 80s with a Repub prez and Dem congress. If balance is what you crave, McCain is your only choice.
-------------------------------------------------------
> And how much experience in local government do you
> have?
None, thanks for asking.
> I stand strongly behind my view that a
> mayor of a town of 6,000 is not valid executive
> experience for a VP candidate.
It's not, except in comparison to the experience of the candidate(s) her detractors are supporting.
> So, you think
> McCain picked Palin because of this great
> experience?
No. But it's one factor. She probably made the screen because she's been a governor.
> Are you kidding me? There's SCORES
> of folks with more executive experience.
Yeah, but not on the other ticket.
> Heck,
> just about any of the other 50 governors, not to
> mention mayors of major cities. He picked Palin
> for political reasons and trying to woo Hillary
> supporters. That's obvious.
Her femininity is definitely a factor, and probably a bigger one than her executive experience. I never said otherwise.
> I don't deny that the Dems lack executive
> experience.
Whew. Because for a minute there it didn't seem like you recognized that fact.
> But, they aren't touting it either.
And yet they, without having any executive experience whatsoever between the two of them, are in a position to pass judgement on her executive experience? Curious.
> It's conservatives who are pounding this notion
> Palin has so much of it. It's a joke.
They're not "pounding" anything, unless "pounding" means pointing out that if you want to talk about executive experience, Palin has more than the other ticket does.
> If you read my other posts, you'll see that I
> generally don't think either ticket is
> presidential material. But, alas, it's the only
> choices I have.
Ah. Then we are mostly in the same boat after all.
> So, my main motivation is
> balance. After 8 years of Republicans at the
> executive helm, and 6 of those years in control of
> the legislature also...given I have to choose
> between to less-than-redeeming tickets, I'll just
> go democrat to bring back some balance.
So in order to achieve "balance", you wish to see both elected branches of government controlled by the same party, and one of those branches likely turn the third branch, currently fairly evenly divided, in the same direction. Gotcha.
> Our
> country is cyclical as is the economy, I don't
> think we really want either party in power for
> more than 2 consectutive terms. Almost always
> leads to trouble...
I liked the way things worked when the prez was Dem and congress was Repub. Lots of gridlock, but when they did something it never seemed to be too outrageous, and it was usually a pretty well-reasoned compromise. Mostly the same type of thing happened in the 80s with a Repub prez and Dem congress. If balance is what you crave, McCain is your only choice.
|
|
Oct 07, 03:25 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Bobbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mario G. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The media has given Barack Obama a free ride.
> He's
> > simply not qualified to be president. No
> > experience, no achievements, no judgment. What
> a
> > joke!
>
>
>
> Let me guess.
> You think Palin is qualified.
She is MORE QUALIFIED than the Democratic nominee for President!
McCain/Palin '08, '12.
Palin/Romney '16, '20.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mario G. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The media has given Barack Obama a free ride.
> He's
> > simply not qualified to be president. No
> > experience, no achievements, no judgment. What
> a
> > joke!
>
>
>
> Let me guess.
> You think Palin is qualified.
She is MORE QUALIFIED than the Democratic nominee for President!
McCain/Palin '08, '12.
Palin/Romney '16, '20.
|
|
Oct 07, 03:22 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Romeo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Palin's college records are "not relevant", why
> did you ask about them?
Because you asked about Obama's, and I wanted to know whether any of the other candidates had released their records. And apparently the answer is no. The articles you linked to do NOT suggest that any of Palin's college records are available; rather, they merely note when she attended the 5 schools and contain interviews with professors and fellow students.
> As for McCain, we know he "graduated 895th in his
> class" and "had a lot of demerits" (Fred
> Thompson's speech at the RNC). So it sounds like
> he hasn't blocked access to his records like Obama
> has to his.
Gosh, that's some "logic." It's like saying that because I know Barry Bonds' weight, he must have made his medical records publicly available.
Please provide some corroboration (if you can) for the notion that McCain has released, or permitted public access to his Annapolis records.
> So, the question is, Why can't we see Obama's
> records from his days at Colombia and Harvard?
No, the question - the one that you assiduously avoid answering, even after it's been put to you mulitple times - is why it's relevant. Do you want to at least try to articulate some rationale? Or is this just a mixture of idle curiosity and the vague, desperate hope that maybe a fishing expedition will turn up something - anything - that could be useful in the last 4 weeks of the campaign?
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Palin's college records are "not relevant", why
> did you ask about them?
Because you asked about Obama's, and I wanted to know whether any of the other candidates had released their records. And apparently the answer is no. The articles you linked to do NOT suggest that any of Palin's college records are available; rather, they merely note when she attended the 5 schools and contain interviews with professors and fellow students.
> As for McCain, we know he "graduated 895th in his
> class" and "had a lot of demerits" (Fred
> Thompson's speech at the RNC). So it sounds like
> he hasn't blocked access to his records like Obama
> has to his.
Gosh, that's some "logic." It's like saying that because I know Barry Bonds' weight, he must have made his medical records publicly available.
Please provide some corroboration (if you can) for the notion that McCain has released, or permitted public access to his Annapolis records.
> So, the question is, Why can't we see Obama's
> records from his days at Colombia and Harvard?
No, the question - the one that you assiduously avoid answering, even after it's been put to you mulitple times - is why it's relevant. Do you want to at least try to articulate some rationale? Or is this just a mixture of idle curiosity and the vague, desperate hope that maybe a fishing expedition will turn up something - anything - that could be useful in the last 4 weeks of the campaign?
|
|
Oct 07, 03:21 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Wow, a scary partisan here! They have it mapped out for the next 12 years! Could you imagine 1 pary in power for 20 years?!? Heck, I lean Obama right now, but I wouldn't want dems in control permanently.
News flash -- neither party has all the answers, balance is what makes this country strong.
TheEnforcer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KBinIA Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What I don't understand is how a candidate who
> is
> > CURRENTLY under investigation for misuse of an
> > elected office, can be applauded for throwing
> > 'guilt by association' stones at Obama. She
> does
> > appear to be getting a pass in that department.
> > Oh, well. The polls would seem to indicate that
> > people are not impressed with the maverick mud
> > slingers.
> >
> > Obama '08
>
>
> 'guilt by association' my butt.
>
> McCain/Palin '08, '12.
>
> Palin/Romney '16, '20
News flash -- neither party has all the answers, balance is what makes this country strong.
TheEnforcer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KBinIA Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What I don't understand is how a candidate who
> is
> > CURRENTLY under investigation for misuse of an
> > elected office, can be applauded for throwing
> > 'guilt by association' stones at Obama. She
> does
> > appear to be getting a pass in that department.
> > Oh, well. The polls would seem to indicate that
> > people are not impressed with the maverick mud
> > slingers.
> >
> > Obama '08
>
>
> 'guilt by association' my butt.
>
> McCain/Palin '08, '12.
>
> Palin/Romney '16, '20
|
|
Oct 07, 03:19 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Allright! I'm starting to see some consensus-building here -- several of us find the choices pathetic! Regardless of our individual affiliations...
At the time Palin was an intriguing pick by McCain, but I think history will lean to the notion that it cost him a real shot at the presidency. Remember, before the VP picks, McCain was on a roll. He had tied in several polls and built a slim lead in others. Imagine if he picked someone like Romney (I'm not a fan of Romney, but he is very eloquent, knowledgeable, and has private sector AND public sector REAL executive experience). When many voters question in their mind if Obama's the man for the job, their doubts would be more comforted in a McCain-Romney or similar ticket. The "experience" question was really building momentum and damaging Obama.
But, by picking Palin, who, almost everyone except hardcore republican partisans (heck, even some of them like Rove, Will, and others think it was a bad pick) realize is far from presidential material at this stage, he gave away the experience argument (given he's 72) and opened up the ticket to ridicule... I know Palin fans will hate me for this observation, but it's true. She has the lowest approval ratings of almost any recent VP pick other than Quayle. And, it's NOT just because of the mean 'ol MSM. We are talking about the #2 person in a nation of 300 million. Her experience isn't even close (and don't bother countering with "neither is Obama's", my whole point here is that McCain could have taken Obama to the cleaners with his lack of experience, but he threw it away).
Adam SC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cohen is right - and this is coming from the same
> guy who said a few weeks ago that Obama-supporters
> would have made "good little communists - and I
> agree completely. Palin has proven herself to be
> remarkably inept. And the press has not said
> enough about it. Her selection as McCain's VP
> should forever be a stain on the GOP.
At the time Palin was an intriguing pick by McCain, but I think history will lean to the notion that it cost him a real shot at the presidency. Remember, before the VP picks, McCain was on a roll. He had tied in several polls and built a slim lead in others. Imagine if he picked someone like Romney (I'm not a fan of Romney, but he is very eloquent, knowledgeable, and has private sector AND public sector REAL executive experience). When many voters question in their mind if Obama's the man for the job, their doubts would be more comforted in a McCain-Romney or similar ticket. The "experience" question was really building momentum and damaging Obama.
But, by picking Palin, who, almost everyone except hardcore republican partisans (heck, even some of them like Rove, Will, and others think it was a bad pick) realize is far from presidential material at this stage, he gave away the experience argument (given he's 72) and opened up the ticket to ridicule... I know Palin fans will hate me for this observation, but it's true. She has the lowest approval ratings of almost any recent VP pick other than Quayle. And, it's NOT just because of the mean 'ol MSM. We are talking about the #2 person in a nation of 300 million. Her experience isn't even close (and don't bother countering with "neither is Obama's", my whole point here is that McCain could have taken Obama to the cleaners with his lack of experience, but he threw it away).
Adam SC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cohen is right - and this is coming from the same
> guy who said a few weeks ago that Obama-supporters
> would have made "good little communists - and I
> agree completely. Palin has proven herself to be
> remarkably inept. And the press has not said
> enough about it. Her selection as McCain's VP
> should forever be a stain on the GOP.
|
|
Oct 07, 03:19 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
KBinIA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I don't understand is how a candidate who is
> CURRENTLY under investigation for misuse of an
> elected office, can be applauded for throwing
> 'guilt by association' stones at Obama. She does
> appear to be getting a pass in that department.
> Oh, well. The polls would seem to indicate that
> people are not impressed with the maverick mud
> slingers.
>
> Obama '08
'guilt by association' my butt.
McCain/Palin '08, '12.
Palin/Romney '16, '20
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I don't understand is how a candidate who is
> CURRENTLY under investigation for misuse of an
> elected office, can be applauded for throwing
> 'guilt by association' stones at Obama. She does
> appear to be getting a pass in that department.
> Oh, well. The polls would seem to indicate that
> people are not impressed with the maverick mud
> slingers.
>
> Obama '08
'guilt by association' my butt.
McCain/Palin '08, '12.
Palin/Romney '16, '20
|
|
Oct 07, 03:17 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Google "Obama Harvard Class Ranking" and here's what you get: [www.google.com]
(Answer: No one knows!)
Another good question: Who paid for Obama's tuition at Harvard?
(Answer: No one knows!)
Another good question: Who paid for Obama's tuition at Harvard?
|
|
Oct 07, 03:07 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Cohen is right - and this is coming from the same guy who said a few weeks ago that Obama-supporters would have made "good little communists - and I agree completely. Palin has proven herself to be remarkably inept. And the press has not said enough about it. Her selection as McCain's VP should forever be a stain on the GOP.
|
|
Oct 07, 03:05 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
And how much experience in local government do you have? I stand strongly behind my view that a mayor of a town of 6,000 is not valid executive experience for a VP candidate. So, you think McCain picked Palin because of this great experience? Are you kidding me? There's SCORES of folks with more executive experience. Heck, just about any of the other 50 governors, not to mention mayors of major cities. He picked Palin for political reasons and trying to woo Hillary supporters. That's obvious.
I don't deny that the Dems lack executive experience. But, they aren't touting it either. It's conservatives who are pounding this notion Palin has so much of it. It's a joke.
If you read my other posts, you'll see that I generally don't think either ticket is presidential material. But, alas, it's the only choices I have. So, my main motivation is balance. After 8 years of Republicans at the executive helm, and 6 of those years in control of the legislature also...given I have to choose between to less-than-redeeming tickets, I'll just go democrat to bring back some balance. Our country is cyclical as is the economy, I don't think we really want either party in power for more than 2 consectutive terms. Almost always leads to trouble...
Agoraphobic Plumber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jake747 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I too will deeply question Palin's so-called
> > executive experience. A town of 6,000 does not
> > count.
>
> Personally, I question the executive experience of
> the Dems' #1 more than the Repubs' #2. Deeply.
> And since we get to determine what does or doesn't
> count, then being on a board of a charity and
> throwing money away with nothing to show for it
> doesn't count as much as being a mayor.
>
> For that matter, I question the combined executive
> experience of the Dem ticket more than the #2 of
> the Repubs (decades of bloviating in the senate
> count less than nothing for executive experience,
> really). I'm guessing that's one reason McCain
> picked her.
I don't deny that the Dems lack executive experience. But, they aren't touting it either. It's conservatives who are pounding this notion Palin has so much of it. It's a joke.
If you read my other posts, you'll see that I generally don't think either ticket is presidential material. But, alas, it's the only choices I have. So, my main motivation is balance. After 8 years of Republicans at the executive helm, and 6 of those years in control of the legislature also...given I have to choose between to less-than-redeeming tickets, I'll just go democrat to bring back some balance. Our country is cyclical as is the economy, I don't think we really want either party in power for more than 2 consectutive terms. Almost always leads to trouble...
Agoraphobic Plumber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jake747 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I too will deeply question Palin's so-called
> > executive experience. A town of 6,000 does not
> > count.
>
> Personally, I question the executive experience of
> the Dems' #1 more than the Repubs' #2. Deeply.
> And since we get to determine what does or doesn't
> count, then being on a board of a charity and
> throwing money away with nothing to show for it
> doesn't count as much as being a mayor.
>
> For that matter, I question the combined executive
> experience of the Dem ticket more than the #2 of
> the Repubs (decades of bloviating in the senate
> count less than nothing for executive experience,
> really). I'm guessing that's one reason McCain
> picked her.
|
Oct 07, 03:02 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Jonah Goldberg's piece in the LA Times ("Biden's No Expert - He Just Plays One on TV") is the perfect companion piece to Cohen's here.
One just wants to hit the Reset button and start with a fresh new crop of four candidates, because the events of the last handful of weeks has pretty well trashed all of `em - just like the financial markets have been trashed. Think of it as an Election Bailout....
* Digital Prince (who somehow lucked out to be living in the tossup state of Colorado...)
One just wants to hit the Reset button and start with a fresh new crop of four candidates, because the events of the last handful of weeks has pretty well trashed all of `em - just like the financial markets have been trashed. Think of it as an Election Bailout....
* Digital Prince (who somehow lucked out to be living in the tossup state of Colorado...)
|
|
Oct 07, 03:00 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
If you follow some of the links from the linked article, you will find more, like this one: [www.bloomberg.com]
Notable Quote: "Roy Atwood, her academic adviser
Notable Quote: "Roy Atwood, her academic adviser