Post by: Monkeyleg on September 26, 2008, 01:04:38 PM
Article here
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2008, 01:08:25 PM
Post by: Pb on September 26, 2008, 01:10:11 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 26, 2008, 01:55:24 PM
I watched parts of the Couric/Palin interview and didn't think Palin did particularly well. But I also watched Obama on O'Reilly and thought the guy lied and squirmed his way through the entire interview.
All of this is giving me a really bad feeling about November.
Post by: ArmedBear on September 26, 2008, 02:27:43 PM
Yes, I do know who they are. But they haven't had much, if any, relevance in this century.
They may be right, or they may be wrong, about Palin. But what part does either of them play in the conservative movement of 1994-present?
I mean, suggesting Palin step down in a liberal paper? What, exactly, gives them standing? I can think of nothing -- and it seems like they want to draw attention to themselves no matter what the consequences.
When was the last time you uttered "Kathleen Parker" or "George Will said..." when talking to a friend about politics?
Post by: longeyes on September 26, 2008, 03:57:36 PM
First he tells us McCain is a loose cannon, then he wants to replace Palin. Whose payroll is he on now?
Post by: SteveS on September 26, 2008, 05:36:03 PM
George Will needs to loosen his bowtie--and his shorts.
First he tells us McCain is a loose cannon, then he wants to replace Palin. Whose payroll is he on now?
First he tells us McCain is a loose cannon, then he wants to replace Palin. Whose payroll is he on now?
I think he has been trying to say that the Republicans should have gone with someone else. Palin hasnt done all that great in interviews and it is not as if Gibson and Couric are hard hitters. If she can't stand up to those two, then who can she stand up to?
As for McCain, was he the best choice? Should criticism be withheld just because he is the nominee?
Post by: Modifiedbrowning on September 26, 2008, 05:38:03 PM
Quote
when the Alaska governor was unable to provide an example of when John McCain had pushed for more regulation of Wall Street during his Senate career.
Why would he push for more regulation when .gov regulation was the cause of the problem?Quote
"If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman"
That's why she is my woman.
Post by: Waitone on September 26, 2008, 06:44:16 PM
Quote
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/palin-should-step-down-conservative-commentator-says/
"Sarah Palin has many virtues," Brooks wrote in a recent column. "If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."
"Sarah Palin has many virtues," Brooks wrote in a recent column. "If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."
Brooks just made a valid point but for some reason I think he is unaware of it. The one thing the last two weeks has demonstrated is the need for a freakin' wrecking ball to be swung through the politico-financial system in this country. We need some serious damage done to the establishment. McCain is establishment regardless of his maverick schtik. It is evident from Brooks comment that his priority is "constructive governance". Maybe we're looking at a time where a little (no, maybe a lot) of constructive destruction is in order. Maybe what we need for the immediate future is someone tasked to simply raise hell with corrupt people and institutions. Maybe what we need is someone who will root out corruption regardless of where is was found. We have plenteous evidence of political corruption. We are seeing evidence of galactic scale corruption in the world of finance. Is it possible a wrecking ball pulled through Washington would expose corruption by our precious media? Is that what Brooks is concerned with?
Post by: ronnyreagan on September 26, 2008, 07:09:05 PM
Why would he push for more regulation when .gov regulation was the cause of the problem?
If she would have said that, it would have been the right answer. Instead she stuttered incoherently for a few minutes and then said "I'll get back to you." She may be on the right side, but she's still a dunce.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2008, 07:55:32 PM
When I say prime-time, I refer to national media attention, not the office. Obama will never be ready for that, Palin already is.
Post by: agricola on September 27, 2008, 03:11:34 AM
Palin's not quite ready for prime-time, but Obama wasn't ready either at first.
When I say prime-time, I refer to national media attention, not the office. Obama will never be ready for that, Palin already is.
When I say prime-time, I refer to national media attention, not the office. Obama will never be ready for that, Palin already is.
One wonders whether people as machiavellian as Rove and his cohorts are alleged to be is not exactly discouraging these reasonably poor Palin interviews, in the hope that expectation will be so low come Oct 2nd that she puts in a far-above-expectation performance and kicks Biden's ass.
Post by: Waitone on September 27, 2008, 03:51:38 AM
Post by: SteveS on September 27, 2008, 04:14:47 AM
Palin's not quite ready for prime-time, but Obama wasn't ready either at first.
When I say prime-time, I refer to national media attention, not the office. Obama will never be ready for that, Palin already is.
When I say prime-time, I refer to national media attention, not the office. Obama will never be ready for that, Palin already is.
That is the truth!
Quote
Billy Clinton was the master of lowering expectation. Seems to me lowered expectations is a standard play by both parties.
I can't believe I am going to say this, but Billy was (and is) a far more polished speaker and politician than any of the candidates.
Post by: seeker_two on September 27, 2008, 06:25:52 AM
Will makes a better Dem, anyway....
Post by: Intune on September 27, 2008, 06:39:46 AM
Nov. 4, 2008
Now all of the campaigning, debating, spinning, slathering and slandering is done.
You are alone in a booth.
This is the time to be brutally honest with yourself. Notice the string attached to the carrot. The very existence of our republic could potentially be at your fingertips.
Think of your country, your safety, your family and your future.
Pull the lever.
Go home, take a shower and wash off. You did the right thing.
3.2 lbs of plutonium was just detonated over New York City.
Post by: wquay on September 27, 2008, 06:59:30 AM
Which is what she is, considering McCain's health and age.
Post by: agricola on September 27, 2008, 07:11:38 AM
Good for them. Nothing in Palin's interviews (thus far) and resume make her a worthy candidate for president IMO.
Which is what she is, considering McCain's health and age.
Which is what she is, considering McCain's health and age.
She is the Republican Presidential candidate, now?
Post by: ilbob on September 27, 2008, 07:13:05 AM
Good for them. Nothing in Palin's interviews (thus far) and resume make her a worthy candidate for president IMO.
Which is what she is, considering McCain's health and age.
And BHO or Biden is?Which is what she is, considering McCain's health and age.
There are two choices in this election. McCain/Palin or BHO/Biden. One is less than ideal, the other is an unmitigated disaster. Thats all you need to know to make your choice.
Post by: ArmedBear on September 27, 2008, 07:34:06 AM
Quote
3.2 lbs of plutonium was just detonated over New York City.
In the big picture, and with the understanding that I surely don't wish harm on innocent people, I can come up with a list of upsides to that scenario.
...which is more than I can do with an Obama/Biden administration...
Post by: Poper on September 27, 2008, 09:05:23 AM
Quote
3.2 lbs of plutonium was just detonated over New York City.
Wishful thinking.Could it happen over San Francisco, too?
Poper
Post by: ArmedBear on September 27, 2008, 09:36:41 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on September 27, 2008, 12:52:34 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 27, 2008, 01:17:55 PM
Obama has a talent for great oratory, provided he has the proper scripting. Palin has a similar ability to engage an audience, but needs coaching. If, at the outset, Katie Couric and the rest had asked the same types of questions of Obama as they're now asking of Palin, he would have imploded.
Post by: Sindawe on September 27, 2008, 01:30:23 PM
Quote
Palin's not quite ready for prime-time,...
We've had 40+ years of those who are "ready for prime-time", and look what it has wrought upon the republic. At this point Palin is the closest thing running to "leadership by the common folk" in the offering.
Post by: wquay on September 27, 2008, 07:44:01 PM
Good for them. Nothing in Palin's interviews (thus far) and resume make her a worthy candidate for president IMO.
Which is what she is, considering McCain's health and age.
And BHO or Biden is?Which is what she is, considering McCain's health and age.
There are two choices in this election. McCain/Palin or BHO/Biden. One is less than ideal, the other is an unmitigated disaster. Thats all you need to know to make your choice.
McCain/Palin's faults have nothing to do with BHO/Biden, unless you believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. I don't, and won't.
Post by: zxcvbob on September 27, 2008, 08:06:46 PM
I think he has been trying to say that the Republicans should have gone with someone else. Palin hasnt done all that great in interviews and it is not as if Gibson and Couric are hard hitters. If she can't stand up to those two, then who can she stand up to?
You do know that the Gibson interview wasn't live? ABC editted out the few times Palin gave knowledgeable or detailed answers. Search for the unedited transcript; it's not hard to find. They didn't cut all that much, but it was significant (at one point, they edited out her answer and the next question so the answer appeared to be to a different question than it really was -- it wasn't anything profound, but it was dishonest editting.)
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 27, 2008, 08:29:26 PM
Quote
McCain/Palin's faults have nothing to do with BHO/Biden, unless you believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. I don't, and won't.
This is said every four years, and every four years the statement has merit. I had voted for Hillary in the WI primary because I figured a Republican would never carry the state, and I'd rather have Hillary than Obama. As for the general election, I wasn't going to vote for president at all.
This time around is much different, though. The Democrats have never fielded a candidate like Obama. No candidate has ever been as extreme left, and so dangerous.
The financial meltdown isn't going to go away on Monday, regardless of what congress agrees to. We're awfully close to conditions that could set off another Great Depression, and half the population wants Obama to direct our economy starting in just 3.5 months. His proposals are exactly the sort of social science/financial meddling that got us into this mess in the first place. He either realizes that, but is such an idealogue that he's in denial, or he is blind, or he just doesn't care about anything but power. I suspect power.
This isn't the usual question of the lesser of two evils. This time it's a lesser evil vs. true evil. Barack Obama is Evil because he's willing to completely destroy this country just to satisfy his enormous ego. Bill Clinton was a pain, but he was largely an ineffective pain; he went along just to get along, and didn't do too much damage.
Obama is different. He's the charismatic front man for the real socialists in our country who finally see a chance to establish what they've always wanted: a Marxist United States.
The time for mocking Obama is over. Everyone had better take a really close look at the storm that's coming. Like it or not, we're all going to be a part of it. If you want to sit out this election, so be it. I just hope you love potatoes.
Post by: RocketMan on September 28, 2008, 12:00:37 AM
Everyone had better take a really close look at the storm that's coming. Like it or not, we're all going to be a part of it. If you want to sit out this election, so be it. I just hope you love potatoes.
That is not hyperbole. It is that bad.
Post by: ArmedBear on September 28, 2008, 01:22:13 AM
Americans often complain about the sort of ignorant, narcissistic blowhards who run our government. All they seem to care about is what to say, to get elected, to get more power and money for themselves. (For those who say that their salaries aren't really so high, I ask, what would, say, Joe Biden do if I weren't a politician? How much could he earn?)
Then we get George Will complaining that we have candidates who have done something besides talk for a living?
Post by: seeker_two on September 28, 2008, 03:14:50 AM
Good for them. Nothing in Palin's interviews (thus far) and resume make her a worthy candidate for president IMO.
Which is what she is, considering McCain's health and age.
Which is what she is, considering McCain's health and age.
She is the Republican Presidential candidate, now?
She might as well be.....McCain sure can't win on his own merits...
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2008, 05:25:04 AM
Quote
Palin's not quite ready for prime-time,...
We've had 40+ years of those who are "ready for prime-time", and look what it has wrought upon the republic. At this point Palin is the closest thing running to "leadership by the common folk" in the offering.
But, but, but - she's RELIGIOUS!!
SO SCARY!!
Post by: ArmedBear on September 28, 2008, 05:49:09 AM
There's no evidence that Sarah Palin has ever used her government positions to force her religion on anyone, despite attempts by her opposition to tar her with that.
So, as a strange sort of agnostic, here's what I think about this...
Someone who is a genuine evangelical Christian believes a number of things, but the relevant ones for a politician are:
There really is such thing as right and wrong.
The choices we make matter.
Reality is a lot bigger than me and what I want, and the world doesn't revolve around me.
God is watching us, even when nobody else can see what we're doing.
Integrity, even when it's extraordinarily difficult, will ultimately be rewarded.
Every constituent is, ultimately, one of God's creations -- you mess with the "little people", and you're messing with God.
People are ultimately responsible to God and themselves; they're not owned by the state.
Give me a politician who believes in these things, and believes in limited government, and I don't care if we agree about theology AT ALL.
There are moral atheists, and depraved church deacons, to be sure. But if a (sane) politician really believes that he/she answers to a higher power, I think that's a good thing.
Post by: oldfart on September 28, 2008, 08:39:29 AM
With that announcement I weighed the possibility that McCain might not finish his term and that she would take over the oval office. The thought that we might finally get a President who is not a tried and true product of the Washington beltway has made me decide to vote McCain/Palin.
Twelve times I have voted for a President. Twelve times I have had to choose between the lesser of two evils. This time one of the evils has found a rare and precious jewel. One that - given the chance - might pull us back from the edge of an abyss.
If Sarah Palin is forced off the ticket I will vote for Ron Paul. Period. End of statement.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2008, 09:00:30 AM
Well said. As a wise man once said:
"Dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny, or an obedience which is not slavery."
--C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on September 28, 2008, 09:53:37 AM
Quote
3.2 lbs of plutonium was just detonated over New York City.
Wishful thinking.Could it happen over San Francisco, too?
Poper
Please elaborate.
Post by: oldfart on September 28, 2008, 10:19:12 AM
Good for them. Nothing in Palin's interviews (thus far) and resume make her a worthy candidate for president IMO.
And what has all the worthy candidates elected thus far done for us?
Post by: seeker_two on September 28, 2008, 12:47:04 PM
There are moral atheists, and depraved church deacons, to be sure. But if a (sane) politician really believes that he/she answers to a higher power, I think that's a good thing.
Agreed....all the politicians who've believed that they are above reproof are the ones who've gotten us into this mess....I'd vote heartily for one who believes that he/she will answer to a higher moral authority...
Post by: Manedwolf on September 28, 2008, 01:11:03 PM
There are moral atheists, and depraved church deacons, to be sure. But if a (sane) politician really believes that he/she answers to a higher power, I think that's a good thing.
Agreed....all the politicians who've believed that they are above reproof are the ones who've gotten us into this mess....I'd vote heartily for one who believes that he/she will answer to a higher moral authority...
On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for people who do good things, who help or risk their lives for others just because, and not because they're trying to get a seat upgrade in the afterlife.
People who do good things without any hope of reward are the best sorts.
That "higher moral authority" thing can backfire sometimes, as seen in politicans who do someone else's wife or worse, and then moan that they had "human failings". I have more respect for someone who can't live with themselves if they do that, and therefore won't do it, rather than someone who thinks they're inherently flawed, can do something bad, and then be forgiven by their higher authority.
Post by: wideym on September 28, 2008, 01:23:42 PM
Post by: Eleven Mike on September 28, 2008, 02:17:13 PM
There are moral atheists, and depraved church deacons, to be sure. But if a (sane) politician really believes that he/she answers to a higher power, I think that's a good thing.
Agreed....all the politicians who've believed that they are above reproof are the ones who've gotten us into this mess....I'd vote heartily for one who believes that he/she will answer to a higher moral authority...
On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for people who do good things, who help or risk their lives for others just because, and not because they're trying to get a seat upgrade in the afterlife.
People who do good things without any hope of reward are the best sorts.
That "higher moral authority" thing can backfire sometimes, as seen in politicans who do someone else's wife or worse, and then moan that they had "human failings". I have more respect for someone who can't live with themselves if they do that, and therefore won't do it, rather than someone who thinks they're inherently flawed, can do something bad, and then be forgiven by their higher authority.
Well, that's a mighty smug, self-righteous thing to say. I bow to your superior moral fiber.
The fact that a person has religious beliefs about an afterlife in no way implies that their moral decisions are mere cynicism. Nor do religious beliefs about forgiveness imply that sin is acceptable because it will be forgiven, anyway. At least as far as Christianity is concerned, sin is considered a Bad Thing You Should Not Do, regardless of consequences.
I also suspect the moral judgments you display here, and which you employ elsewhere in your personal life, are relics of the Christian influence in the culture in which you live. We call that, "borrowing on Christian capital."
If we wanted to get all cynical about it, we could just as easily say that an atheist simply does whatever makes him feel better, even if that seems like noble self-sacrifice to others, and thus are his actions devoid of any true nobility or goodness, but are mere self-serving instinct.
Post by: wquay on September 28, 2008, 05:33:05 PM
Quote
McCain/Palin's faults have nothing to do with BHO/Biden, unless you believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. I don't, and won't.
This is said every four years, and every four years the statement has merit. I had voted for Hillary in the WI primary because I figured a Republican would never carry the state, and I'd rather have Hillary than Obama. As for the general election, I wasn't going to vote for president at all.
This time around is much different, though. The Democrats have never fielded a candidate like Obama. No candidate has ever been as extreme left, and so dangerous.
How is Obama worse than Hillary?
Quote
The financial meltdown isn't going to go away on Monday, regardless of what congress agrees to. We're awfully close to conditions that could set off another Great Depression, and half the population wants Obama to direct our economy starting in just 3.5 months. His proposals are exactly the sort of social science/financial meddling that got us into this mess in the first place. He either realizes that, but is such an idealogue that he's in denial, or he is blind, or he just doesn't care about anything but power. I suspect power.
This isn't the usual question of the lesser of two evils. This time it's a lesser evil vs. true evil. Barack Obama is Evil because he's willing to completely destroy this country just to satisfy his enormous ego. Bill Clinton was a pain, but he was largely an ineffective pain; he went along just to get along, and didn't do too much damage.
Obama is different. He's the charismatic front man for the real socialists in our country who finally see a chance to establish what they've always wanted: a Marxist United States.
I would have voted for Bush in 2000. Thank God I wasn't old enough. The Republicans got their chance to roll back decades of socialism and big government. Instead, we got an unnecessary and unjust war (cost: trillions), record deficits, record national debt, expansion of government in the form of DHS etc, multiple federal bailouts and takeovers, and now, the mother of all bailouts to rescue the financial system at the expense of the American people.
So, the choice appears to be between fascism on the right and marxism on the left. Equally against the principles of liberty that this nation was founded on, IMO. I'll take neither.
Quote
The time for mocking Obama is over. Everyone had better take a really close look at the storm that's coming. Like it or not, we're all going to be a part of it. If you want to sit out this election, so be it. I just hope you love potatoes.
The storm is coming, and I'm getting ready. But I can do that without letting the Republicans play me for a sucker.
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 28, 2008, 07:34:13 PM
Quote
The storm is coming, and I'm getting ready. But I can do that without letting the Republicans play me for a sucker.
Hmmm. Where have I heard that sort of bravado before?
No offense, wquay, but it's easier to stop the storm troopers before they're recruited than after.
Post by: agricola on September 28, 2008, 09:44:00 PM
How is Obama worse than Hillary?
IMHO if this was Hillary vs McCain then we would be far more likely to have at least a reasonably balanced media coverage of this election with both candidates and their records (admittedly to probably varying degrees) examined by the press. What we have now is one side being battered, often at the direct prompting of the other side - who see their own faults, gaffes, lies and scandals ignored or utterly minimized.
A good recent example of this was the debate argument over Obama's previous comments about meeting Iranian leaders and his misstatement of Kissinger's position. Large numbers of articles (including Factcheck) have appeared that either deny or explain away Obama being wrong over what Kissinger said and what he (Obama) said originally, and sought to critcize McCain (since Kissinger is one of his advisers). This is absolutely inexcusable because the original quote is both easily available and incredibly clearly worded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU
As is Kissinger's statement:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/26/1456431.aspx
How can any kind of honest journalist not point out the truth of that exchange?
To have such overwhelming media bias is never a good sign - it wasnt good before the Iraq war with their endless coverage of now-discredited stories, and one would have hoped the media outlets had learned their lesson then. Sadly, it seems they have not.
Post by: wquay on September 28, 2008, 10:02:45 PM
Quote
The storm is coming, and I'm getting ready. But I can do that without letting the Republicans play me for a sucker.
Hmmm. Where have I heard that sort of bravado before?
No offense, wquay, but it's easier to stop the storm troopers before they're recruited than after.
You completely ignored the main argument of my post.
And frankly, talking about "storm troopers" coming from an Obama administration strikes me as ridiculous. Is Obama the limp-wristed pussy who will leave the nation vulnerable to terrorists, or the second coming of Joseph Stalin? Although I'm afraid to see the expanded powers of the executive branch (thanks to Bush/Cheney) wielded by the left, the Obama supporters I know are mostly aging feminists, white collar professionals, and effeminate young men. Not exactly modern day Bolsheviks.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 29, 2008, 04:40:15 AM
Quote
Although I'm afraid to see the expanded powers of the executive branch (thanks to Bush/Cheney) wielded by the left
Executive branch powers have been expanding since FDR at least.
The term "Imperial Presidency" has been coined in the 1960's, remember?
Post by: ArmedBear on September 29, 2008, 02:02:47 PM
Quote
On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for people who do good things, who help or risk their lives for others just because, and not because they're trying to get a seat upgrade in the afterlife.
Sure.
And your mainstream orthodox Christian doctrine is such that this would be true of Christians...
The basic gist:
All humans have sinned, and are "born into sin."
Sin gets you a major downgrade in the afterlife, and there's no way to buy your way out of it.
Jesus Christ died and rose again to give you a ticket to a major seat upgrade, all the way to first class, if you want it.
There aren't any better seats.
So, any good things you do, or sacrifices you make for others, are like a "thank you" to God, not a way to upgrade your seat in the afterlife.
Now you may think what you want of this doctrine, but what Christianity DOESN'T preach is "do good stuff for a proportional seat upgrade in the afterlife." It teaches "accept God's grace, and do good stuff because it's good to do good stuff, and it's a way to celebrate God's grace," kinda like you're more likely to give a broke friend a hundred dollar bill if your grandmother just gave you a house than if you're broke yourself.
Generally, Christians label sects that preach that you have to earn your way to special VIP seating as "pseudo-Christian cults."
A Christian and an atheist might have different beliefs about the root motivations and precise significance of their actions, but there's not so much difference between a Christian and an atheist voluntarily doing good things for other people as you would claim.
Post by: ArfinGreebly on September 29, 2008, 04:35:32 PM
Quote
And frankly, talking about "storm troopers" coming from an Obama administration strikes me as ridiculous.
Or not.
Please see this article for details.
Obama said:
Quote
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
I'm sure, however, that he wouldn't call them "Storm Troopers."
I'm so relieved.
I do, however, wonder about what "national security objectives" he has in mind.
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 29, 2008, 06:28:44 PM