565 replies to this topic

[mike250]

Old, Grizzled Third-Party Candidate Threatens McCain's Base

[Connor MacLeod]

I suspect that picture of Palin in a bikini is actually photoshopped. Nevertheless...

[jackinbox]

Video of the Palin speech at the RNC:

http://www.youdecide...nal-convention/

0wnage.

She did very well in her own style. A style well suited for Rove-ian politics. That must have been the most divisive speech I heard during this campaign so far. Quite different from the bipartisan image McCain tried to picture. She even attacked the press. That might be a mistake. The contrast between a speech like this and the "there is no blue states or red states, there is the United states" message of Obama's campaign is striking.

Obama's speeches are the way he always is. Always moving. Always inspirational. Always saying the “happy talk” and the “pretty speech” that we all want to hear and that his speech writers helped him spin.

Apart from that its simply empty rhetoric. He talks about one nation and change--- what is change?--- The idea of unity rings with a lot of voters but he does not address the important underlying issues. I like to hear Obama talk about resolving the healthcare crisis in America. It is a crisis. The fact is that the issue isn’t only “can we afford to pay for healthcare?”

If he would address these issues it would put him on a whole new level from where McCain is and then I will start to listen.

Otherwise his speeches, much like McCain's for that matter, don't help progress the political dialogue in this country and are just the same old stuff we've been hearing over and over again.

If you want to know more about Obama, he answered 14 questions related to science:
http://www.sciencede...index.php?id=40

I would like to see McCain answering those. With a creationist on his ticket, that might be interesting.

[Cyberbrain]

[TianZi]

Palin attended this sermon, and others over many years in which equally offensive things were said by the pastor at her other church, much like Obama was a member of Wright's church for many years.

I hope the nutroots folks push this issue into the news because it invariably will bring Wright back into the news as well. Personally, I think Obama got off on that way too easy during the Democratic primaries and I'm looking forward to seeing more before the election. So yeah, let's see whose pastor - as well as the nature and depth of the relationship of the candidate with said pastor - is more troubling to Americans. Obama will be the loser on this issue.

Why? Because Wright's black?

Jeez. You sure do like pulling that race card, don't you?

'
It's a simple question. You tend in this thread to voice ultimate conclusions without presenting any factual support, so I'm asking you to explain specifically why, if understood in context (which I have tried to set forth in a post here), the things said by Rev. Wright would reasonably be deemed anymore objectionable than the things pastors at Palin's own church have said. I suspect you may well be right, but only for an unreasonable reason (Wright and Obama's race; it's no secret many Americans won't vote for him for that reason alone).

[mike250]

Video of the Palin speech at the RNC:

http://www.youdecide...nal-convention/

0wnage.

She did very well in her own style. A style well suited for Rove-ian politics. That must have been the most divisive speech I heard during this campaign so far. Quite different from the bipartisan image McCain tried to picture. She even attacked the press. That might be a mistake. The contrast between a speech like this and the "there is no blue states or red states, there is the United states" message of Obama's campaign is striking.

Obama's speeches are the way he always is. Always moving. Always inspirational. Always saying the “happy talk” and the “pretty speech” that we all want to hear and that his speech writers helped him spin.

Apart from that its simply empty rhetoric. He talks about one nation and change--- what is change?--- The idea of unity rings with a lot of voters but he does not address the important underlying issues. I like to hear Obama talk about resolving the healthcare crisis in America. It is a crisis. The fact is that the issue isn’t only “can we afford to pay for healthcare?”

If he would address these issues it would put him on a whole new level from where McCain is and then I will start to listen.

Otherwise his speeches, much like McCain's for that matter, don't help progress the political dialogue in this country and are just the same old stuff we've been hearing over and over again.

If you want to know more about Obama, he answered 14 questions related to science:
http://www.sciencede...index.php?id=40

I would like to see McCain answering those. With a creationist on his ticket, that might be interesting.

Obama's answers to these issues look refreshing from an initial point of view (rather vague on the health care topic) but it remains to be seen whether he will be able to deliver on these things and whether some are actually feasible and how he will handle particular issues (e.g teacher unions and public school systems as is the case with education in Florida) what does he plan to do or whether it will be another bright talk with little action much like his speeches. We've heard a lot of failed promises from every politician for a long time now. As for McCain, I too would like to see what answers he comes up with, but I'm not crossing my fingers.

Edited by mike250, 04 September 2008 - 02:58 PM.

[mike250]

Palin attended this sermon, and others over many years in which equally offensive things were said by the pastor at her other church, much like Obama was a member of Wright's church for many years.

I hope the nutroots folks push this issue into the news because it invariably will bring Wright back into the news as well. Personally, I think Obama got off on that way too easy during the Democratic primaries and I'm looking forward to seeing more before the election. So yeah, let's see whose pastor - as well as the nature and depth of the relationship of the candidate with said pastor - is more troubling to Americans. Obama will be the loser on this issue.

Why? Because Wright's black?

Jeez. You sure do like pulling that race card, don't you?

'
It's a simple question. You tend in this thread to voice ultimate conclusions without presenting any factual support, so I'm asking you to explain specifically why, if understood in context (which I have tried to set forth in a post here), the things said by Rev. Wright would reasonably be deemed anymore objectionable than the things pastors at Palin's own church have said. I suspect you may well be right, but only for an unreasonable reason (Wright and Obama's race; it's no secret many Americans won't vote for him for that reason alone).

at this stage both pastors have said things that are simply mind-boggling and its time we move away from families, VPs and pastors to discuss the more critical issues.

Edited by mike250, 04 September 2008 - 02:39 PM.

[biknut]

"Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so
independent, she was once a member of their party, which, since the 1970s,
has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not
residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States.
And while McCain's motto -- as seen in a new TV ad -- is "Country First,"
the AIP's motto is the exact opposite -- "Alaska First -- Alaska Always."
Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News that Palin and her
husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide
convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time. "

This is huge. How can we have a vice president who wants to be an Alaskan but not an American?

This is going to break your heart. Like all the other trash talk about her, the facts turn out different from the talk.

Among those who couldn't make it to the Tailgaters bar was Lynette Clark, chair of the Alaskan Independence Party, who last night issued an apology for incorrectly claiming that Palin was once a member of the pro-separatist group. In fact, only Todd Palin was ever a member.

Speaking to The Times before the speech, Ms Clark said she believed that Alaska would one day be independent, and she criticised Mr McCain for having previously campaigned against new oil exploration in the north of the state. But she expressed support for Palin. "I'm very glad she's governor of the state of Alaska, you couldn't find a more apt individual," she said. "In this country, Alaska, they don't care if you're a man or a woman, they care about your word, your reputation. She'd make a fine vice president."

http://www.timesonli...icle4671858.ece

[biknut]

Somewhere Hillary must be smiling today. Where is she anyway? Already on the morning talk shows I'm seeing talk about Hillary, and Palin running against each other, and how that would mean one way or another we'd have the first woman president.

Shouldn't Hillary be out there trashing Palin for her man Obama?

[Cyberbrain]

Now the Republican ticket looks like this:

Indeed!

Edited by Kostas, 04 September 2008 - 04:27 PM.

[mike250]

Now the Republican ticket looks like this:

Indeed!

can we say a GILF?

[biknut]

Somewhere Hillary must be smiling today. Where is she anyway? Already on the morning talk shows I'm seeing talk about Hillary, and Palin running against each other, and how that would mean one way or another we'd have the first woman president.

Shouldn't Hillary be out there trashing Palin for her man Obama?

Here she is, or as least her shadow. I didn't think it would take her long. One thing I respect about Hillary is she never gives up.

Clinton aides: Palin treatment sexist

By JOHN F. HARRIS & BETH FRERKING | 9/4/08 11:46 AM EST Updated: 9/4/08 11:46 AM EST

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Sarah Palin found some unlikely allies Wednesday as leading academics and even former top aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton endorsed the Republican charge that John McCain’s running mate has been subject to a sexist double standard by the news media and Democrats.

“There’s no way those questions would be asked of a male candidate,” said Howard Wolfson a former top strategist for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Phil Singer, who worked with Wolfson on Clinton’s campaign, said the news media tend to focus on different sets of subjects when covering women candidates. He noted articles on Clinton’s cleavage, and whether she had the personality of a “bitch.”

“There’s no question that the issues a woman has to deal with are different,” Singer said, adding that, “The real indictment that needs to be prosecuted is about her views, not her personal life.”

http://www.politico....0908/13129.html

[mike250]

Palin attacks Obama in acceptance speech

[Cyberbrain]

Now the Republican ticket looks like this:

Indeed!

can we say a GILF?

I would not be surprised if they ended up having an affair together.

[Cyberbrain]

can we say a GILF?

I would


Sarah in college


Beauty Queen

Edited by Kostas, 04 September 2008 - 05:43 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

I bet the democrats are really happy that she's completely ignorant when it comes to politics, history and the issues



I just found out from the Boston Globe that Sarah Palin just got her first passport in 2006! And has traveled only 4 times outside the United States.

From a 2006 Policy Survey:

"Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?"

"Sarah Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

The founding fathers nevermention "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. It was added in 1951. And "In God we trust" found on coins and bills was added in 1908. And the term "So help me God" in the presidential oath of office was used in the late 19th century.

And the constitution and bill of rights no where mention religion.

Actually the first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Even the founders of the Republican Party in 1854 advocated a clear separation of church and state.

Damn these neoconservatives.

[Athanasios]

Kostas, my guess is she was referring to the founding father's use of 'God' where they did use it, as that is the underlying issue as she framed it.

Disclaimer: I give too many people the benefit of the doubt. It is not a fault in my priors but a 'policy' of mine that has worked well for me.

Edited by cnorwood, 04 September 2008 - 07:03 PM.

[Connor MacLeod]

I bet the democrats are really happy that she's completely ignorant when it comes to politics, history and the issues

Here's a quote by a man whom many claim to be the one of the most intelligent U.S. presidents ever:

"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."

In a single sentence he confuses three of the most important documents in U.S. history - the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Gettysburg address. Unbelievable ignorance for a man who is apparently so intelligent. I can only chalk it up to laziness and a overall lack of culture. It is obvious to me that people we have in Washington today - in both parties - are mental and spiritual midgets compared to the U.S. Founding Fathers.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 05 September 2008 - 03:13 AM.

[niner]

I bet the democrats are really happy that she's completely ignorant when it comes to politics, history and the issues

Here's a quote by a man whom many claim to be the one of the most intelligent U.S. presidents ever:

"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."

In a single sentence he confuses three of the most important documents in U.S. history - the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Gettysburg address. Unbelievable ignorance for a man who is apparently so intelligent. I can only chalk it up to laziness and a overall lack of culture. It is obvious to me that people we have in Washington today - in both parties - are mental and spiritual midgets compared to the U.S. Founding Fathers.

I've never heard anyone claim that Clinton was the most intelligent US president ever, but there's little question that he's the smartest one in the past quarter century. Maybe if Clinton got himself some slaves he'd be less of a spiritual midget.

[Connor MacLeod]

Maybe if Clinton got himself some slaves he'd be less of a spiritual midget.

Every man is a product their times - even great ones. I'm sure if Bill Clinton were around in "the day" he would have very much enjoyed the institution of slavery and not had a moment's doubt; he strikes as a smart man, but not a particularly deep thinker.

[Shannon Vyff]

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, but I'm sure that was a lazy speech, something off the cuff or when tired/hungry etc.

But, I came to this thread to share this, speaking of being a product of ones times: http://www.huffingto...h_n_123205.html

[inawe]

There are dozens of threads in this forum. This one in particular is about "McCain picks Palin as VP". It is relevant because very few of
the more that 300 million Americans ever heard of her.
Since Palin is being nominated for the 2nd highest office in the land it's very appropriate to analyze whether she's properly qualified for
that position.
As for all other candidates for high offices, her personality, accomplishments and potential capabilities are being scrutinized. The
same was done with Obama in other threads some time ago.
Some posters object to a close scrutiny of Sarah Palin. Instead of either accepting valid criticism or formulating valid excuses, they
bring in other personalities who have nothing to do with this case.
What does Bill Clinton have to do with the nomination of Sarah Palin?
Is it that her nomination cannot be defended on its merits? Talking about "mental and spiritual midgets".

[Connor MacLeod]

As for all other candidates for high offices, her personality, accomplishments and potential capabilities are being scrutinized. The
same was done with Obama in other threads some time ago.

Yes, and in those threads critical of Obama, much of the discussion also focused around Hillary Clinton and her relative strengths and weaknesses. If I recall correctly, you didn't seem to have any problem with people going "off topic" by during those discussions.

By the way, you might want to consider passing on the unprovoked and rather childish personal insults - it really doesn't reflect well upon you.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 05 September 2008 - 09:58 PM.

[inawe]

http://groups.google...s anne kilkenny

[Connor MacLeod]

Below is an excerpt from an article from Rassmussen Reports.

http://www.rasmussen...an_obama_mccain

A week ago, most Americans had never heard of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% hold an unfavorable view of the self-described hockey mom. The figures include 40% with a Very Favorable opinion of Palin and 18% with a Very Unfavorable view (full demographic crosstabs are available for Premium Members). Before her acceptance speech, Palin was viewed favorably by 52%. A week ago, 67% had never heard of her.

The new data also shows significant increases in the number who say McCain made the right choice and the number who say Palin is ready to be President. Generally, John McCain's choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden.

Perhaps most stunning is the fact that Palin's favorable ratings are now a point higher than either man at the top of the Presidential tickets this year. As of Friday morning, Obama and McCain are each viewed favorably by 57% of voters. Biden is viewed favorably by 48%.

[Cyberbrain]

[biknut]

This isn't wishful thinking on my part or anything, but just wondering. If the President dies in office and the Vice President assumes the Presidency for the remainder of the term, can the Vice President still run for 2 full terms after that, or only 1 term?

[mike250]

listing the polar bear as an endangered species:

http://forecastingpr...cy/PolBears.pdf

[mike250]

Obama: Surge Succeeded Beyond ‘Wildest Dreams’

The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.”

As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

Watch Barack Obama’s interview with Bill O’Reilly at 8 p.m. ET Thursday on FOX News Channel.

However, he added, the country has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country.

Speaking on other national security matters, Obama said he would not take military action off the table in dealing with Iran, but diplomacy and sanctions can’t be overlooked.

The Islamic republic is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, he said.

“It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, it would be a game changer,” Obama said. “It’s sufficient to say I would not take military action off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and the United States’ interests.”

But Obama also warned against the current U.S. administration lumping radical Islamic groups together.

“They have fueled a whole host of terrorist organizations,” Obama said of Iran, but “we have to have the ability to distinguish between groups. … They may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.”

Obama sat down with O’Reilly in York, Pa., after holding a discussion on the economy with voters nearby. The Illinois senator has been campaigning in battleground states since accepting the Democratic presidential nomination last Thursday at his party’s convention in Denver.

Obama said he “absolutely” believes the United States is fighting a War on Terror, with the enemy being, “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam.”

He repeated his campaign’s foreign policy position that Afghanistan must become the “central front” in the War on Terror.

Obama was first asked to come on “The O’Reilly Factor” in early 2007. The interview will air in three more parts after Thursday, from Monday through Wednesday next week.




he's backing down. Gotta love these damn war hawks.

Edited by mike250, 06 September 2008 - 10:59 AM.

[mike250]

Palin...Book Banner?
librarian.net Blog Archive Sarah Palin, VP nominee

From an article in TIME magazine:

[Former Wasilla mayor] Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. “She asked the library how she could go about banning books,” he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. “The librarian was aghast.” The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn’t be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving “full support” to the mayor.