So now we're setting our standards based on how the swiftboater's ran their crap tossing BS?

It's a blog. Though at times it's like reading bizzaro Fox news. Some of my favorite headlines are :

Do any of these sound like actual news stories from legitimate outlets? Or do they sound like the flip side of Fox?

No, we're experiencing real time vetting of Sarah Palin. And so it goes.

It makes it really hard to do any actual fact finding when the rumors start to fly. If anything these rumors are greatly helping Palin. Whether it's the 'it wasn't her kid" to "she's a racists, everyone in Alaska knows it." Every time one of these turns out to be false she gains a few more public opinion points. She can simply claim "see, I told you they're out to smear me." At this point I'd be surprise if at least some of these aren't being released, anonymously of course, by the RNC staff.

*cough* Rove *cough, cough*

They put out these easily disprovable rumors and sooner or later everything gets dismissed. It's like reversed "cry wolf." And it's been shown to work... very well.

I find it very interesting that the people who were SCREEEEEECHING about Obama's church and pastor aren't just as inflamed about Palin's. The things her church preaches are way scarier than anything Rev. Wright said. But they don't threaten the White Man's dominance, so they're probably okay, I guess.

I don't see it that way at all. Unless I'm missing something. Palin's church is exactly the type of church the right wing base loves. Obama's church had pastors saying the US Gov. is trying to kill black people with AIDS and crack cocaine. The views of Palin's church and even many of her comments are music to the ears of many on the right.

My former comment I should say, is that if that blog is some of the yellowist journalism people have seen, then people don't remember the blue dress saga, and have not studied the yellow kid wars of Pulitzer v. Hearst.

The guy has a blog, and 40 years experience as a journalist. In retirement, he has an agenda, and pursues interviews that fit his views. How is this worse than the piles of ABC News reports citing unnamed sources about the blue dress?

for what it's worth, i tend to relativize this dimension of the planet blog---i think there are alot of people who are and have been offended and angered by what has come of the blur of tabloid and information, gossip and facts about the world (whatever a fact really is), the substitution of personality construction for comprehensive analysis, the evacuation of the space for system critique and its replacement with a fatuous cycling of surface infotainment in the context of which the system-level remains always necessarily legitimate no matter what happens and all possibility of critique gets collapsed onto defects of an individual personality--a ghost-personality no less, product of the circulation of factoids itself. it has beena smothering descent into trivia, as if the Interests of Commerce-uber-alles has forced us from being able to stand in front of the clothes dryer to being stuffed face-first into the lint screen.

because consumers have NO power, because consumers are nice little creatures who desire what they are told they desire within the ranges that they are told they want, so they can "express themselves" by acquiring a "personalized" sequence of otherwise identical commodities, consumers of infotainment have been subjected to this, and have subjected themselves to it. at the level of framing memes, consumers are told that markets are necessarily rational and with that the descent into a blizzard of trivial is presented as the march forward of "progress"---a favorite bourgeois conceit.

i think people are pissed off by this, fed up by it, but being nice adaptable creatures who view the world from a chair in their living room (70% of americans imagine television as a primary "information source") they have no choice but to adapt to it, in this the freeest of all possible situations (except where it isn't) in this the best of all possible worlds (which is a shabby, ugly, idiotic sham)...so they act out. the planet blog seems to me in significant measure a theater for acting-out.

and everyone knows that the primary drivers behind this descent into trivia have been politically conservative--the symbol of rupert murdoch functions as a convenience here---and everyone knows that it has been the conservative media apparatus that has pioneered the routinization of yellow journalism passed off as information in the television context. and everyone knows that there is a convergence between that and the world as presented in advertisements, as a world of commodity-desires. and if you think about it, i imagine it self-evident that this shitty state of affairs is a very good expression of capitalism in all its slick superficiality and brutal self-referentiality.

so you either repeat the mechanisms and turn them back on the conservatives when the opportunity presents itself--in which case there is gratification but a net less in that you de facto participate in legitimating the order itself when you play the game as the order has come to play it across the one-dimensional flashing theater of television---or you criticize the order itself, in which case you are excluded from access to the one-dimensional theater of the bourgeois world and it's logic.

but all this is normal, comrades, like the weather, like neoliberalism.

every once in a while, i remember that lars von trier was right in "dogville" about the american system.

A person can be for a "reasonably cost" bridge, and be against a bridge that is too expensive. A person can be for a bridge and then change their view based on new information. a person can be for a bridge, but given limited resources be against it relative to other priorities.

Why are the Democrats reminding everyone of the flawed logic used by people like Kerry? I would think they would want to move from that as far as possible. The bridge issue is not like a person being for a war and against it at the same time.

And everybody knows this lacks any objectivity (or credibility). Infotainment sucks... there's plenty coming from all directions. Glass houses are also available in 3-D.

What do you all think about the fact that Palin was charging the Alaskan tax payers per diem for staying at her own house?

Sounds like, least from what I read, she ended up charging a hell of a lot less then the guy she replaced. Plus it sounds like she was following the rules and could have charged much more. She spent something like 93K on travel, the previous governor spent several 100K on travel. Of course I'd be more then happy to be proved wrong, but honestly I smell yet another red herring.

it's common for pols and executives to be reimbursed in such manner for staying at home. the total cost is the number you should be more concerned with since the per diem is an accepted GAP rule.

Would it have made more sense for her to spent the money staying 1 block away from her home and charging 4x the amount?

tully what I've read is that the incumbent before her was $400k+ versus her $97k

I guess I don't understand why she should get per diem while staying at home.... My work offers per diem when i'm traveling but not when i'm at home. Does yours offer it when you aren't traveling? Does Bush get per diem when he stays at his Ranch?

I didn't go back and research the numbers but these sound right. Really who would you rather have- someone costing the gov. 100K or 400K?

I don't like her for many, many reasons, this isn't one of them.

You watch the RNC will get the DNC to take the bait on this and many other issues. The GOP is playing this very smart lately.

Also the spending of the previous governor, who was also a republican, doesn't really matter. Can you imagine if we let criminals use that same defense? "Well I wasn't as drunk as that other guy when I hit the kid with my car."

First of all using the POTUS as a comparison to anyone else is a waste of time. No matter who it is or what party they're from they get treated differently then anyone else. Or does your work provide you with a US Marine Corp. copter to take you home and to your vacation?

Second she the Governor of a state. Many top level state officials get housing, personal staff etc..that other government and private employees do not.

Third she the governor of a state that is unlike any other state. The distances needed to travel are increased simply due to the states geographical size. Just getting from one end of the state to the other or even from her home to the state capitol can be time consuming and at times (winter) dangerous. The fact she's cut her travel expense to less then 1/4 that of the last guy that had her job should tell you something, IMHO.

It's not about a defense. It's about how things are paid for via GAP rules. Companies are allowed to do as they see fit. Your company doesn't give per diem for home stays, others do. It also can depend on what level you are in your company. Your CEO may get per diem for his home stays depending on circumstances.

Let's say I'm traveling from NY to LA on government business.

According to the GSA per diem list for Los Angeles. I can spend $118 on housing, $64 meals and incidental expenses totaling $182.

If I stay at my sister's house and she feeds me the whole time I'm traveling, I can get $182 for each day as my per diem and pocket the entire amount. There's nothing bilking or cheating anyone or anything. In fact the person who should feel cheated is my sister since she put me up and fed me.

I'm not familiar with where her home is situated in comparison to the Capital offices, but if she's not incurring the budgeted expense of hotel housing, then a per diem is perfectly fair.

In fact, if you think it's so outrageous, please check into your state senator and congressional representative. You'll find that they tend to BUY a 2nd home in Washington DC and collect the per diem that I've explained.

This policy is common place.

Is Todd Palin planning on leaving his businesses in Alaska so he can help to raise the kids in Washington? I'm just curious.

Would you ask this question if the gender roles were reversed?

I think its time to stop with the PALINtology and put the focus back on the top dog.

Palin has energized the social conservative base and that is not likely to change. McCain's policy positions have not changed with her on the ticket and IMO, those are losing positions with many of the swing voters.

Hit him again, harder!

Let her be who/what she is and leave it to Biden to debate her on Oct. 2.

I already did. When Obama announced his candidacy, I did a search on Michelle Obama. She'll be staying with their daughters.

Yep, not gaining ground fight her. But he's hard to hit when he's hiding behind her.
-----Added 9/9/2008 at 06 : 38 : 43-----
But why is it important?

Good question, I'm with Will, I'd like to know too. What are the duties of the Second Husband? Maybe DC can shed some light here. She seems to be pretty knowledgeable on the inner-workings of the federal government.

It's not. Like I said, I'm just curious.

All I know is that Lynn Cheney wrote a sleezy "historical" romance novel that includes brothels, attempted rapes and a lesbian love affair....but that was before Dick was VP.

Oh wait... and the publisher canceled plans to reissue the novel when she was "second lady" because she was concerned that the book did not represent her "best work."

In other words, there is no official role for the spouse of a VP.

WANT
______________

I wonder if Obama/Biden really want the bridge issue front and center? Sen. Demint's opinion piece in the WSJ today helps put the issue in perspective. Considering a govenor does not vote on federal earmarks but senators do, perhaps they should explain their support for the bridge.

Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge - WSJ.com

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story or empty political rhetoric. Please carry on.

ace...posting a partisan editorial from a Republican colleague of McCain's in the Senate doesnt change the facts.

Here are some facts: Palin lobbied for the earmark for the bridge to nowhere before she opposed it (after it was effectively dead already), as governor, her state was ranked number one (per capita) in earmarks (receiving 10x the national average) and as mayor, she hired a lobbyist to pursue earmarks, which is very rare for a city that size.....but that doesnt make her better or worse than Obama or Biden....but it also doesnt make her a "reformer" as she proclaims.

All the earmark talk is political theater. Earmarks represent an insignificant amount (1%) of the federal budget....which does make it difficult to understand how McCain's earmark reform rhetoric will contribute much to balancing the budget or paying for many of his proposals.
-----Added 10/9/2008 at 05 : 20 : 33-----

BTW...McCain was one of only 14 Senators who voted against last year's comprehensive ethics reform legislation, which included greater transparency in earmarks. (see: CRS summary of the bill, Subtitle B - Earmark Reform)

Not that we dont need more ethics/earmark/lobbying reform, but this bill was better than anything the Republicans proposed when in the majority.

I like how in that article bicycle paths and the International Peace Museum are listed as wasteful earmarks. He also admits that she only changed her mind because of bad publicity: "But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position...." I'm not sure what relevance Obama and Biden's positions on the bridge have -- they're not running as the anti-earmark candidates. And as dux points out, it's an editorial, written by a Republican, so it's a bit biased. Don't you have any facts you can actually cite to?

My question is, does Obama really want this issue on the table? I don't think he does. I think his best course of action is to have his people ignore Palin and her record. Every shot taken at her, in my view, will negatively reflect back on him.
-----Added 11/9/2008 at 11 : 17 : 39-----
They are people who could have been changing Washington, but did not. It is a reflection of their failure as Senators, it reflects on the emptiness of the "change" slogan. Again, I am not a fan of McCain either. No Senator has the right to say they are a "change" candidate in my view.

We know how dux feels about the WSJ and editorials that appear in the paper, he often comments on it. I am o.k. with liberals being dismissive of editorials or publications that many people respect. If I were a liberal I would actually be interested in what conservatives have to say and how they view "facts" and issues.

well, here is how i see the debates going between the vp's:

"Biden is a politician, Palin is just a regular woman, she's not sounding all fancy and whatever, she's just using her 'hockey mom' instincts and she sounds like me, how dare Biden pick on her, Just listen to that..he's so sexist, He thinks she can't do a man's job. Finally, we get a 'real' person in the whitehouse"

bc that is what i heard after Bush's first debate with kerry. only now, it'll be "big mean biden" against "poor helpless 'real' woman"
....
and i think it's in obama's best interest to expose the blatant lies and hypocrisy of what palin and mccain have been saying, including the 'bridge to nowhere' and the "selling the plane on ebay for a profit' when she sold it through a broker at a loss...
-----Added 11/9/2008 at 11 : 28 : 21-----
http://content.vetpalin.com/index.html?show_all even i hadn't heard all these..sheesh

matt damon has a great video on youtube about palin as well

ace, I've stopped engaging you for the most part, because your citations are regularly so "over the top", that it gives me a sense of you that persuades me that what you choose to let influence your political thinking puts you and I op-edin such extremely opposite "worlds", that there is no point in dialogue. The following is an effort to give others here, an idea of what I see as so outrageous in your decision to offer the opinion of Sen. Jim Demint, author of that WSJ, op-ed piece you've posted, as some sort of reasonable voice. He's not, ace:

ace.... can you understand, at all....how I have come to view the "jesufied" republican party as a cancer....a pox on all American houses, and, ironically, on the very religion it has elected to wrap itself, around? Does it make any sense that the most hawkish are the religious right who take money from arms manufacturers and enthusiastically align themselves with Saddam Hussein lookalikes, as far as the atrocities they commit in their agenda to strengthen their dictatorial hold on their own countries? Isn't all of this....along with "capitalsim at any price and/or consequence", opposite the teachings of the savior who men like Demint say they are committed to supporting and following?

I think it is asinine how McCain/Palin make such a big deal about earmarks. Total earmark spending accounts for about 0.5% of the total federal budget. Ending earmarks would have almost no measurable impact on federal spending. It is useless grandstanding.

My citations often present a point of view shared by me and many Americans. Like I wrote, if I were you I would not be as dismissive of alternative points of view. I make a point of engaging those who disagree with me, I watch shows like MSNBC, I read your sources and try to understand them. I ask you and others questions to try and better understand - but that's me. There was a recent post showing some Chaney quotes, and I found it amusing given what Chaney has done (or gotten away with depending on your point of view) while liberals stand there being baffled in disbelief basically not understanding what happened.

I think over time I have gotten a better understanding of how you have come to your "view", although many who share your view seem to be a tad hypocritical. At least I have read posts where you have questioned the apparent hypocrisy. I admit when political gamesmanship is being used on the Republican side, and it is used often and it is used to "win". I try to understand what motivates people to do certain things and to take certain actions. When presented with this information liberals often stand in disbelief, engage in name calling, and take a "holier than thou" view, i.e. profits making in capitalism (greed) is evil while it is necessary for an effective government and to do good. Liberals condemn the profit motive (or greed), call those who are honest about it names, pretend that good can come from nothing, and say they are above such basic motivations like greed. I think I have it nailed, don't you agree?:thumbsup:

The two main points are McCain's near total abandonment of what he once pretended to "stand for"....he used to distance himself from evangelical christian influence and criticize earmarks....he was so extreme that the result was his Arizona consituents averaged less than $19.00 per capita in funds earmarked to the state, while Alaskans received over $1,000 per head per year, and even more for every Wasilla resident while Palin was mayor.

McCain chose someone he should have never considered, a pork barrel fund seeking, christian fundamentalist, a total lightweight, in terms of experience she brings to the ticket. Mayor of a laughably small town, then short term governor of the most isolate US state with a population half the size of the next least populous state. She went to six different colleges in the six years she pursued a batchelor's degree, and McCain elevates her to the league of Rhodes scholar and Yale law grad, Cinton, Yale grad and Harvard MBA grad, GW Bush, US Navy Academy Grad, decorated Navy figher pilot, former POW held for 5-1/2 years, combined house and senate service of 26 years, McCain, former US sect'y of defense, former congressman, and former white house chief of staff and Haliburton CEO, Cheney, Veteran US Senator of 36 years and chairman of the Senate Foreign relations committee, Biden, Harvard grad and Viet Nam veteran and military journalist, two term senator Gore,,,,and ,,,....Harvard Law grad, editor of Harvard Law Review, constitutional law instructor at major university, state legislator and 4 years US Senator, Obama, and grad of a no name college, salmon fisherman, mayor of tiny town, 20 month governor of smallest US state....earmark queen, Palin:

She fucking "got hers", and she is committed to making sure your city or state does not get the money she built her reputation on wringing out of the federal government.....she and McCain deserve each other, and so do people who vote for them!

I am in a giving mood. The reason why I read publications like the WSJ is to get an edge, I want to "win". Others who read the publication want to "win" as well. Same with publications like IBD. Earmarks are not an important issue to me, but having people in political power who want to minimize government involvement in my life is. McCain highlighting earmarks is simply McCain telling me that he gets it, and will do what he can when he gets in the White House. We know McCain wants to "win", we know that he can not "win" on a libertarian message. Then if the opposition calls McCain on the issue, the opposition fall into a trap, sort of like a gambit opening in chess. McCain knows the issue is somewhat trivial and knows that, for example Gov. Palin is from a state that benefits from earmarks, but in engaging on this issue McCain takes control over the debate. Control of the debate will lead to victory.

Again, I ask - does Obama really want to take the bait on this issue and make it front and center in the news cycle, in the debates, etc. I would think not.

{added} Do you see how different my view on this is from Host's view? McCain needs people like me to get interested in his candidacy so he can "win". That is why he picked Palin, and it has worked. a month ago, I felt Obama was going to win by 10 to 15%, now I am not so sure.

ace....I generally read your WSJ and IBD editorials (or op eds) for the infotainment value.

They are marginally informative and, on occasion, entertaining for the simple fact that they represent the opinion of a writer with an agenda (applies to most editorials and op eds, not just WSJ and IBD).

The ones you post often give me insight into the conservative position by presenting only the facts that support that agenda, excluding any facts that dont. Whch is why you rarely see me post or cite editorials as factual.

So when you post such editorials that cherrypick the facts...yet try to make a case that it as factual (like your post 127 - "Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story or empty political rhetoric. Please carry on.")

...it is like asking the TFP audience to view a half painted picture and accept your position that it is a masterpiece.

Nope...for me it is conservative infotainment, pure and simple....not a source for the objective reporting of facts.
-----Added 11/9/2008 at 03 : 40 : 05-----
Sure he can...simply point to McCain's vote against the first ethics/earmark.lobbying bill enacted in more than 10 years and supported by 35 of McCain's Republican colleagues in the Senate.

And also point to the more than 100 lobbyists in the McCain inner circle or finance "bundlers"...including many who lobbyied for foregin governments, telecomms, big oil, etc.
I'm not suggesting that Obama is clean on this issue (pan already pointed out his connection to Biden's lobbyist son), but he has far less lobbyists grime on his hands than McCain, by any measure.

He can also make the point, supported by a more complete review of the facts than in the DeMint WSJ editorial, that Palin has spent more of her political career (state and local) fighting for earmarks then against them.

I continue having a problem understanding the point of view of you and others on this "cherry picking" concept. In the universal set of facts and information, if someone is going to support an argument isn't it by definition that they will "cherry Pick" information to support that argument?

Just because someone "cherry picks" facts, data or information does that then mean that the person had to have ignored other facts, data or information? Is it possible that a person can objectively give differing weight to what could be conflicting information? Why assume other information was ignored? Why shouldn't the otherside simply make the case for the other information, engaging in real debate?

When "the otherside" presents "facts", why aren't those facts considered "cherry picked" assuming they do not list every possible related piece of information?

On the editorials, there are often two ways to read them. I agree with you I read them for the entertainment value, but I also read them for the data points and the sources to other information listed. I often go to the original sources cited in an editorial and look at that information, no different than when I go to an original source from what you may post. I separate the editorial content from the fact based content.

Given the differences - you make conclusions about me and my approach and I do the same regarding you and others. As you know (and as odd as it sounds, I am not trying to be offensive to you or anyone as an individual), I think my approach is more honest.

IMO, you dont seem to want to differentiate between editorials (with a bias and an agenda) as opposed to news reporting (which, while also possibly appearing biased, is subject to a far greater level of screening and fact-checking by most reputable news publications - at least most of the time!).

I dont think it is more honest when you ignore a significant subset of the facts yet declare: "Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story or empty political rhetoric. Please carry on."

But hey, we can agree to disagree and I wont infer that you, or all conservatives or republicans, are ignorant or a liar.

I have explained the basis of my view, and I have continued providing examples. The latest being the scam on the public regarding the illusion that "aid" in higher education makes it more affordable and more accessible. The people who push that as a real solution either knowingly lie or don't understand.

I will continue supporting my view.

And, I remember specifically asking for help, help to change such a cynical viewpoint. No one has come to my aid. I am a man in need and I thought liberals believed in kindness and compassion. Gee, again...why...why am I such a cynic. It is a curse, consider yourself lucky being normal.

ace... I dont how we got from earmarks to higher ed aid.

Back to "Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story or empty political rhetoric. Please carry on."

I will carry on as requested.

Do you think these "facts" should get in the way:

McCain speaking in Virginia yesterday, with Palin at his side: “We’re never going to spend $3 million again to study the DNA of bears in Montana.”

White sitting at a desk somewhere in Congress are the dozens of FY 09 earmark requests from Palin's administration, including: a request for $3.2 million from the Alaska Dept of Fish and Game for "monitoring ice seal population....research on genetics of harbour seals..."

Earmarks requested by the State of Alaska (pdf...the source doc from the State of Alaska website)

...or might it reasonably be viewed by some as "empty political rhetoric" on the part of McCain.

straight from the horses mouth:
gibson/palin interview:

ABC News part 1-experience issue visited

ABC News part 2-on war and god.

as for my thoughts: i've seen better interviews for highschool president. seriously, at one point " Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin answered: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."...personally, i live next door to a dentist....is anyone willing to let me give them a root canal...

seriously, does that mean every texan has experience bc of proximity to mexico. north dakota bc of proximity to canada? I'm surprised she didn't claim canada AND russia as her credentials.

shaking my head slowly...

Peggy Noonan says I am gallant. I think I like that better than being a chauvinist.:thumbsup:

Declarations - WSJ.com

And,

for those really interested in equal pay for equal work for woman, Republican administrations have a better record than Democratic administrations. Perhaps policies promoting entrepreneurship and real economic growth is what will really solve the problem.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0911190814.gif

Vote Republican If You Want Equal Pay - WSJ.com
-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11 : 04 : 41-----
McCain's banter on earmarks is empty political rhetoric. It won't impact the lives of 99.999% of Americans.
-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11 : 23 : 35-----
Look at it this way:

Palin without doubt or hesitation believes she is qualified and ready to be VP. She is a winner, she has courage, she is confident.

Biden on the otherhand, doesn't think he is as qualified as Clinton to be VP and thinks she may have been a better choice. He did not endorse Obama because of his friendship with Clinton during the primaries.

O.k., I am just going to let you know what I was thinking when I heard Bidden.

Remember this was just in my head: He has got to be kidding - what a loser. No, he is either lying or he is an idiot - what a loser. If he thinks Clinton would be a better VP why did he accept the role - what a loser? If he really thinks that why would he say it - what a loser! Are people actually buying this false humility? Why was he running for President if he thinks Clinton would be a better VP - what a loser? Does he think Clinton should have been the nominee? So, he did not endorse Obama because he either did not have the courage to tell Clinton or now he is supporting his second or third choice - what a loser!

Forgive me for sharing this, I apologize to losers who may be offended with being connected with bidden.

That's fine, Ace. Don't let competence get in the way of choosing who you'll vote for.

Competence? Irrelevant. As long as they wear the right clothes and can speak confidently and sarcastically at the same time, we'll rally 'round 'em.

I liked her answer when asked what insight she has on the recent actions of Russia-

"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Maybe confused "sight" with "insight?"

yeah--ms palin told us last night that one is "wired" for this sort of thing, so it is a matter of essence, not actual skill, intelligence or experience. one is "wired" so as to "not blink"--and we all know that blinking is the signal of namby-pambyness and that the ability to not be namby-pamby FAR outweighs any actual skill, intelligence or experience. that is why ms. palin said that she supports sending american troops into south ossetia, or would send them into the ukraine should "something" happens--and she would of course "not blink" because, well.

what a fucking idiot.
seriously.
no wonder the right wanted to keep her wraps for a while and instead try to set into motion a content-free campaign, one of colored gas and empty memes.

I thought it was the glasses.

So that's all you need to believe in her? Interesting standards. I know a shit-ton of people who can live up to those standards.

As for Biden, well... I'll take humility (even fake humility!) any day, over someone who thinks she's "wired" to be VP. But hey, as long as SHE says she's "ready to lead," it MUST BE TRUE!!! Because if you say something, it becomes real, right? Maybe we really do live in Harry Potter-land.

Understand that the "qualifications" for being President or Vice President are in the Constitution. When they wrote it they could have listed as many requirements as they wanted, they listed two. The suggestion that Palin, or even me, are not qualified because we have not been to an Ivy league school, been in the Senate, graduated law school, had lunch with foreign leaders, shared a bed with a President, etc. - is absurd. Character tells me more about how a person would approach the job than how many times they visited France. Give me a "winner", a person with resolve, confidence, a true leader any day over a person who would project false humility.
-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11 : 59 : 45-----
What does what they wear have to do with it. And they call me a chauvinist. Seems the only people concerned about appearance are liberals. Go figure.

Yep the qualifications of POTUS and VPOTUS are in the Constitution, plain and clear. Which of course means Carrot Top (Scott Thompson) is qualified to be either. I'm not voting for him if he runs either, even if his claims to be qualified.

The job is not that hard. This is true for people who are confident in their character, values and beliefs. I would be more comfortable with average people making decisions than some of the pseudo-intellectuals currently in D.C.

What about honesty?
-----Added 12/9/2008 at 12 : 05 : 49-----
Right, I am not voting for Carrot Top, nor am I voting for Obama/Bidden. That is what is good about democracy. Voters decide.

McCain speaking last year in the early days of the campaign: Mayors, Govs Don't Have Nat'l Security Experience

YouTube - McCain: Mayors, Govs Don't Have Nat'l Security Experience

YouTube - McCain: Mayors, Govs Don't Have Nat'l Security Experience

I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."

Yep...he is prepared...but it sure sounds like he didnt believe mayors or governors are prepared.

But I understand the new caveat...they are qualified if they are governor of a state from which they can "see" Russia!

Oh, darn those Pseudo- Intellectuals In DC! Always fouling things up for Average Folk, aren't they? :)

God forbid that intelligence and critical thinking skills should play a part in someone becoming president or vice-president of the United States of America.

Clearly, Democrats who have any kind of IQ should not even bother running, because it doesn't get them anywhere with the average population. Really, the Democrats shoot too high, that's their problem. People can't take anything Above Average in this country, after all.

Now, about honesty. Really? We're talking about politicians, here. None of them can be honest, it's just part of the job. But talking about any kind of foreign policy from the perspective of being able to "see Russia from here!"... yeah. I just can't even fathom how that begins to appeal to anyone, but obviously I am one of those meddling elites, right?

Well, that's fine. I'll go sit in my Elite Chair now and read some Elite News and have some Elite Dinner, and give my Elite Nerves a break before an Elite Screw comes loose.

/done here for a while.

that was far more diplomatic and eloquent than i could ever have stated. when did being above average disqualify you from the presidency...2000?

Wait for me! You rock, abaya. ABAYA FOR PREZ!

Caught a little of her interview with Gibson tonight. Gibson lobbed her a softball regarding Hilary. That aside I thought Gibson was pretty even with her and her lack of understanding, knowledge and even honesty was clearly apparent. Just hearing her answers regarding earmarks alone were complete horse shit. It's not that they're getting and spending earmarks that's bad, it's the fault of the congress for sending them in the first place. What kind of bizzaro logic is that? For that to even come close to making sense you have to forget she hired a lobby firm to secure the freaking earmarks to begin with. And what's with the "Well I reduced the earmarks" BS? I mean I like the fact she's cut spending- but her state is number one or two when it comes to earmarks. How can she run on an anti-ear mark platform if she's been the governor of the state getting the most ear marks?

A friend e-mailed me and said she stated, during the send off ceremony for her son's guard unit to Iraq, that they were going there to fight those who attacked us on 9-11. I didn't see it but if that's true that a new low even for her... which is saying a lot.

These hysterical MFs tell nearly the same worn out, discredited lies.... why not elect a new regime of them..... would you expect the American electorate to do anything better than vote Palin into the vice-presidency? I don't.....

Palin is a seamless replacement for the current vice-president, who, nearly a year after his president, Bush, conceded there was no relationship between al-Zarqawi and Saddam or his government, was still claiming that there was such a relationship...(see bottom quote...)

Four more fucking years of these same deluded, incompetent, war criminals, cast your vote for more!

Palin is making the same false linking of the Iraq war to "fighting the enemy who attacked us on 9/11..... why not....Cheney contradicted Bush's 9/15/06 admission that Saddam and his regime had no relationship with the "al-qaeda smoking gun", al-Zarqawi, after Bush finally reversed his oft pronounced lies linking al-Zarqawi to Saddam, as late as on June 3, 2007.

So Palin is Dick Cheny? hmmm... I suppose anything's possible.



:crazy:

otto...do you really think its honest for any politician to keep inferring that there was some connection between 9/11 and Iraq?

With Cheney, at least we know its a clear case of attempting to manipulate the facts and perpetuate a falsehood for political purposes.

With Palin, we dont know if that is the case of if she is simply ignorant of the facts.

We do know that on several occasions,McCain seemed to have a hard time being able to distinguish between Shiia and Sunni.

IMO, neither Paln's intentional or ignorant 9/11-Iraq reference nor McCain's Shiia-Sunni confusion inspires alot of confidence.

did you just call palin a horse?????!?!????

I believe my comment was in response to host's assertion that Palin is Cheny. Sort of transferring his hatred for Bush to the next possible surrogate. Makes sense in a clinical way.

and speaking of clinical...Regarding your question... Do you think it's honest to grossly over-simplify the complexities of association, cause, and effect regarding the ever-shifting multi-interests of aligned and non-aligned Islamic militant movements?

Which 9/11 Iraq reference are you referring... in host's post, news articles, the 20/20 interview?

I would never insult horses like that...some of them are actually curious about the grass on the other side of the fence...

oh, and ebert..laying down the law:

[quote]
BY ROGER EBERT Sun-Times Movie Critic

I think I might be able to explain some of Sarah Palin's appeal. She's the "American Idol" candidate. Consider. What defines an "American Idol" finalist? They're good-looking, work well on television, have a sunny personality, are fierce competitors, and so talented, why, they're darned near the real thing. There's a reason "American Idol" gets such high ratings. People identify with the contestants. They think, Hey, that could be me up there on that show!

My problem is, I don't want to be up there. I don't want a vice president who is darned near good enough. I want a vice president who is better, wiser, well-traveled, has met world leaders, who three months ago had an opinion on Iraq. Someone who doesn't repeat bald- faced lies about earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere. Someone who doesn't appoint Alaskan politicians to "study" global warming, because, hello! It has been studied. The returns are convincing enough that John McCain and Barack Obama are darned near in agreement.
» Click to enlarge image
Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

(File/AP)



I would also want someone who didn't make a teeny little sneer when referring to "people who go to the Ivy League." When I was a teen I dreamed of going to Harvard, but my dad, an electrician, told me, "Boy, we don't have the money. Thank your lucky stars you were born in Urbana and can go to the University of Illinois right here in town." So I did, very happily. Although Palin gets laughs when she mentions the "elite" Ivy League, she sure did attend the heck out of college.

Five different schools in six years. What was that about?

And how can a politician her age have never have gone to Europe? My dad had died, my mom was working as a book-keeper and I had a job at the local newspaper when, at 19, I scraped together $240 for a charter flight to Europe. I had Arthur Frommer's $5 a Day under my arm, started in London, even rented a Vespa and drove in the traffic of Rome. A few years later, I was able to send my mom, along with the $15 a Day book.

You don't need to be a pointy-headed elitist to travel abroad. You need curiosity and a hunger to see the world. What kind of a person (who has the money) arrives at the age of 44 and has only been out of the country once, on an official tour to Iraq? Sarah Palin's travel record is that of a provincial, not someone who is equipped to deal with global issues.

But some people like that. She's never traveled to Europe, Asia, Africa, South America or Down Under? That makes her like them. She didn't go to Harvard? Good for her! There a lot of hockey moms who haven't seen London, but most of them would probably love to, if they had the dough. And they'd be proud if one of their kids won a scholarship to Harvard.

I trust the American people will see through Palin, and save the Republic in November. The most damning indictment against her is that she considered herself a good choice to be a heartbeat away. That shows bad judgment.

[/quote}

Roger Ebert on Sarah Palin: The American Idol candidate :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Other Views

I especially love the last paragraph.

Generally, i'm not an ebert fan, but i must say, he vocalizes almost exactly how i feel about Palin. I want someone who doesn't sneer at someone going to harvard on scholarship and grants, etc, or someone who doesn't joke about being a community organizer or someone who is actually curious about the world. What politician didn't leave the country till their 40's.

it's amazing to me. just amazing...

In one respect, Palin is acting more like Bush than Cheney.

She is attempting to prevent the legislature from performing its oversight responsibility in a timely manner by seeking to block subpoenas necessary to complete a legitimate legislative investigation of a potential abuse of power by the executive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us...in&oref=slogin

This sounds vaguely like a president i know who was in power from 2001 to 2009...

Count the Lies - McCainPedia

wow...


but this is appalling. Kerry is still the flipflopper?

To be fair you could do the same thing with Obama. Although to get anywhere near 52 bald face lies with Obama you'd have to lie. Something the McCain camp and the GOP seem to have no problem doing. And why not this has worked well for them for about the last 8 years.

Sad thing is the McCain that ran in 2000 and even supported Bush in '04 doesn't sound anything like the McCain of today. I seriously considering voting for him until he started shifting and pandering to the GOP base. I find it seriously not funny he still claims to be some maverick.

Yes, and you know what the difference is? The media isn't buying it this time. Yesterday FOX MOTHERFUCKING NEWS called out a McCain surrogate for lies about the Obama tax plan. The media were complicit in the lies of the Bush campaign and administration, and this time they've picked a different pony.

Yep. Back in 2000 I said that if McCain ever got nominated I'd have a VERY hard time voting. Turns out most decidedly not to be the case.

keep in mind that even fox has its professional integrity and institutional position to protect---i briefly look at the nitwots on cnn last night during their "political" coverage and the talking heads seem to have adopted a similar position--arbiter, making up their minds based on "facts" so you don't have to. it's kinda repellent viewing. i went back to "i love money" which at least is honest.

The media may not be but the media do nothing but lie about the right. Don't you know anything? I mean just look at the way the "media" handled Bush- Bush makes a bone head move and the "media" has the balls to go and question his judgment. Now the media has it in for poor Sarah Palin. They have the nerve to ask her questions like "why are you qualified to be VP?" "What foreign policy experience do you have?" Clearly these are sexist questions designed to slam her, obviously the media can not be trusted.

Yep, that's exactly what happened to me. I was excited about McCain until I realized this was not the McCain I thought I knew.

well, at the beginning of this race, i thought "gee, i would be ok with both of these, so i'm really..for the first time in years, not that concerned with who wins. Mccain is not really republican enough and seems to be logical in his thought processes, i loved when he called out the republicans for pandering to the far right religious groups, and he has generally been a bit of a freer thinker....


then i saw the mccain that came out after he won the nomination..one who will say and do anything to get elected. It's insanely disgusting to have karl rove call him (and the dems) out on excessive lies...that's just absurd. It's also absurd that he would run that type of campaign when he was snowblowed in the 2000 primaries...

ab..so..lutely...disgusting.

I liked Obama a whole lot more before the mud started to fly too, hasn't stopped me from donating to him or supporting him.

Anyone going to the Obama fundraiser and Barbara Streisand performance in Beverly Hills?:paranoid: Anyone?:paranoid: Please don't all raise your hands at once. :paranoid: Anyone?:paranoid:

i don't really see what that has to do with anyone...

anyway, if you thought Obama's reverend was scary..check palin's church:

Actually, I understood Rev. Wright. I understood his style and his point. I thought the media attack was unfair, out of context and over the top.

A person's religion is a private matter, in my opinion. I also think what a person does at a bar at 3 a.m. is a private matter as long as they are not breaking the law. Video cameras should not be at either location.

I am consistent that way, but that is just me. I find it ironic how Democrats make an argument against Republicans and then we find they are guilty of the same thing.

Babs is like buttah... I can't make it to the dinnah, but I am going to tune in to Coffee Talk the day aftah. Who could forget this classic? A big stick of buttah.

No, it's too expensive. I guess the Dems are only accessible to the rich. I wanted to go see Obama but no access for us plain folk. Especially in the glamor of Hollywood.

But seriously, isn't this the way political parties do business anyways? The Republicans have failed hard at reaching out to us independent swing voters. At least the Dems have made some lip service. We will see.
-----Added 16/9/2008 at 06 : 30 : 06-----
Ha! I remember that one, so funny. Ah, SNL, what happened to you, you used to be so good...

Anyways, thanks for the comic relief. Maybe it will break some of the tension in here these days.

Carry on.
-----Added 16/9/2008 at 06 : 33 : 58-----
Hmm, interesting, I think I had the opposite effect. I am drifting towards Obama because I felt he hasn't slung any mud (or at least not much). However, the latest mud fracas (not Obama's doing) is so ugly I am turned off by the whole thing. But in the end, the effect is I have even less respect for the media and no trust in their dubious credibility now more than ever. And also the Dems (and Reps) rabid supporters who are absolutely crazy in slinging mud.

With both sides flinging feces at each other, they better be careful because it's us moderate, independent, swing voters who are in the middle getting covered in shit.
-----Added 16/9/2008 at 06 : 34 : 29-----
Yep, agreed, same here. So disappointing.

Well McCain just did a 25 or 28K private fund raising dinner. So yes, I think this is the way it's done by both parties.

We know how the conservatives love to play the "hollywood elitist" card....but lets look at some numbers.

The donor demographics paint an interesting picture:

50% of Obama's contributions are from donors of $200 or less; for McCain, the figure is 32%

29% of Obama's contributions are from donors of $2,300+; for McCain, the figure is 54%

So who is the candidate of choice of the "common" people and who is candidate of choice of the "fat cats"?.

Who was Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac donating to? Why, what did they get in return?

Fannie and Freddie pacs have contributed $millions to both parties for years...and to both candidates this year.

Here are some other interesting facts about Fannie and Freddie:

Aquiles Suarez, listed as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign in a July 2007 McCain press release, was formerly the director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae. The Senate Lobbying Database says Suarez oversaw the lending giant's $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.

According to the Senate Lobbying Database, the lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004.

The McCain campaign's vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac.

Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP
McCain's Fannie and Freddie Connections

At least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, netting at least $12.3 million in fees over the past nine years.
Fannie, Freddie spent $200M to buy influence

So...what's your point ace?

I think we need serious comprehensive lobbying reform. The reform that the Congress enacted last year...the first time in years...was only a small step.....and McCain (along with 13 fellow Republicans) voted against it.

i think we also need to redo election campaign reform (which i think mccain had a hand in the last time it was done like 10 years ago). i think we need to make this whole 527 group thing illegal. or if it's allowed, that all ads, from the official campaign or those supporting a candidate, approved by the campaign so that all candidates have to stand by what is said, and can't let others do their dirty work of spreading lies. but that might be a reform topic for another thread.

I think people need to understand: "Politicians...are not 'superpeople' and we all have ties that we probably dont' want or need". so i went to a church that was crazy...who cares. I have a friend of a friend of a friend who did ____. I was 8 and a community leader later turned out to be john wayne gayce, ..seriously, who cares. I didn't do those things. Heck, half of my first grade class is in jail, the other half are lawyers, who do you think the media would link me to....

Personally, i go with teh issues and how i think the person will represent themselves and my beliefs and I agreed with mccain in 2000....but after seeing what he's done and how he's proven he'll swing with the wind...f that..then the palin nomination..definitle F that, so obama has my vote and then some..


Oh, and this just in..After agreeing to cooperate with the investigation into troopergate (why is everything a gate, be original)...her loyal Attorney general....stated that state employees will not honor subpoenas....
wtf
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/...fwrT2seLrCw5R4


and harry, i WHOLEHEARTEDLY aagree with the 527 group. They can say and do anything, can be linked to either party wholeheartedly and they are absolutely unaccountable. absolute bullhockey.

The problem is that you can't make 527s illegal, and in general, you can only do so much in terms of campaign finance reform. The Supreme Court has ruled that donations are a form of speech, and so protected by the First Amendment.

Just wanted to know how you might approach data that may not support your position. I have been accused of "cherry picking" information, are you "cherry picking"? Feel free to consider the question rhetorical. I am not really interested in who contributes to who. I don't think most politicians would sell their votes for political campaign contributions.

So...there was really no point to your "Who was Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac donating to? Why, what did they get in return?" post. I get it!

On the other hand, it was an effective way to avoid acknowledging that half of Obama's contributions have come from small contributors (under $200).....a record high percentage for any election in our lifetime. I dont know what you think might be "cherry-picked" about that.

Jumping in here: Ace, I was wondering why you didn't reply to my last post here... only because it was in response to something you said. If you didn't feel like replying, then that's fine. Just curious.

Did you read my post #186. You often give us information about who is contributing to Republicans, but I have not seen where you have done the same with Democrats. You seem to suggest that the contributions are a corrupting influence, perhaps it is in some isolated cases. But I don't think it is the norm, do you? So my point was more along the lines of your lack of a point.

And I took a jab at the whole "cherry picking" thing. I admit I do it. Whatever it means to you I don't know, but I assume anything I read has a point of view and is subject to critical thinking and questioning on my part, including fact checks.

Acknowledged. Obama is getting many people involved in politics who are normally apathetic. I think that is good for our country. I think political contributions is connected to free speech, and there should not be any artificial limits or restriction. I think voters are smart enough to vote for people of their choice and are not unduly influenced by available campaign funds at certain levels. For example if it takes $100,000 to effectively run a mayoral race in a small town, having $1 million won't make a difference in my opinion.
-----Added 17/9/2008 at 12 : 26 : 28-----
I think there are a "shit-ton" of people who could be President/Vice President, in Congress or local/state political office. I don't think the basis of our government was founded on the principle that only "elitist" could hold high office.

Is this the post I missed?

He did not endorse Obama during the primaries, why?
He said Obama was not qualified, why?
He was running against Obama, but now he thinks Obama is the answer, why?

I see a pattern with Biden and the "fake" thing.

Nope. It was this one.

I think some of our greatest leaders have been people who are or were extremely intelligent. The problem is with people who think they are smarter than others, true or not. For example I personally think Al Gore thinks he is smarter than the average American and I think he is wrong. I find it ironic that "smart" people get defeated by "dumb" people like Bush and Reagan. Perhaps, the bottom line is that those people are not as smart as they think they are.

Now we have Obama, who talked about Clarance Thomas' lack of intellect. And we have Biden who told a person the he thought he was smarter than he was. There is a pattern of this that irritates me. Pretty condescending, isn't it?


I disagree. I thought Bush was honest. I have no idea how people say they were surprised by his actions as President. When he ran for reelection he said he was going to "stay the course" in Iraq. He said he was going to do whatever needed to be done to keep the nation safe - hence Gitmo, wiretapes, extreme questioning of terrorists, etc. He selected Chaney as his VP - he wrote the book on Executive Power, hence the fights with Congress on the issue. Etc. Etc. Etc. No surprises and he did what he said he was going to do.

Yes, I understand this is the prime cause of AIDS. Also, wanting to be president causes ringworm.

Intelligence itself only causes the flu.

And an Ivy league education creates tornadoes.

No. I think it's because the average American wants to vote for someone who is "just like him/her," and usually, that means voting for someone of average intelligence. You cannot ignore the rampant anti-intellectualism that pervades much of American culture... it has been around for a very long time.I haven't heard about these things lately, but if they are true... well quite honestly, I don't care how condescending they are. Frankly, ALL politicians are condescending in private... no matter what their public stripes are. They are all just trying to figure out a way to hoodwink a majority of the population, and in doing so, they assume that you are going to follow their herd and be persuaded by their propaganda. They all believe they are smarter than you. What I care about is whether or not they really ARE intelligent, and if they are smarter than me--then all the better. However, I do not want someone that I can "relate to" as president. This country needs a lot more than someone on my level, to run things. It needs someone who really is WAY above me in terms of intelligence, critical thinking skills, and good judgment. But most Americans don't like those qualities. They want their "gut feeling" to be fulfilled, which means... I want our president to be like "me."Well, clearly I'm not going to get far with debating this point with you, if that is already your stance. From your words, I see that the whole premise for invading the Iraq war was 100% honesty and sincerity to you, and if you truly believe that, then we really can't get anywhere on the topic. And that's fine, because I don't want to go down that road on this thread.

Depends on how you define smart. Gore scored a 1355 on his SAT's and his IQ is reported to be in the 130-135 range.

And for the record I don't think Bush Jr. is dumb he scored a 1206 on his SAT's. I don't know what his IQ is but given his SAT score I'd say it's not the 91 that been rumored on the Net.

So I don't think he's "dumb." But I also don't think he's honest.

That's an interesting point that I hadn't thought about. Personally, I look for someone who's not like me and definitely of above-average intelligence.

I didn't know about this anti-intellectual movement. 'Scuse me while I get out from under my rock. :D

Is the average American a total idiot these days, or do we really believe that Joe Blow and hockey moms are great politicians because they're our neighbors and equals?

I don't think it's necessarily a movement... it's just something that has been very strong in American culture for a long time (I would say at least the last half of the 20th century). There's an interesting article about it here, though one might say it's biased because it's from an Elite Publication... but hopefully it helps somehow to explain the phenomenon, since I don't think I would do a very good job here:The Renaissance of Anti-Intellectualism
Excellent question--and I really think it's one of the cruxes around which this, and the last two, elections have turned.

Fascinating. A sad statement, though, when an intelligent man's labeled an elitist. This is some scary shit.

Yup, indeedy. Thing is, that article came out in December 2000, right as Bush was about to step into office. Seems America hasn't learned much in the last 8 years, eh?

Part of the problem is that the elite intellectuals have fueled the "anti-intellectual movement" themselves. I think there is an extreme gap in mutual understanding that keeps the divide wide open. The anti-everyman vitriol on this board is indicative of that sentiment along with "anti-intellectual" comments. The cheap name-calling on both sides (of which I am guilty of too on occasion *shame*) is what keeps politics form the real issues. Take that away and maybe we can get somewhere. Really, take away all the cheap shots, insults and name-calling and most of our threads will disappear. In its stead I would hope the remaining threads would be about the economy, labor, health care, education, foreign policy etc.

Evidently Palin does....concerning both campaign contributions and the influence of lobbyists.

In Palin's latest interview (a softball interview with Sean Hannity), she was asked about political donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

HANNITY: Should there be an investigation in terms of the relationship between the political donations and then of course the bankruptcy that ensued and the impact on the economy?

PALIN: I think that’s significant, but even more significant is the role that the lobbyists play in an issue like this also. And in that cronyism — it’s symptomatic of the greater problem that we see right now in Washington and that is just that acceptance of the status quo.

Now that made my laugh, but McCain may not have found it to be so funny.

One can only wonder if she is aware of the fact that at least 20 McCain-Palin campaign staff and/or fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and others for AIG) in recent years.

Or that the finance sector is the biggest bundler of contributions to McCain ($30 million) as opposed to Obama ($13.5 million).