McCain’s Pick: This could be the one…

Mitt would be the better money choice, that’s an easy one. But that fluctuating fraction (about 20%?) that wouldn’t vote for a mormon would kill them. It must have been a smaller percentage that will not vote for a woman. It’s a good choice to get a fresh face because we Republicans keep getting bashed for lack of change. She seems nice. Good enough for me.

I understand she’s a conservative pro-life candidate, so I wonder if she’s one of the 40% (or so) of Americans who think evolution is scientific bunk.

If she is, I can’t wait until Stewart/Colbert get ahold of that. Great fun for all to watch!

Biden will have a fine line to walk when their debate comes, but I’m sure he’ll do just fine.

Is this woman the best candidate to take over as President, should something happen to McCain?

Wow…the info about this woman is coming fast & furious! Under investigation for improper conduct concerning a state trooper, opposes a woman’s right to choose in the case of rape or incest, doesn’t even know what the office of VP entails!

Any woman who was a Hillary supporter sure isn’t going to change tickets just because of Sarah Palin. It’s obvious that McCain figured any woman on his ticket would woo those voters, and boy did he get it wrong again!

We were talking about that exact same thing this morning at work Porter. (re: your second paragraph)
Unbelievable! All the mud slinging Clinton was throwing at Obama during the campaign, and now saying “he’s the best man for the job” is just too funny!

I take some of that back. It appears she was a councilwoman for 4 years, and mayor about 6 years (though the information is vague).

At first I thought her ethics crusade bit was nothing, (thinking what that’s her only accomplishment?), but reading about it on her wikipedia page it appears she really truly bucked the party system to turn in some corrupt officials. That raises her stature in my view. As mayor she also reduced her own salary and cut property taxes 60%. She has also stood up to the corrupt Senator Ted Stevens (Idaho politicians should take a cue on this when they reflect how they did NOT stand up to Larry Craig the pervert.)

I’m now thinking Palin may be the better choice over McCain! Is there still time to swap them?

Wow, this is going to be a great thread. I hope everyone will keep the debate up in an appropriate manner and this won’t turn into a name calling session. I am going to love to read the many different oppinions about this issue, and can’t wait to give mine. This is a perfect topic at a perfect time in our country. Thanks for starting it up Open Mind. I look forward to following this.

Hi Just an Observer….I was thinking the same thing. . . quite coincidental. . .

This discussion has been great. . . .

Anonymous, thanks for the link. If anyone hasn’t had the time to read through that, it is worth your time. I am looking forward to the outcome of the investigation. Again, thank you.

The said thing is that we have come down to the voice or the laugh even being an issue.

I just wish substance were more valued than things we can snicker at (albeit I’m sure all those snickering folks have NICE snickers, not cackling snickers, right?…)

Hi, Porter…
You said:
“I don’t know much about Ms. Palin. I am sure we will all find out soon on how she stands on issues that we are facing as a Nation. I do know this, she has more experience and time under her belt in Government than what the Democratic Presidential Candidate has.”

Obama has exactly same same amount of experience Abraham Lincoln had when he was elected President. Check out Wikipedia on both of them. Ms. Palin has much less than either.

As far as experience goes-
I’m curious if Ms. Palin has ever been out of the United States. I’m sure she must have stopped in Canada, but has she ever been overseas?

How much experience can such a young woman gather? She is the youngest in the entire field, and lives in Alaska, which isn’t exactly around the corner from the rest of the country.

Given that John McCain is 71, had cancer, and has his foggy moments in his town hall meetings right now, that One Heartbeat From the Presidency thing is more on my mind than when Dan Quayle occupied that spot. McCain was already badly crippled in his Hanoi Hilton stay before he entered politics, and 60 years of age hasn’t helped his other ailments any.
We already saw mental failure in Reagan’s last days, and he was in a lot better shape.

The other thing that concerns me deeply is Ms. Palin’s infant. The Vice-Presidency is not a Mommy job, period. I hate the thought of that baby being raised by a nanny.

As president of the Senate, the nest VP will have to be respected and connected to steer through a lot of tough legislature that will be part and parcel of this election. The Senate works on seniority, and Biden’s got that in spades. Palin has none whatsoever.

That the women who voted for Hillary will readily switch to the Republicans just ain’t gonna happen. The media tried to make this much more an issue than it really was, and the convention settled the matter once and for all.

Those ladies are Democrats first, and came to the party for the same reasons disaffected men did. Hillary couldn’t have made this more clear in her speach, which concluded with “No More! No Way! No McCain!”

This campaign has already descended into cynicsm, snark, and fear tactics. It all boils down to this:

Are we ready to face the 21st Century or not?

Right now, we have one party that definitely laid down that they were ready.
So far, the other party is still re-playing the tactics that worked in 1994. So far, it’s the 20th Century vs. the 21st, and clocks don’t run backwards.

Those who are fearful of the future always want to go back to the nostalgic past, and those who aren’t look forward. Either way, 14 years ago is close to a full generation, and 1994 ain’t coming back, ever.

If conservative thinking doesn’t adjust, the Republican party will become as relevant as the Whigs by the 2012 election.

By then, all those kids born in 1994 will be old enough to vote.

Do you think Ms. Palin has the right stuff?

“The age issue with McCain is a pro and a con. With age comes experience, ”

Porter, that statement really means nothing. Experience is only good if used appropriately. As Nemesis stated in another post, this is starting to look like another episode of Wilde/Cook. Experience to do what? To create the same ol’ good ol’ boy, get rid of/kill our people? Makes no sense to me. He did vote much the same as Bush did and look at the mess that Bush has created. Bush and all of his experience certanly didn’t help us any. Anyone using that strategy probably isn’t going to sway my vote.

Age is an issue if the VP winds up running the Oval office. We are talking about a mother who admittedly has a mentally challenged young child. That’s time consuming! Or is she merely not too interested in that child and therefore the nanny’s can raise him?

And finally, don’t we all want a government that will enable people to have a good work ethic? You’re missing the whole point. What is enslaving some of these people to stay on welfare? Think about it. With prices of absolutely everything going through the roof, low-paying wages, the high cost of child care, lack of education, etc., most would figure it’s quite the no-win situation to go off. While the rich continue racking in the bucks, the destitute remain destitute. Would you agree?

Some of your posts confuse me as they seem to talk about the very things that most of us don’t want, but refer to the wrong candidate to fix it.

Hi, Porter…
Thanks for your thoughts.
Obama has been a Senator since the 2004 elections, and previously was in the Illinois House for 7 years. Before that, he wasn’t in politics as a profession. Lincoln had exactly the same political hisory- 7 years in Illinois, 1 term in the Senate. Both were political activists before first seeking election.

I didn’t mean to imply anything else at all by my remarks. I agree that trying to make any meaningful comparisons to a 19th century President to a candidate in the 21st century is a long stretch on most counts.

You may well be right in believing neither party is up to the tasks ahead. This election, far more than others in the past, is largely faith-based. Not in a religious way, but in faith that the fundamental beliefs of one party or the other will be close enough to guide us out of the mess we’re all in.

The choices have never been more starkly different, and this is the most crucial turning-point election I’ve ever participated in.

I also agree that neither party is what it once was. I’m not so sure as you in which ways they have changed, but I think that this election will cause even more shifts from the past in both of them; the one that shifts least will be the one that wins.

I used to be a conservative Republican, and I still believe in a lot of the once traditonal Repub values, especially on things fiscal and concerned with individual rights. I jumped the fence, though, when Jimmy Falwell started injecting religion into politics, back in 1980. Since I didn’t like Carter’s evangelical bent, or Reagan’s willingness to embrace them, I didn’t vote for either. I believe in strict seperation between Church and State. I’m not an atheist, either. The two simply don’t mix.

All I’m thinking now is that the old solutions to 20th century problems don’t work any more, from either side of the aisle. Obama was a big question mark for me a year ago, but since then, I’ve watched him, and I think he has the right stuff for me. I’m not as much concerned with experience as leadership, and I think he has lots of that.

My Mom, the real Democrat in the family, thought Hillary had the right stuff. My brother, the remaining Republican, thought McCain is the one. My sis won’t say what she thinks until after the election. My kids are all for Nader, and my best friend is going to vote for Ron Paul. My dog’s gonna vote for the poodle down the block.

There ya go… ain’t it grand! You can really make yer pick and take yer chances in this one.

#23 you said: “I used to be a conservative Republican, and I still believe in a lot of the once traditonal Repub values, especially on things fiscal and concerned with individual rights. I jumped the fence, though, when Jimmy Falwell started injecting religion into politics, back in 1980.”

Thought you might enjoy these lyrics:

http://www.royzimmerman.com/lyrics/homeland_falwell.html

(Moderator note: changed lyrics to a link)

People are always going to find something that they don’t like in candidates. However, what seems to be missing from this discussion is as important as experience……namely, integrity, and the ability to reform Washington. Both parties candidates appear to be concerned about the country and want to see the best for the United States.

In my estimation, the real ability to reform Washington rests with McCain and Palin. No one can point to one earmark McCain has ever attached to legislation. Palin told Congress to take the Bridge to Nowhere monies and keep them for something else. She also sold back a lear jet big oil gave to Alaska in the Frank Murkowski Administration. The fact that she turned in current and former Republican officials for ethics violations bodes well for her independence and ability to put the country first and party second. This is what the country needs and deserves. For too long both parties have taken all of us for a ride.

Think about it. McCain and Palin have not made friends from either party. This means they are doing their job and doing it without regard to the political consequences. This is how reform can and does happen….without regard for oneself. So, Obama can talk about how he is going to reform the system, but he is surrounding himself with a running mate and other political players that have been a part of the problem for 30 years or more. Senator Biden is a decent man, but he has played the game and been in the Senate longer than McCain. Obama’s mantle of change we can believe in is just that—a belief. McCain and Palin have served for the right reasons and to challenge the status quo and serve the common good. They have worked for reforms and will continue to do so. They constitute more of a threat to business as usual in Washington. McCain is not Bush and Palin is not Cheney. That Democratic talking point won’t work anymore. I am ecstatic that the Republicans have finally nominated candidates that aren’t Rockefeller Republicans that are just in it to take care of the fat cats and political donors.

This truly is a historic selection for many reasons. I look forward to the coming debates and the comparison and contrast(s) of positions. America will inevitably be served better by this election than many we have had in decades.

It wasn’t so much sexism as a reference to his age, imo.

Very well said Nemesis. But when the shoe is on the other foot, things change here.

In August at a town hall meeting Senator McCain answered a woman’s question ,would he choose a pro-life VP? Answer was he would choose someone with his values(quote) And also went on to explain a job of the VP was only to look after Presidents health and well being and cast a tie vote. This kind of scares me when should something happens to the president the VP has to keep us safe and be Commander and Chief . The video I’m writing about was after August 16th when he and Senator Obama was at the church with Pastor Warren.If Senator McCain really believes a VP isn’t that important I think we are in trouble.

Fascism - a system of governance marked by centralization of authority under a dictator … supression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism (read IFTers) … oppressive, dictatorial control.

Yup, that describes the … er mods and eagle pretty much.

they’re now taking stuff off of live chat that disagrees with their view. cool!

anon #32, loved your comment! You made my point for me!

Nem, I was actually just referencing back to the whole “Obama on the cover of New Yorker” post; if this comment had been directed at Obama’s race, rather than Palin’s sex, I do think an uproar would have ensued. . .

As you can see by the comments, “easterner” making this kind of “special interest” whine engendered the same reaction Idahogie or anyone else would have received.

My point is to show how silly it all is: I actually thought the statement was pretty funny, being an equal-opportunity slam: McCain’s age and Palin’s sex, all in one fell swoop.

??? I’m not a moderator….

or did I simply misunderstand Selohssa’s post?

reader, you rock!

I read that name several times, trying to figure it out. . . thought it was an anagram. . .

The Ron Paul campaign has a lot more momentum!

Reference #42,

I beg to differ about experience. If you mean the experience to screw things up, not make things better, and fail to fix problems then the type of experience most politicians have is the real problem.

As for depth, I am not certain what you mean by that. Depth can and does mean many things. Mrs. Palin has a college degree, she played basketball and won a state championship, she has been a mother of many children who appear to be successful, happy, and focused. Her oldest is due to deploy with the US Army. Appears to me that she has taught her children the value of public service. She has been married 20 years. She has been a city councilperson and a mayor for over a decade of public service. She ran for governor against the Republican Party nominee and WON! She had the political and moral courage to turn in numerous Republican and Democratic officials, including a former Alaska Attorney General for ethics violations. She taxed Alaskan oil companies and returned the money to the people of Alaska ($1200 per citizen), she passed sweeping ethics reform laws as and advised Senator Ted Stevens to come clean on the FBI investigation against him for taking bribes.

I have no idea what you mean by “Limited Scope on Political Spectrum”. But if the argument is that she doesn’t have much experience in politics, then I would regard that as a plus. The public needs to stop taking the word of lawyers and political players that they are the only ones who can “represent” us. It is important to note that it doesn’t take an MBA or a Doctorate of Jurisprudence to make a good office holder. It takes someone with the integrity to make fair decisions, the ability and willingness to learn about the subject at hand and ask questions to find out if they don’t know what they need to. I don’t see Mrs. Palin as being ignorant of issues around her. She obviously is smart and intelligent to get where she is at and has not make shady backroom deals to get there. For me, that is a big plus. The other candidates can’t make these types of claims. So, if you want more of the same, elect lawyers Obama and Biden. If people truly want change and reform, the real deal is McCain and Palin.

This is the experience and history the Obama can give us. I find this very interesting and it speaks volumes about where he wants to lead this country.

• He voted for partial birth abortion.
• He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state a bortions.
• Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government (quotas).
• In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing as being too severe.
• Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
• Admitted his use of marijuana and cocaine in high school and in college.
• His religious convictions ( murky at best).
• Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations. Why?
• Opposed the Patriot Act.
• First bill he signed that was ever passed was campaign finance reform.
• Voted to allow law suits against gun manufacturers.
• Supports universal health-care.
• Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
• Supports granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
• Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
• Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
• Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social S ecurity.
• Wants to make the minimum wage a ‘living wage’.
• Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
• Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid into Soc. Sec. Tax Increase.
• He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax which now hits middle income brackets. Tax Increase.
• He voted No on repealing the ‘Death’ Tax. Tax Increase.
• He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax. Tax Increase.
• Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded…which is not true.
• He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.

Somehow I hit the wrong key and my comment got posted before I was ready for it to happen, so to finish out —

I have been so unhappy with the way the world is going, the direction our politicians are leading us, the fact that they don’t think they have to listen to the people who put them in office and just everything in general that I have often threatened that when I go to the polls, I will not vote for any incumbent no matter what. I think we need new blood and new unspoiled leadership. Maybe a Obama/Palin ticket would be the answer. One liberal and one conservative. Think of the possibilities.

# 47
In the interest of being “fair and balanced” let’s take a look at McCain’s voting record with respect to the troops and veterens.

I’m not clever enough to put in the actual link so anyone interested will need to cut and paste this into a browser window:

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9559

“Not that many people know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops. And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.”

Here are a few highlights:

*** September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.

*** May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

*** April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

*** March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

*** October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000. ”

“John McCain is yet another republican former military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military. Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military. If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?”

Its a right wing sex ed success story. And a clear case of right wing hypocrisy.

The McCain camp is confirming that Palin’s underage daughter is five months pregnant. When it was Jaime Spears getting pregnant conservatives nationwide were up in arms about the moral decline of our country even though she decided to have her baby and marry the father. Now though when its Bristol Palin who is pregnant its suddenly a beautiful thing and an example of morality in action.

Honestly, I think it is pretty low to jump on the “down’s- syndrome- baby-is-really-the-daughter’s-baby-because-Mom-never-looked-pregnant” Gasp! Add that to the urban legend about how Palin didn’t take proper precautions while pregnant and that’s why she had a Down’s syndrome baby. . . .http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/476

Repugnant. And scientifically idiotic (um, I think the theory that a mom travelling in her 9th month “causes” Down’s syndrom lost some steam when amniotic testing became available. . . assuming that ever was a theory!)

This is pretty low; both stories have already been debunked (and removed completely, in some cases!)on two liberal outlets, “daily kos” and “liberaland”.

I also think the (confirmed) fact that Palin’s oldest is pregnant confirms Palin’s absolute belief in her ideals as a pro-lifer: compare her support of her daughter with Obama’s quote about what would happen if one of his girls was to ever get pregnant:

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6
years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

Punished? Weird word choice.

And this comes from someone (me!) who is very strongly pro-choice!. I don’t agree with Palin’s abortion stance. But I do respect that she is living by her professed beliefs and political stance.

Moreover, I don’t recall McCain or Palin making public statements about Jamie Lynn Spears. Did they?

here you go:

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

straight from Obama’s mouth, at about :42 into the video.

Taken out of context easterner. He’s talking about abstinence information, information on contraception. That’s a huge difference between not “punishing” them with abortion. At least try not to misconstrue the story.

so, how is it that even when I link to the entire statement from a CNN transcript, as well as video footage of Obama’s speech itself, that I get accused of “taking out of context”?

regardless of what “debate” he was attempting to frame, the words mean what they mean. I have provided the context and yes, he was discussing sex ed (which, inherently, contains the issue of pregnancy!). . . .and very clearly stated that if either of his daughters were to become pregnant, he would not want them “punished” with a baby.. . .no amount of spinning can make it mean something else. . .

as noted above, I am very firmly pro-choice so in essence, I agree that abortion should remain legal. . . I don’t know if I would ever refer to a baby as “punishment” as that sounds a bit fire-and-brimstone-esque to me.

thanks for the discussion!

I think I’m missing that de-coder ring too egalitarian gal.

easterner, did you even read #60? would you like to respond?

# 66 ” …. and his commitment to readily-available abortion?”

He did make the statement you quoted. And Obama is pro-choice. No one is diputing that. And you are taking it out of context, easterner, which is very apparent when one goes to view the links you provided (thank you!).

How about answering this: Do you seriously think that Obama thinks of parenthood as “punishment”? I respectfully suggest you go back and read #60 and then think about it before you pop off another response.

I feel the same way that he does easterner. I am not exactly supportive of it, but if two people decide for whatever reason they feel the need to have one, then like you (and Obama), I think they probably should. My preference would be that they give the baby up for adoption, or if possible, keep it. But I can’t decide for the parents of another baby, how they should handle it. I struggle with the issue and so do many.

YOWZA!! You rock, Sisyphus (and obviously it’s a BIG rock, pun intended).

Wow. Good stuff, and great dialogue there (and good gosh you popped those ‘bubbles’, didn’t you?)

I agree with Obama, leave her family out of this. But she herself, now…you make a good point.

How exactly is it that her being the VP represents the movement to “help keep Mom at home”, raising the children where she “belongs” ???

hmmm, thank you for response #69. . .

I would agree with Obama on this issue, except that he has changed his tune from 2004 through 2008. . . I worry that he is deciding how he feels about abortion based on public opinion polls. . . that is, and has been, my concern. When the race between Obama and Hilary was on, I was siding with Obama. I thought he was a breath of fresh air and even if I didn’t agree with everything he stood for, I believed, at the time, that he had some strongly-held convictions.

His changing stance (you are free to disagree with me, but his statements speak for themselves) on something as important as abortion, coupled with his flip flops on public financing for his campaign, his stance on offshore drilling and continuing military presence in Iraq, have made me realize that he is tilting to whatever windmill the public opinion polls present to him. Unfortunately.

Voter’s choices, on election day, have dwindled to, once again, the lesser of two evils.

easterner, I was in favor of Hillary too and was sad to see her drop by the wayside. The conclusion I finally came to was simply in deciding which issues were of primary importance to me personally. Obama represents what I want to see with those issues. Of primary importance of course is the war in Iraq. Tax breaks to the rich run neck and neck with health care for the poor (imo).

All of the candidates have flip flopped on many issues. Obama is no exception but nor is McCain. Hopefully, he won’t flip flop on his decisions about the war. If he does, obviously I will regret my decision to vote for him.

btw ……. loved your post on 43sb Sisyphus! I just love excellent writing!

I don’t know if it was her chest or her behiney. Did you also notice how he kept fingering his wedding ring while his eyes were wandering!?!

Okay, I’m just a chump. At first I was offended, because it’s just feels wrong to make this into something it’s not. It smacks of cheap partisanship, a distraction from the issues.

And then, I realized that I’m just getting old, and YouTube does this kind of thing in an egalitarian way (no one is immune from the ‘funny’) and I’m sure there are plenty of ‘funnies’ out there about Obama, too. This one just bothers me because I’m supersensitive to the sexism issues out there since Palin was named as the Republican VP candidate.

Give me some time to think about it. I’m hoping it will be funnier to me tomorrow.

You know, I always loved pretty foul humor, and therefore George Carlin, too…then I heard him use the “C” word (no, not “Canada”) and I was bothered for weeks…until I decided I was just too doggone old if I could be offended by a silly word. So I reluctantly came around.

I’m sure I will eventually come around on this issue, too.

You’re right Nem, it is (probably) making it into something it’s not. It’s just that in this day and age of technology and YouTube, no one is immune, whether you’re conservative, liberal or a celebrity. I sort of like irreverent humor as long as it’s not at the expense of a particular class of people.

I really fail to see hypocrisy in Palin’s actions. I love it when the liberals who would normally say the daughter’s conduct is a private family matter and should be left alone now come out of the woodwork to attack. The only hypocrisy here is from the Democrats. Now, if Palin aborted the downs syndrome baby or made her daughter get an abortion, then the Dems could rightfully wail and cry foul. The fact is that Palin does walk the talk and that really ticks the left off.

I also fail to see the connection between Palin and the Idaho Family Values Forum. Sisyphus says, “Also I’m confused why so many social conservatives in Idaho, the ones who supported the Idaho Family Task Force to change Idaho law to “help keep mom at home”, think Palin is one who represents their values. Sure she talks the talk but….”. Who are you referencing exactly? Who are you attributing to this link to? And just exactly how does Palin seem to be carrying water for Idaho Social Conservatives who want to keep women at home? Being socially conservative does not automatically equate with keeping women subjugated. That is a slap in the face as much as if I said that social liberals want to allow child molesters the right to post child porn in the name of the first amendment (which most do not).

The main point is that Palin is her own person and not some toaty for social conservatives. She has family issues just like the rest of us. Is she supposed to be super human or something? The lack of substance this thread is turning into: MCain playing with his ring, eskimos, false pregnancies…..this site is turning into the Huffington Post.

Sarah Palin is far to inexexperienced for the White House. Don’t get me wrong, she has definatly worked hard to get where she is, but she should stay there.

If the McCain/Palin team is elected, and in the unfortunate event that Mr. McCain passes, we the people are going to trust the fate of our nation to a woman with absolutly no foreign policy or internatinal experience. -Not a good idea
Being VP is not a ‘learn on the job’ position. It takes an incredible amount of dedication, hard work and experience, and there are many others out there who would have been much better choices.

This womans family has nothing to do with her being able to perform her job effectively. Please, lets drop the whole daughter with baby BS! It’s far from relevant!

# 88 - Great comments ooh_child. Good stuff to consider and think about.

Oh Yeah, Kitty! Well said. You go …. MEOW!

“running ones family” and performing a job are two different things. How one was raised has nothing to do with how they’ll turn out. I’ve known plenty of LDS folk raised with “seemingly” good morals and values that have ended up hooked on drugs or pregnant. I would invite everyone to rent and watch the movie “Happy Valley”. It talks about how SLC and Utah have twice the national average of drug abuse. Both prescription and illegal. As well as teen pregnancy being well over the national average. So judging a candidate for something their child has done is utterly ridiculous and is something the liberals are using because they’ve got nothing else to go after with this woman. Why don’t you take a look at her job performance instead. Even your good buddy Obama said we need to keep ones children and family out of the discussion.
A person can raise their children as best they can, but it’s still up to that child to do the right thing. And any of you that actually have children would know this. So get off your liberal soapboxes and come up with something better to complain about.
unfreakingbelievable!

Well if we do it to politicians, than maybe we should start doing it to people in the workforce in every line of work. Each time you submit a job application they’ll do a background check on your children or husband and your close relatives to see if they have or haven’t been “model” citizens their whole lives. I’d be willing to bet even you kitty have quite a few “family skeletons” in your closet you wouldn’t want the world to know about. And I imagine they probably don’t affect your job performance either, do they? Just as I thought.
And what defines a “model citizen”. Her daughter got pregnant and is marrying the father. Big deal! Did you wait to have sex until you were in your mid 20’s or 30’s? I doubt it. I know I didn’t. And I also know I didn’t always use birth control, just as thousands of kids don’t do each and every year. Sure I was educated by my parents and grew up in a loving household, but I didn’t always listen to my parents, just as I’m sure you didn’t always listen to yours.
So lets drop the issue with the candidates family members. They have nothing to do with how a candidate will perform in office.
BTW, who’s “rights are trying to be taken away”. that comment made no sense to me.

The thing about this election is that it seems to be so very polarizing. Folks that would normally be civil to one another become very uncivilized.

Like Jon Stewart said about his visit to Colorado last week about there being “no middle ground”:

” … you’re either a rapture-awaiting promise keeper, or you drive a car that runs on gorp.”

Yup, I waited until I was married to have sex, too. I also think how someone runs their family says a lot about how’ll effectively they’ll govern. Wasn’t it some LDS “prophet/president” who said “no success can compensate for failure in the home”??? And how is the world is Palin going to be effective when she has all these personal issues going on — downs child, pregnant child, lawsuits, etc.

Yeah ok, so everyone on this site waited until they were married…..yeah, I believe that one! and I’m Pope Benedict in disguise.
The point is it’s NOT relevant but you people would rather discuss her daughter then Palins accomplishments as a governor. Talk about some judgemental people on this site. amazing
But then it’s always the “perfect” ones that are the most judgemental.

People’s families, especially children, are off limits as far as Obama’s concerned, according to his statement yesterday. It was made quite clear that he doesn’t feel it is politically relevant. Of course, if you feel like attacking her on a personal level, it’s a free country.

I recall a poster once saying that when a topic reaches 100 comments it usually turns away from actual debate and what’s important regarding the topic, to petty arguing, such as this one has done. No longer are we discussing what’s relevant, but nitpicking the candidates. The point is, none of us are perfect and for us to expect a candidate and or their family to be, is simply foolish thinking.
I think I’ll move on to another post now. this one has run its course.

While I have to agree that this post has wandered a bit off the main topic, I kinda like having a place where people can go to voice there opinions. They may not be directly related to the publishers initial post, but are still somewhat indirectly related.
What I think is ridiculous, is when people start getting thier feelings hurt when others don’t share the same views, people being flat out viscious with personal attacks, name calling, or the over kill of personal information-who cares how old you were when you first had sex or whether or not you used birth control.
But I think the worst thing is, when people post to the thread just to say that they they dont like the whats being discussed and that they are moving on. SO WHAT-bye. I’m sure we could have survived without knowing that. The sad thing is, I’ll bet they all come back-at least once.

Thank you all for your opinions, whether we share the same views or not. They are enlightening and something to consider. I wish you all the best this election year. Looks like we’ll all need it.

So let’s talk about my last points, then. Palin professes to back McCain’s policies, but she’s as much of a pork-barrel project promoter as anyone in Congress. She was for the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. She believes the war in Iraq was a task from God; does that mean she wants to stay there forever? Does she support the Alaskan separation movement; and if so, how does that play into the “Country First” motto being promoted by the Republicans?

Folks, here’s the beef. How do you conservatives respond to these issues?

It wasn’t conservative America that blasted Jamie Spears, it was Liberal America, just like what’s happening on this site. It’s all the liberals with their holier than thou attitude like this garbage even matters. Who gives a rats arse about Jamie Spears? I sure as heck dont. Obviously you don’t because you brought it up. Lets get back on topic shall we?

Been reading the Federalist Papers this week, especially looking for what Hamilton, Jefferson and Jay had to say about partisanship and party politics. I’m particularly struck by what Alexander Hamilton says here(from Letter No. 1):

So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong side as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so thoroughly persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has at all times characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

Though Hamilton uses this to set up the framework for the series of letters urging support of the U.S. Constitution over the Articles of Confederation, I find his rhetoric and passion equally applicable to partisan politics on the whole.

Everywhere in American politics today we see those false biases, that lack of moderation, and that intolerant spirit. It is as Jon Stewart says, as quoted on this post earlier – we’re regarded or regard each other only as rapturers or gorpers. Both parties are trying so hard to differentiate themselves that they’re driving politically moderate people like myself away, leaving us in a political netherworld that is disenfranchised because there are no politicians to our liking on the ballot. Do we vote with the rapturers or the gorpers, or, as it has been suggested, throw away our votes on the Naders and Pauls, or just don’t vote at all? The posts on this thread clearly illustrate the final point in this quote from Hamilton: “For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.” The people here in agreement are agreeing with what they already agreed to, and those in opposition are falling into that “personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these” in stating their arguments and trying to persuade others. It’s easy to agree with stuff you already agree with. If someone dares ask you to consider something else, well, those false biases show up, where we cling to a cause because it’s what we’ve always clung to.

The two major parties and the media (from the left-wingers to the right-wingers) are falling into this petty trap that Hamilton warns us against. The Huffington Post is argle-bargling about the Republicans’ apparent lack of family values due to the Palin situation. Fox news is still trying to convince us that George W. Bush eats flowers and poops rainbows. I listen to both sides and want to throw the heck up, especially when the candidates from both sides say that this kind of stuff doesn’t matter, but, wink wink, if other people want to chatter about it, hey, it’s a free country. Our national judgment and most of the media messages we get are based not on sound argument, but false bias. Nowhere have we learned this lesson of moderation that Hamilton advises – simply because there’s little room for moderation. False biases in both parties get the base riled up and to the polls, while a few olive branches to the moderates convince them to vote for what frankly comes down to the lesser of two evils. As a moderate, I’m tired of that kind of non-choice.

#114
Dear Bloop,

Thank you for a thoughtful post. You gave me pause and caused me to re-think a couple of things. Like the fact that being willing to listen to an opinion different than my own is a good thing.
I particularly liked this:

” …see wise and good [wo]men on the wrong side as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so thoroughly persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. “

So Thanks! I think I’ll sit back and “listen” for awhile and try a little moderation.

“For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.” –pretty funny quote, bloop, from a guy who died in a duel borne of a political feud. Absolutely one must separate the wheat from the chaff. That’s what we’re trying to do here. I think I see honest attempts in these comments of people trying to grapple with the facts, and exposing the bias of a source has to do with that process. I say more to sekpticism and critical analysis since, as you point out, it ain’t happening in the trad med.

*** Twilight Zone Music Plays In Background ***

In a strange twist of fate, what was once a traditional rallying point of “conservatives” about the evils of underage pregnancy, now liberals have taken the torch and run with it for political gain.

In another strange twist, now that a woman has been nominated to an important position, liberals who once supported women’s lib and the right to balance work and family have now turned against these trains of thought for political gain and said the woman just can’t handle it and it’s not fair to the family. Another poster spouts off religious doctrine to denouce Palin for somehow failing because her daughter is pregnant? How is that failure in the truest sense of the word? It must be like Obama’s statement that having a baby is somehow punishment…….

What I am getting at here is the fact that time and time again, the liberal orthodoxy is shaped and molded to get results that are inconsistent against the principles and beliefs espoused to get there. It’s like a rubber band, it can be stretched to fit just about anything here…and it smells of hypocrisy.

It seems to me that many people on the left are really worried about Palin, otherwise they wouldn’t be going after her and her kids so hard.

And finally,

Oy Bundy, please put up. Who here is going after her kids? Playing the victim in an effort to quell discussion is pretty feeble. The only hypocrisy demonstrated is from the social conservatives thinking that she’s such a great choice for them. For years Democrats exposed the hard choices made by working women, advocated on thier behalf and we were instumental on achieving fairness in the workplace for women over the constant objection of those on the right. We’re proud that a woman has been named by your party to lead the country, we’re just struck by the immense amount of cynicism behind it. And we have a few questions regarding her experience and ties to the corruption that plagues the Alaska Republican Party.

And just why isn’t she a great choice for social conservatives? Are you kidding me that you think the fact her daughter is pregnant negates her values, morals, and role to play in issues that matter to these voters? Her views don’t shift with polls or politics. To say that you are struck by the cynicism behind her appointment is puzzling to me. The only cynicism is coming from the left. So, you can’t put that label on social conservatives. Despite the cynicism that you have shown as well as those from your fellow left wing bloggers, the fact is that she is and has been an energizing force to people of faith and moral values. I wish I could truly disagree with you but I can’t even do that because I don’t understand this supposed hypocrisy that you are trying to cook up. It just isn’t there, except in the the fantasy world created to dismiss a talented, smart, focused and EXPERIENCED candidate.

No one can truly define experience. You know it when you see it. Experience runs in many facets. Character matters. Integrity matters. So, while you are busy beating her up over her daughter’s choices, understand that there is more to her than the media has told you about. Her life has been committed towards raising a family and maintaining a marriage for 20 years. In that stead, she began a long road to public service in the city council, mayor and now governor’s office. I would gladly put her up against Biden and Obama. The debates should show us what we are really counting on: the ability to speak about issues that matter to our health, safety and welfare. We see things differently as Boomer suggested, that will probably not change. I don’t proclaim that Republicans have all the answers anymore than the Democrats do. What I do want is someone that has been enacting policies based on rock solid principles that do not waver. Thanks for the debate!

Here are 3 things I think I think, these last few days:

1. Our legs are getting collectively pulled on this site with all these odd comments purporting to come from, how do you say it, “WAY out of towners”…

2. Sisyphus for President has my vote if s/he wants it, for the time being, all things being equal today.

3. Politics is like religion. All you can do is share your views, and if folks try to argue against them it only entrenches you to staunchly defend your position. I wish we didn’t feel the need to try to tear the other “team” down, and could instead, just say what’s right with our favorite “team”.

That’s not a Pollyanna wish, by the way. It’s a reasonable expectation, unhindered by the desire to engage in the competitive sport of fighting to win.

Because it’s perfectly obvious, after reading all these comments, that each of us has no firm opinion about what’s right with our own candidates, or what is wrong about the other person’s candidates, or each others’ political spectrum positions in general…..

Live Long and Prosper

This is a great thread … Thanks for the great posts…

I just wish people would look at the issues and not the person. Look at the platform and not whether the person is a man, woman or a person of color… Good grief - if you vote based on any of the aformentioned criteria and not on the platform - don’t bitch when we are in worse shape four years from now.

Increasing taxes on any corporation that keeps americans working is a mistake - this point cannot be debated - pure and simple, its a mistake.

Promoting anything by any candidate that doesn’t promote putting americans to work - making american goods for the market and keeping these same americans from using an already over-stressed social support system is the only way to stimulate the economy.

I had a conversation with a friend the other day and he made a light come on. I told him I couldn’t understand why people were supporting heavier taxation to bolster social programs so people could get more handouts - instead of supporting programs that would create more jobs, so you could work hard for a piece of the american dream…..his answer???

“You don’t understand xxxxx - some people don’t want to work”…. This about blew me away -I guess I just thought everybody wanted to work… I believe every “able bodied american” should work -

This country was founded by those who were willing to die for her… no free rides… they died so we can have this chat and argue about whether a woman who has raised her children and stood up to the federal gov’t when they were wrong, is qualified to be VP. They even died so people can burn the flag and argue for Obam’s attempt to implement socialism…
We owe those outstanding people that paid the ultimate price more than that… We have to do what is right for this country - to hell with your political affiliation - Vote for security, vote for less taxes (giving you more money to spend, which will create more jobs for your fellow americans). Vote for being energy dependent - vote for the candidate that will do this… I’m not going to mention names - you read what the candidates platform is all about and you make the decision.

I’m with you Nemesis. It all sounds like circles with (and without) foreign accents. I’m hopping off the merry-go-round for now.

Anonymous made some excellent points, for the conservative side. For me, as a progressive, I think the main issues for this election should be: who’s going to extricate us from this occupation in Iraq based on what the Iraqis & the American public want, who’s going to protect a woman’s right to choose to be either pro-life or pro-choice, and who’s going to restore our previous good standing with the other nations of the world. I’m not going to mention names either, the party platforms stand for themselves.

I always find it interesting when folks start complaining about corporate taxes, since I’m sure very few of them actually pay corporate taxes. In fact, a recent study showed that two-thirds of American corporations pay no taxes at all. Corporate taxes are a red herring that the likes of Hannity & Limbaugh love to throw out there, just to confuse the issue.

I guess they do have Trailer Parks in Alaska.

Absolutely incredible speech by Palin last night!! (and with no cry babies in the audience ) I can see now why McCain choose her. That speech certainly clinched my vote, I don’t even need to hear McCain speak, although it should be great as well.
I look forward to all the put-downs that are soon to follow from all the libs. Like a cartoon I can see the smoke coming out of their ears after the knockout punch Palin gave last night.
(looks like Lisa has started you guys off with her lame trailer park remark) LOL

Like Palin asked last night, what exactly has Obama”governed”? What exactly are Obama’s “accomplishments”? He’s all talk and no action. She was “nasty & divisive”? It seemed to me she stood up to all the criticism the liberal media threw at her for the past week and threw it right back into their faces and obviously that has hurt your feelings. Thats ashame.
Obama wants to raise taxes across the board, I say no thanks! Liberals say, “but there are so many poor people in our country”….BOOHOO!! I say educate yourself and get a better job instead of expecting handouts from your government!
Palin stood up there and gave a better speech than Obama ever could, and she’s only running for VP. lol

I just saw this and found it very interesting (and telling!). Two conservative commentators on MSNBC — after they’re off the air — say what they really think about McCains’ veep choice. One is Peggy Noonan (republican speechwriter) and the other John Murphy (McCain’s former campaign director). Check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDBW0SbDxPo&feature=related

Some of you really have no shame at this very cynical, “hail mary” pick by your party. There were so many other well-qualified women McCain could (and should) have chosen if he wanted a woman on his ticket (Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for one!). The selection of Palin is an insult to women everywhere (and if you can’t figure out why … !!!)

I am so looking forward to November when Americans stand up and say “NO! ” to more of the same.

No McCain, No Palin, No Way, No How. Our wonderful country cannot afford more of this .

LOL Guest_House aka 007 LOL. You are so good at that LOL thingy. Your brialliance is shining through.

Nope, not a bit nervous, but looks like you are when all you can think to say is LMAO. No critical analysis about your candidate and no thoughtful responses — only cheerleading!

AND BTW, you’re not so good at sock puppeting yourself and patting yourself on the back. But have at it if you think you’re fooling anyone.

007, I guess we both can’t LOL about how funny you libs are with trying to discredit Palin. Please don’t “LOL” anymore bond, it seems to hurt the libs feelings. They’re really grasping for straws now!

Look out … the ditto head with MPD has arrived (again). Or maybe s/he just turned around?

Comment # 144 by Guest_House “Ditto Porter!”
Comment # 148 by Guest_007 “Ditto to GH”

Ya gotta love ‘em …

Now their quoting other bloggers? Wonder what’s next?

I just clicked on Sisyphus’s name and read what was posted about Sarah Palin. Interesting reading, but what it caused me to think about was the fact that Obama belonged to a church for 20 years and when this church was discovered to have a very racial background against whites and was mainly based on contention, Obama turned his back on it. Is that what he will do with the consititution and the American People when things globally get a bit hot?

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe has blasted the lies that came from the repulican convention last night with this response:

Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack’s experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago, where he worked with people who had lost jobs and been left behind when the local steel plants closed.

Let’s clarify something for them right now.

Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies.

And it’s no surprise that, after eight years of George Bush, millions of people have found that by coming together in their local communities they can change the course of history. That promise is what our campaign has been about from the beginning.

Throughout our history, ordinary people have made good on America’s promise by organizing for change from the bottom up. Community organizing is the foundation of the civil rights movement, the women’s suffrage movement, labor rights, and the 40-hour workweek. And it’s happening today in church basements and community centers and living rooms across America.

Meanwhile, we still haven’t gotten a single idea during the entire Republican convention about the economy and how to lift a middle class so harmed by the Bush-McCain policies.

It’s now clear that John McCain’s campaign has decided that desperate lies and personal attacks — on Barack Obama and on you — are the only way they can earn a third term for the Bush policies that McCain has supported more than 90 percent of the time.

I’m still waiting to hear about Obama’s accomplishments. I suppose its because he has none? Interesting how the liberals complain about our “cheerleading” when that’s all they’ve been doing with Obama (the 2nd coming) for the past year. thats typical though, they can cheer for their candidate, but we cant cheer for ours.

Obama supports affordable health care for everyone, and while it’s not the universal/single-payer system some would suggest, it’s definitely in line with the majority of the American public.

Obama wants abortion in this country to be safe, legal, & rare, which again is in line with what we Americans want for the women in our lives.

Obama will lead our country out of this terrible mess called the Iraq war, and most Americans support his judgment in this foreign policy debacle.

Obama will propose incentives to grow our green economy, through a well thought out plan which incorporates all aspects of energy production, including nuclear (and he knows how to pronounce that word, too!), and he has even said he will consider other options like drilling off-shore in a reach out to “the other side of the aisle.” This commitment will inspire thousands and create a mulitude of new jobs.

Of course, that’s not what you folks supporting McCain/Palin want to hear, or discuss. You’d rather examine & rehash what his preacher said, or question his patriotism. Sad, really.

Right on, Sisyphus.
No one ever changes their mind from snark or snotty comments. That stuff doesn’t even play well with the folks who are serious about advancing their side of politics, either.

By this time last election, there were a lot of politicians who were sure they had built a permanent majority. Most of ‘em were swept under the rug 2 years ago, including the most of the snarky ones.

I thought Sarah played very well to the Repub base, who are decidedly unenthusiastic in this convention- this is the quietest Repbulican convention I’ve ever seen, and Palin fired them up. Attacks on the other party are expected in conventions, but more importantly, everyone is curious about Palin- until last night, she was a blank slate outside of Alaska.

She acquitted herself very well. She was very tense- at the end of each sentence, she pressed her lips tightly togehter so she would be sure to stop, but that’s understandable; I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t be tense knowing they are going to be scrutinized closely by 20 million people.

Her speech went back to basic Repub principles, and didn’t have any details at all, but she did her job; she brung it on and appealed to the base. I’m not certain at all that she swayed enough independents and undecided voters to do the trick, but none of us will really know until it’s much closer to the election.

McCain hasn’t exhibited very much of his old fire this time around. He’ll have to give a real rip-snorter of a speech to change folk’s minds, I think, and it will be interesting to see if he still has the stuff.

I’m still all Obama, but I’m glad the election is now framed. None of you will get any partisan comments from me for a while- I expect that the Repubs will get a bounce from Palin, just as the Dems got after their convention, but only time will tell if either bounce sticks. This campaign has gone on forever on both sides, so I don’t expect the typical October surprise to show up this time around except for some possible Palin discoveries.

I think it’s important to remember that we’re all going to vote for President. Either way, we’re stuck with the VP, and whoever is elected Pres will determine how important the VP’s job will be in the new administration. The biggest difference will be in the future; if McCain loses, Palin may be just an afterthought in history, but Biden’s long career will be more likely to stick around in memory.

One interesting thing to me- Mitt Romney fell real flat. As far as the party’s rising stars, Palin sure took Mitt’s place. If she loses and goes back to running Alaska, she will be a much stronger Republican presence in 2012, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she made a run for Pres on her own.

The kids (or other new voters), minorities and women are going to be the key this time around, and next time, they’ll be an even greater force unless the Great Divide becomes bridged over the next 4 years.

“Beam me up Scotty!”

Take care Nemesis. I hope you can come back to Earth after some cooling off. While we have not always agreed, I have appreciated your civility and ability to be open. That is in short supply on both sides.

Love the Star Trek references btw!
What amazes me is how many of the liberal posters on this site, won’t acknowledge the actual candidate, but only that they’re “Republican”. And thats what seems to me is what so many Dems so dead set against. Not what Palin & McCain have to offer or what they’ve done in the past during their careers, but the fact they have an R next to their names. To me that’s the sad thing.
I actually know a couple of Democrats and an Independent who changed their minds after seeing Palin speak and hearing what McCain had to say last night, who are now thinking about voting Republican. Not sure if they actually will or not, but at least they’re weighing their options and not voting blindly. Many diehard liberal democrats need to stop living in the past and bringing up the past 8 years. That’s history. We can’t bring it back. McCain and Palin will be a whole new administration with completely new ideas and values. Look at the candidates and their actual accomplishments instead of whether or not their a Democrat or Republican. The candidates on the Republican side have accomplished much more during their careers in office than the Democrat candidates have. And personally that’s what I look for in a candidate, whether Democrat, Republican OR Independent. Who will be the best person for the job, not someone who talks a good game and shows no past accomplishments.

And the crowd is on its feet as McCain hits it out of the park. WOW!! What a speech. I think he did a great job and am very confident where this country will be heading when McCain and Palin are voted in.

As a small town mayor, Palin tried to have certain books she deemed offensive removed from the city library. When the librarian refused, she attempted to have her fired but was thwarted by a citizen’s petition drive to retain her. Freedom of the press was preserved from the abusive powers of an autocratic polyanna intent on cleaning out the vile literature from a small town library.

I shudder to think of the Supreme Court nominees that she and McCain would endorse, especially after McCain said he would pick justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito. Forget separation of church and state…we’ll have Fundamentalist Christians calling the shots again. Even in Falwell’s absence there should be no shortage of rubes willing to cloak themselves in that mantle. We have no trouble killing Taliban Fundamentalists who are intent on ruling Afganistan and the Middle East through forced compliance with the Koran, yet the right wing of this country seems only too eager to acquiesce our rights to their Christian counterpart.

Hoping for Armageddon seems to occupy the hearts and minds of not only Christian fundamentalist zealots but Muslim stalwarts hoping for the return of their Messiah. IMO, that leads otherwise decent people to abandon hope of changing things for the better when the perceived world destruction is so inevitable and so close at hand. I have seen nothing to suggest that McCain and Palin think otherwise and that frightens me..

McCain and Palin truly lost me when they said they would have no problem teaching Creationism alongside Evolution in our schools. That smacks too much of Bush’s comment that, “The jury was still out (regarding evolution”). This country can ill afford to waste any more years in support of a George W. Bush, science/logic-free, agenda.

p.s. I have mostly given up posting here but I would be remiss were I not to express disappointment in Nemesis’ departure. She is truly one of the main reasons I take the time to visit this site. Happy trails, Nemesis…I’d still like to buy you–OK, you and your husband–a drink. You have always been a breath of fresh air here.

I just read where Cindy McCain spent around $313,000 for her opening night outfit at the RNC. I realize that the lady is very wealthy, but it still seemed too excessive and obscene to me when the economy is in such poor shape. Laura Bush spent just under $4000. Quite a difference.

I read it on Yahoo News on “Cindy McCain Sets Tone for GOP Fashion”.

If McCain’s choice had been a MALE governor from Alaska, had been a MALE mayor, had been a MALE reformer, MALE corruption cleaner-upper, MALE politically-rising-superstar from humble roots, I wonder how this would have played out differently upon the national stage. My guess is that the attacks on him wouldn’t have been nearly as vitriolic.
I think the choice of Sarah is brilliant! In fact I think I’ll have a T-shirt made that reads
“Obama and Biden PALIN comparison”

I’m not pimping my blog or anyone elses easterner. I specifically use that mechanism to quickly link you to what I had indicated, which, in that case, was to a post on the blog Hullabaloo, which concisely addresses Bundy’s argument on the way some liberal blogs analyze Palin. If you’d clicked on my name you’d have known that. Instead you just lept to a conclusion which I must say discloses more than a little about you. In fact it looks like you’ve never clicked my name when I suggested it. Its a common practice.

For future reference anytime I ask you to click my name its to cite to something directly relelvant. (comment #174) Otherwise it’ll take you to the place I blog regularly which is 43sb. (this comment) which I do solely for proper identification purposes since there are other Sisyphii in the blogosphere. I don’t know my html very well so I use that instead. And I rarely link to liberal blogs since it would look biased if I did. Mostly I like to use generally accepted sources depending on the point being made. But that link was in rebuttal to Bundy’s reference to liberal blogs so it was relevant.

Oh and I think the comment about Cindy’s dress had to do with whether the McCains feel middle class pain or whether they are out of touch. Personally, I think Palin’s selection will take much of the sting out of that contention.

I might have missed this somewhere, but I can’t find anywhere where it was said that Cindy McCain’s dress cost $300,000, what I see is that her outfit cost $300,000. BIG difference.

Sucks when you get busted. Take your lumps and move on. It happens to all of us at times. We see something on the internet and believe it before checking out it’s accuracy. I mean, if it can happen to Dan Rather it can happen to anybody.

Keep commenting Idaho native. I enjoy your posts.

On a related Palin note, have you all read how “US Weekly” is trying desperately to maintain subscribers after a bunch cancelled because of the attacks on Palin?

Here is the text of the letter that apparently is being sent to subscribers who cancelled:

From: US Weekly USWcustserv@cdsfulfillment.com
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:17:57 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: cancel subscription
To: xxx

Thank you for contacting US Weekly.

We are sorry you are upset over the Governor Palin cover. We do not want to lose you as a subscriber over one article in one issue. In an effort to keep you as a subscriber, we will add five FREE issues to your subscription. Please let us know if you would like us to extend your current subscription rather than canceling our publication.

Thank you,
US Weekly
Cari

I think what is maddening is the contrast between the attack on Palin and the love-fest with the Obamas….

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08usweekly.html?ref=politics

I don’t read “Us Weekly” anyway but I will surely not ever do so now.

Palin has lied, over & over again. Isn’t there some kind of rule against that in the Bible?

You don’t know what PALIN HAS LIED ABOUT?

Hah!!! It’s been all over the news. But then I must keep in mind that your source is Faux News, easterner.

Palin keeps saying over and over again that she said “no thanks” on the bridge to nowhere. Blatently untrue. She was unquestionably for the bridge before she was against it. She took the $223 million dollars for the bridge and spent it on other pork barrel projects in her state.

BTW, she didn’t sell her “private jet” on eBAy. She sold it at a loss through an aviation broker.

And then there are her lies about the chef she supposedly “fired” and her silly comments about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

She goes after Obama about earmarks, then as it turns out, she hired a lobbyist to get earmarks for her small town ($27 million for her town of 7,700 people). This is a woman who is a complete “business as usual” politician. This isn’t wrong details, it’s lying to embelish herself. Pretty soom she’ll be claiming she discovered gold in the Yukon in the 1800’s.

“I fired the chef” “I sold the jet on eBay”, “I stopped the bridge to no where” … um … yeah … right!

Palin’s LIES and GAFFES:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhgH19Jeu5s&feature=related

ps

I am ROFL….you accuse me of getting my info from Fox News, and your source on all the significant lies Palin has told is. . . . . . YOUTUBE?

ha haha ha ha ha

It’s kinda obvious you get your news from sources like Faux News, since you seem to be unaware of Palin & McCain’s lies. They (and their eeevil spawn) are the only news network that hasn’t covered the issue in detail.

what issue? are we still talking about Biden’s honesty?

Well said Bundy! Thank you.

sorry anonymous, you lost me: your initial criticism makes no sense unless you didn’t post a link to youtube;

sure I have used youtube; but I didn’t do it as a response to you using Fox and calling it “Faux”!!

I don’t think you are even keeping track of what you are upset about: you read me the riot act for using Fox as a source (which I did not, BTW) and relied on something from youtube to show me the error of my ways…..wherever it orginated, your link was to youtube and your criticism of me (in that post, anyway) was that I was relying on biased or otherwise flawed information. . .

comment 187: you stated: “But then I must keep in mind that your source is Faux News, easterner. ”

you then stated: “Palin’s LIES and GAFFES:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhgH19Jeu5s&feature=related”

honestly, do you really fail to see the irony in comment #187?

OMG easterner– I did post a link to youtube (which was an MSNBC news clip) and you thought it was hyterically funny that I did so (and you mocked me), though you have posted links to youtube to support your own positions.

You said: “sure I have used youtube; but I didn’t do it as a response to you using Fox and calling it “Faux”!!”

Huh? I never read you the riot act on Fox news. You are confused.

THIS IS NOT HARD easterner! HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY NOT GET IT? I KNOW YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THAT. And playing dumb does not suit you and is dishonest.

You don’t want to even attempt to play nice and you continue to deny the undeniable. Ah well, I give up on you. It’s like arguing with a drunk — it just p*sses off the drunk (because they are incapable on being logical in their current state) and you get nowhere. You are not worth my time and energy. I’ll let your comments and record speak for themselves. And I, like many others, will simply skip over any comments you post.

Morose that there hasn’t been another terrorist attack on American soil for seven long years, liberals were ecstatic when Hurricane Gustav was headed toward New Orleans during the Republican National Convention last week. The networks gave the hurricane plenty of breaking-news coverage — but unfortunately it was Hurricane Katrina from 2005 they were covering.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER

Ditto.

Your bullying doesn’t work, Bundy.

Why I’m voting Republican:
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/

By, the way the Grand Opening of the Democractic Headquarters is this Friday.
http://www.bonnevilledemocrats.org/Events/Event01.php

easterner, you neglected to ditto #203 LOL

#202 — Now here’s a sexist statement if I ever saw one:

“………..it’s got to be two women because I can’t imagine a man staying in and cat-fighting like this …..

Oh really? You haven’t been watching much between the two campaigns I guess. You just alienated the women on this board. Perhaps that’s why you’re not brave enough to use your real name.

This is a case of a sock puppeter accusing others of sock puppeting. Go figure!

I couldn’t agree more news flash for u. However, there’s a big difference between the post by “is it me” and the post by “anonymous”. Can you figure out what it is?

Too funny…

#1. I alienated ALL of the women on this board? I’m sure females here are thrilled YOU have chosen to speak for every one of them. How do you know I’m not one myself? It’s got nothing to do with sexism, take a poll of 1000 men and women and ask which sex is better able to “shake it off” and which sex “nags and whines” to the bitter end. Are guys out there secretly agreeing?

#2. My choice of a user name for this particular post is not a big deal. I am a pretty balanced poster except when crap like this goes on between others and it sends good, longtime users away. Which of the 1001 “anonymous” are you? And your former user name? Have you ever been temporarily banned from this site? It’s OK, act confused and innocent now. You still carpet bomb everything. Take a break. There’s something called internet addiction, and excessive angry posts every day to the same few sites are a sure sign of someone who needs a few hobbies. At IFZ, they pretty much all come back and read if not post again.

#3. My prediction came true, one of the the worst offenders was the first to respond quickly, strongly and attack. Bingo.

That’s all you’ll hear from me. Anyone want to talk about Obama or McCain now?

#213 “is it me” … your post indicts you better than I ever could.

Anonymous #216. I didn’t see the interview. Can you point me in a direction so I can read/see it? I’ve had to read your post several times, and keep hoping that I am going to see “Just Kidding” in there somewhere. I keep wanting to say “Uh uh, no way, no how.” Please tell me it isn’t so.

Read the transcript of the interview instead of throwing out a few words that seemingly “scare you”. I am scared of you if this is the type of analysis that you are going to use.

mmm…interesting….I just read ABC News’ review of the interview, which indicated she has strong, thought-out positions on the issues, including energy independence (especially since her home state is at the epicenter of the same) and the war on terror, as well as the ermerging conflict in Georgia.

the “I can see Russia” comment? what she really said is that she has had experience dealing with Russia, as it is quite literally a neighbor of the state she governs. . . .I think basic geography proves that as a valid point. . . .

I wonder what “review” of the interview #220 and #216 saw?

….yeah, I should rely on Matt Damon to make my election choices for me…

I probably should also listen when Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey tell me not to vaccinate my children. . ..

http://scienceline.org/2008/04/03/expert-advice-on-autism-from-jenny-mccarthy-and-jim-carrey/

always nice to have the experts weigh in!

Oooooohhhh Matt Damon. I’m convinced now! Dont you just love when actors get involved in politics like they even have a clue of whats going on in the real world?