Ellington

Last week when McCain announced his candidate for Vice President I—like many other people in America—asked myself, "Sarah who?" I tuned in to the Republican National Convention just to hear her speak. I joined the other 39 million Americans who had no idea who she was, where she came from, and why she so strikingly resembled a Delta Airlines flight attendant.

I assumed McCain selected her to procure some of the undecided Hillary voters. How perfectly male it was for him to suppose that vaginas automatically pick other vaginas. I'm not saying we vaginas don't stick together; I'm just saying that someone really needs to explain to the right wingers that we don't actually think with our vaginas.

Then I heard Sarah Palin speak and realized there was much more afoot than met the eye. Sarah Palin's conservative views are scarier than Mike Huckabee's family portraits. Since she addressed no real policy issues in her well-delivered speech, I became completely enthralled by the long list of her personal issues quickly filling the blogosphere with the opinions of righteously indignant Democrats (my favorite kind).

People began talking about how she wasn't "vetted" properly and how McCain's "maverick" ideals were showing. I think McCain's choice in Palin shows that he is no "maverick" at all. If he were a true maverick, he might have gone with Lieberman. Instead, he clung to the Republican Party line attempting to rally the Christian base and went further right than James Dobson.

I'll admit, I didn't know what "vetted" meant until last Tuesday. The third Webster's entry defined it as "to make a careful check of (a person or document) for suitability." Palin hadn't been checked for "suitability"? Were they talking about her political platforms or her family? At this point, her platforms scare me more than her family.

A few of these include believing creationism should be taught in public schools, complete support of abstinence-only education programs, and strict pro-life beliefs that don't make exceptions in cases of rape or incest. Nothing like some wedge issues to rally the evangelical base, right? The only other thing she consistently mentions is energy policy. Her policy sounds simple: "drill." Her family drama—while less scary—is more complicated. When superimposed over her beliefs, it becomes downright confusing.

Palin has more wedge issues contained within the members of her family than I've seen listed in Talking Points on Bill O'Reilly. She has a son going to Iraq. She has a special- needs child she "chose to have." She has an unwed pregnant seventeen-year-old daughter. All she needs is a homosexual sex scandal, and she'd have this whole Republican thing completely buttoned up.

She's no "change." She's just a lascivious as the rest of them. I guess one thing the Republicans figured out after the last administration is that it's better to empty the skeletons out of the closet all at one time. This is OK by me. It saves me several long and drawn out months of being forced to watch the McCain's campaign come up with new and creative ways to defend out-of-wedlock pregnancies and a candidate's "right to privacy." Although, I will admit that is true entertainment.

Since it doesn't seem the Republicans "vetted" her enough, and she's now refusing to be "vetted" by the media, I'd like to do a little vetting of my own. These are actual quotes of Sarah Palin's answering a few of my previous and hastily concocted hot button questions and might provide a little insight into why she isn't yet prepared to be "vetted" by the American media. After all, there are only about 60 days left in this election, and we could all use some extra information.

Me: So, your daughter is pregnant. How did that happen?

SP:"Explicit sex education programs will not find my support."

Well, that makes a lot of sense. I bet if your daughter had a full knowledge of her body and reproductive organs she might be able to control when they produce things.

Me: So, I've heard you're militant pro-life?

SP:"I'd oppose (abortion) even if my own daughter was raped."

What if she was just 17, ignorant and dating a self-proclaimed "f**kin' redneck"?

Me: How do you feel about the Iraq War?

SP:"Pray … that our leaders are sending (our soldiers) out on a task that is from God. We have to make sure there is a plan and the plan is God's plan."

George? Is that you, George?

Me: How do you feel about the death penalty?

SP:"If the Legislature were to pass a bill that established a death penalty on adults who murder children, I would sign it."

Me: Just for clarification, what were your beliefs on abortion again?

SP:"I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending a life."

Thank you, Captain Consistency. I feel those five questions are enough vetting for me. I'm going to have to give this one a thumbs-down. I really wanted a viable woman candidate this year. Instead, we got Hillary and this flawed Hillary foil with her sassy mouth, oppressive views and flirtatious speeches. I think it might be the only time in history we see buttons reading "Hot Chick for VP." Women fought long and hard for that button to end up in a presidential election, don't you think?

Beyond that, want to know the part that really chaps my butt about McCain deciding to share the ticket with Palin? We're still stuck with Haley.

Previous Comments

ID

135597

Comment

Just so we are clear, she did not push "creationism" in schools, not that it matters or that I don't question the following website, I do. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html Here's a good read also from a famous someone who is supporting Obama, everyone woman should read it.... http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index.html

Author

eagle1

Date

2008-09-11T13:28:20-06:00

ID

135598

Comment

And also, keep going after her. It's obvious that method is backfiring. So, how are the polls treating ya'll this week. I haven't noticed:)

Author

eagle1

Date

2008-09-11T13:32:03-06:00

ID

135599

Comment

Good to see you sourcing factcheck.org, eagle. I saw that one about Palin, which does soften earlier reports that she "pushed for" creationism, which is what Lori's opinion column, written before that Factcheck clarified this point, was based on. That said, you can't get away from the fact that she seems to want teachers to take out time from a science class to allow creationism to be discussed; one wonders if she also wants churches to allow the "other side" to be presented on Sundays? As we both know, there is a place for everything, and science belongs in science class. One brand of religion certainly doesn't, especially in public schools, where it's unconstitutional. One weould hope that a candidate for vice president would/could understand that. CNN an hour ago: But some rumors do have a bit of truth. It's been rumored that Palin wants to teach creationism in schools. While she vowed not to add it to Alaska's curriculum, she has spoken in favor of classroom discussion of both creationism and evolution. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. it doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview. Quote some more from factcheck, while you're at it, like the McCain-Palin folks doing an ad that said that *Obama* is responsible for putting out Internet hoaxes.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-11T13:46:58-06:00

ID

135600

Comment

Both sides stretch/bend the truth. The problem is when folks act like the Obama camp is squeaky clean.

Author

QB

Date

2008-09-11T14:04:31-06:00

ID

135601

Comment

Also, I'm sure that all those people who were outraged by what Obama's pastor said from the pulpit are going to hold Palin accountable for everything her pastor(s), and she, have said in church, right? If her church supports teaching creationism, then she does. That's the standard many held Obama to; will we hold white candidates to the same standard?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-11T14:07:03-06:00

ID

135602

Comment

No, Fat Harry, the problem is when people such as yourself equate the blatant lies that McCain and Palin are telling right now with "stretching" the truth, which you're right that most candidates do. This whole situation reminds me of so much of the Melton campaign–we were slammed for trying to tell people that he was telling whoppers and talking out both sides of his mouth with different people. But some people didn't want to believe it, criticizing the messinger instead of observing the naked, dishonest emperor right in front of their faces. Y'all have the same choice now. I really hope you don't put us in the position of saying "we told you so" yet one more time because you're so damn partisan and gullible.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-11T14:10:15-06:00

ID

135604

Comment

And also, keep going after her. It's obvious that method is backfiring That's a ridiculous and illogical statement. McCain is gaining mostly among people who are predisposed to swing conservative anyway, and in states that he has locked up. The truth about McCain-Palin lies and her disturbing love affair with the extreme right is going to matter a whole lot to people unlike you who are capable of making decisions without being chained to partisanship. It is extremely predictable that conservative ideologues are going to complain about anyone daring to point out that their candidates are on a lie-and-smear campaign -- and try to turn the messinger into the ones lying and smearing. (Uh, you don't "smear" someone by pointing out that they're lying. Only a fool would argue such a thing.) And if telling the truth about those two helps get them elected, then America is making its own bed, just as Jackson did when it elected Melton. But our consciences are clear because we try to put the truth out there, even while under attack. Same goes for the Iraqi War and the cover story we ran the week it started warning people that it was based on myths and lies. Just because people don't want to believe they are supporting liars doesn't mean it's not the media's responsibility to point out those lies. If we don't, we are irresponsible. It is interesting that none of you defending McCain-Palin have managed to bring up an issue yet, or one positive about what they would do better, or how they're going to help America cover from disastrous Bush policies. With due respect, I'd kind of hate to be y'all right now. Or in four years if the GOP liar campaign works. It'll be your fault, just as Bush was, because you were too busy drinking the Koolaid and repeating the talking points to see what is right in front of your faces.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-11T14:17:58-06:00

ID

135606

Comment

One thing that a GOP pundit said several months ago will probably end up coming true: If McCain wins it may well guarantee that the Republicans will be out of power for decades afterwards...I hope that the gullible ones do not have to learn the hard way.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-11T14:28:43-06:00

ID

135607

Comment

Palin DID advocate that creationism should be taught alongside evolution until she got heat for it, THEN she tacked back to reality and said she was only for an open debate. She is a flip flopper. She was for it before she was against it, like she was for pork earmarks before she was against them. For the bridge to nowhere before it became a political problem: http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html. This is like advocating that alternatives to the law of gravity should be debated in the classroom (Duh!).

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-11T14:37:32-06:00

ID

135608

Comment

I agree with you, Whitley, but it tends to be the American way not to want to face difficult facts until they are biting us in the ass. To be honest with you, I wasn't as terrified of a McCain presidency, figuing it couldn't get *much* worse than what Bush has done (although I think Obama will be amazing and start to repair the mess and our standing in the world). But I agree with Ed Koch who said, "that woman scares the hell out of me." Palin is terrifying. She seems provincial and small-minded, which really matters when you could be the leader of the free world within four years. She reminds me a lot of Bush in that she doesn't really seem to have cared a whole lot what happens "in the lower 48," much less the larger world. And she has hung out with very disturbing extremists both at church and politically for years now. She could have the nuclear codes (Matt Damon said that one). She could decide to nuke an "enemy" just because her preacher tells her she should. I have seen no reason yet to think she wouldn't. People, regardless of party, really need to think about her. At this point, were I a Republican, I would vote against that ticket and set my sights on four years from now. By then the party would have a chance to wrest itself away from the extremists and white supremacists it's courted all these years, and would be forced to if McCain loses. Then it could be a really impressive party to be reckoned with. Right now, it is a disaster waiting to happen, especially if something happens to McCain.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-11T14:42:48-06:00

ID

135609

Comment

I'd be curicous to hear specifically what the Palin apologists on here think about her repeated lies about telling Congress she didn't want the Bridge to Nowhere. Fat Harry, Crawdad, Bubba, Eagle: Is this acceptable political warfare? And please don't answer me by changing the subject to Obama: This is a question about Palin and deserves an answer about Palin. Also, what do you think of her husband being a member of the Independence Party? Is that patriotic? Pro-America? One more, what do you think of all the earmarks she pursued for Alaska?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-11T14:46:25-06:00

ID

135612

Comment

Ladd, all of your issues with us Kool Aid drinking folk can easily be redirected back at you making the same exact points towards your party and beliefs. It's silly. According to Gallup, you are completely wrong on your assessment. He has gained in more areas than just people leaning his way anyway, even women... http://www.gallup.com/poll/110137/McCain-Now-Winning-Majority-Independents.aspx Your predictable negative rant of her speech after the convention and your denial of any upcoming bump is well documented at this point to be absolutely wrong. The polls show it as well as the crowds that now rival that of Obama's coming to see her. The polls have been changing in McCains favor and are continuing to change and it's not simply a convention bounce, it's a Palin bounce. In a few weeks they could change the other way, we'll see. Polls also show your assessment of my "backfiring" comment also completely wrong. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/51_say_reporters_are_trying_to_hurt_palin_39_say_she_has_better_experience_than_obama Tell me you read the article by Paglia, interesting. Also, as I have stated before. Creationism isn't a religion. It is simply the theory that a higher being may have organized the chaos that is life. I'm not religious, not at all. I'm against abortion because I believe it's a human rights issue, not a religious one. I am also a believer in freedom of religion and expression and it's amazing to me the amount of religious hate I see directed at her because of her beliefs nor do I think it should even matter whether or not Obama is a muslim. If you ever have the courage to drop the notion that creationism is associated with a guy being nailed to the cross, than you might actually find in fascinating. We do live in a free society. Why would we supress such theories in our classroom? Is evolution not a theory? If you've ever read about creationism, it's fairly scientific. It in no way dictates that a Christian God came down and poof, there was Adam and Eve. Jeez, open your mind.

Author

eagle1

Date

2008-09-11T15:15:12-06:00

ID

135613

Comment

Also, I'm sure that all those people who were outraged by what Obama's pastor said from the pulpit are going to hold Palin accountable for everything her pastor(s), and she, have said in church, right? Not only that, but what about those who were so outrage about Michelle Obama saying that for the first time in her adult life, she was proud to be an American? I never heard of Mrs. Obama being tied to any organization that wanted Illinois to secede from the union. If you're going to question others about their patriotism, you should do the same for the ones among you. BTW Lori, welcome back! Are you currently not drinking?

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-09-11T15:23:27-06:00

ID

135615

Comment

Evolution is not a theory any more than gravity is a theory. DNS evidence proves that plants and animals have evolved over time. What texts can you refer us to on the "science" of creationism? Eagle, YOU may not subscribe to the religious version of creationism (so don't count yourself among the wingnuts). I also believe that there could be an intelligent design; however, I do not subscribe to the nutty creationist theories that lead them to believe that people and dinosaurs coexisted like in the Flintstones cartoon. You may want to read up more on the creationist theory that you are defending. The religious creationists actually have a museum in Kentucky that "illustrates" in models how dinosaurs lived along with humans a la the Flintstones. YaBBA DABBA DOO! The "lipstick on a pig" uproar surprised me with how sensitive the right wingers are --- poor dears! I thought they were a tough hardened lot like the brave pioneers who slaughtered the natives. Obama DID NOT say that McCain's turnabout with Palin is like "lipstick on a racist, facist, secessionist pig". Now that would have been purposefully offensive, but no one said that (as far as I know). http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/pollitt

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-11T15:35:11-06:00

ID

135618

Comment

Ladd, all of your issues with us Kool Aid drinking folk can easily be redirected back at you making the same exact points towards your party and beliefs Except that they *can't*, eagle. I am not a Democrat; I'm an independent. And I criticize Democrats freely when they screw up. I'd rather be caught dead than blindly defending someone just because they are of a certain political party. That's just stupid.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-11T20:55:44-06:00

ID

135619

Comment

Palin apologists? Not me. Blatant lies are unacceptable no matter who says them or for political warfare . I am very unforgiving of liars.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-09-12T00:49:48-06:00

ID

135620

Comment

Actually, Whitley both gravity and evolution are scientific theories. A scientific fact is a misnomer. Science starts with a theory and tests it against known evidence and specially designed experiments. Scientists then present that evidence to their peers who analyze the argument for themselves. As a majority of scientists come to agree that a theory explains the observable facts, it becomes an accepted scientific theory. Gravity and evolution are both generally accepted scientific theories which have a whole lot of observable evidence backing them up, though the theory of evolution does have some questions which still need to be answered. Regardless, it is currently the best explanation anyone has come up with to explain the observable facts. Creationism, on the other hand seems to be different entirely. To the best of my knowledge, creationism has mainly circumstantial evidence to back it up and has a whole lot of questions which it cannot answer. For the record, I am a Christian who believes there is a God that created everything; I do not believe that excludes evolution. I'm also an American who believes in the constitution, including the clause that separates church and state. Every parent has a right to teach their children whatever they want. Government funded education in the sciences, on the other hand, needs to stick to teaching accepted scientific theories while developing the students' ability to understand and analyze scientific data for themselves.

Author

Tim S

Date

2008-09-12T05:03:39-06:00

ID

135621

Comment

http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm In case anyone is interested the website above is where I got the quotes. It collects quotes and information on ALL the candidates from speeches, etc. It has some pretty interesting stuff from some old speeches she gave while running for Govenor, etc. (Including ones concerning earmarks). What is interesting is that now the website shuts down whenever I try to access it. Big Bubba must have gotten a hold of it. I'm sure we'll have lots to talk about now that they've allowed her outside to talk to the media. I'm guessing the brain implant took. ;) it's a Palin bounce. In a few weeks they could change the other way, we'll see. I think once she starts giving ongoing media interviews we will see the change the other way. I haven't seen the one she gave last night. They only showed excerpts. I'll withhold comment until I see it. Palin is SMART. Extremely smart. But, I believe a lot of her beliefs come from her lack of experience in the world. She grew up in the same town in which she ran for mayor. She has no extended experience in "the lower 48" nor does she have experience with issues regarding diversity or inner cities. The capital city in Alaska is about the size of Greenville, MS. Think about that. I dated the son of the mayor of Greenville when I was growing up. And, as much as I thought he was totally cool, he could no more be a vice-president than I could. She is pro-gun anti-conservation because that is how she was RAISED. That is how most people are where she grew up. She's seen no other way to be. As Ladd stated above, I'm not just toeing a party line here. I actually DEFENDED Palin last night because someone made a wrong statement concerning her previous actions in Alaska. They put out the line "She cut special needs funding in Alaska by 60%". She actually didn't. The legislature appropriated a ton more money to special needs funding that year. She vetoed 60% of that increase and programs for special needs kids actually STILL increased. Her sister also has a special needs child. This has been an ongoing issue for her family. In the end, her crazy outweighs all of that. She scares the crap out of me as well. BTW Lori, welcome back! Are you currently not drinking? I'm currently drinking coffee. Its 7:30 freaking AM. I love how people think I'm laid out in the gutter drunk all the time. It's a fairly romanticized notion people hold about writers, huh? :) You people know I actually hold down a professional JOB don't you? I'll let you in on a little secret (and I probably shouldn't because it totally ruins part of my fun). When I write about my drinking one needs to take it with the same grain of salt one takes Ra-Walt with!! :) Unless you see me singing karaoke. Then I'm probably drunk enough to convince myself that I am young, beautiful and can carry a tune. That takes more than a single sniffer of brandy these days. But, its totally sweet you guys missed me! I'm also an American who believes in the constitution, including the clause that separates church and state. I'll say "Amen" to that. :) I always tell people they don't want me teaching MY brand of religion in schools...and I'm perfectly okay with that.

Author

Lori G

Date

2008-09-12T07:02:12-06:00

ID

135622

Comment

I think once she starts giving ongoing media interviews we will see the change the other way. I haven't seen the one she gave last night. They only showed excerpts. I'll withhold comment until I see it. Here's the video.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-09-12T07:27:27-06:00

ID

135624

Comment

Again Lori, Creationism ISN"T a religion. Does Intelligent Design sound better to ya. Could you please point me the direction to the Church of Creationism and their headquarters. It's quite a fascinating theory, but one that will fall on deaf ears of those close minded with some creepy almost "religious"-like book burning "you can't teach that to our kids" belief. I thought the school was where kids could be challenged, guess not. I don't want to get into micro-evolution vs macro-evolution but basically there are holes all in the theory of evolution. But it makes sense and I'm completely open minded. And if one would read scientific views of creationism/intelligent design and not subscribe 100% to the lefts view of creationism that if you teach it all kids will fall down on their knees to praise jesus. Oh my god, that would just be the scariest thing to hit our country. Anyway, as far as Palin goes, she ultimately stopped the bridge to nowhere. Was she for it before she was against it, looks like it, but it eventually stopped at her desk for whatever reason. The details from there are fuzzy, especially coming from the main stream media of which more than 50% of the population believes is trying to smear Palin according to recent polls, I suppose this publication could be included in that. The people here were on her case BEFORE these "fact checking" missions even started, so spare me the "this isn't political" nonsense. Regardless, we are talking about a bridge, disputing a freakin' bridge. Who cares? It's not like she voted for a war and then was against it after it had already started. Anyone care why Obama served on a Board with William Ayers, a terrorist who claims he "didn't do enough" and admits "he is guilty and free as a bird." No. Anyone, anyone. Would anyone here serve on a board with James Ford Seale. NO, you would not. I can't imagine anything more anti-American than serving on a board with, being friends with and having your political coming out party hosted by a one, extremist and terrorist William Ayers. We are talking about the candidate himself, NOT HIS SPOUSE. Anyone heard of Rashid Khalidi. Apparently this man is an Arafat apologist and hates Israel, he hosted a fundraiser for Obama. I can't imagine anything more on the fringe left than this nonsense. Does the media talk about it, no.

Author

eagle1

Date

2008-09-12T08:03:08-06:00

ID

135626

Comment

Tim, to the layman on the street gravity is a proven fact. Michael Jackson is the only moonwalker on Earth that I have seen. Gravity can also be measured. How can you measure a theory? Maybe it takes a physicist to understand how they can measure the force of a theory. What are the facts supporting creationism? Do you think that men and dinosaurs actually coexisted like in the Flintstones? Are you a scientist Tim? If so, what branch of science do you specialize in? If there were no proof that Sarah Palin sympathized with secessionist fringe groups like the Alaska Independence Party, then it would be a theory. If we have video of her saying that she "shares their vision", then I could be missing something, but to me we can enter it into the fact column. I am not that smart though. Maybe I missed your point.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-12T08:09:44-06:00

ID

135627

Comment

Eagle1, check your facts. She did not stop the bridge to nowhere. The plan to spend the dollars on this bridge was axed in Congress, and instead, Alaska still got the $$ but it was allocated to other transportation projects. And that's the bottom line. I would like to see the media drop this debate on this d*mm bridge, but Palin keeps bringing it up.

Author

lanier77

Date

2008-09-12T08:11:14-06:00

ID

135628

Comment

Eagle, what are the holes in evolution and what are the "facts" supporting creationism? Do you have evidence that we coexisted with dinosaurs? I guess it is possible, if you close your eyes real tight, drink your kool aid and believe. Why do you compare William Ayers to James Seale? You show your "intellectual" dishonesty. James Seale was convicted of being involved in a murder conspiracy. Who did Willian Ayers kill? No one. Rashid Kalidi does not hate Israel. He is not an Arafat apologist. These are lies that have been discussed on this site already. In his last book, Kalidi criticized many of the actions of Arafat and Hamas as being destructive to the best interests of the Palestinians. He also criticized Israel. He spoke of the need for a solution that recognizes the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people. He spoke at a forum recently where Condoleeza Rice was on the podium. I doubt that she associates with terrorists who hate Israel. All you all do is lie and distort in order to continue to wreck our country.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-12T08:42:03-06:00

ID

135630

Comment

On Ayers: The man lives around the corner from Obama. He is his neighbor. Obama was eight years old when those events ocurred in the sixties. Ayers has admitted that they bombed government buildings as protests against the Vietnam war in the sixties. "We weren't terrorists," Ayers told an interviewer for the Chicago Tribune in 2001. "The reason we weren't terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people."1 In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism – individual, group and official". He also condemned the September 11 terrorist attacks in that letter. "Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."2 1. Chicago Tribune Magazine, p 10, September 16, 2001, June 8, 2008 2. Chicago Tribune, September 23, 2001, retrieved June 8, 2008

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-12T09:02:07-06:00

ID

135632

Comment

Whitley- what are bombings of government buildings, if they are not terrorist acts?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-09-12T09:35:30-06:00

ID

135634

Comment

Bubba, it was terrorism against a building. It seems that they avoided bombing people. I presented his quote so he could speak for himself. He was compared to James Seale, a convicted felon who targeted his violence against people, not buildings. Ayers was not convicted of a crime as far as I know. It was forty years ago. Is McCain responsible for all the wingnuts, racists, secessionists and right wing terrorist types who support him? Trying to disqualify a candidate based on who his neighbors are or who he served on a non-profit board with is wingnut nonsense. Obama is not on video expressing sympathy for the Weathermen's activities in the sixties. He repudiates those acts of violence. Palin IS on video expressing sympathies for the far right fringe party, the Alaska Independence Party which preaches "Alaska First" not "Country First". Can you all not see a difference?

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-12T09:46:44-06:00

ID

135635

Comment

The terrorist bugabear used to scare people into the arms of the wingnut saviors is TIRED. Webster states: The terrorists are coming! The terrorists are coming! One if by land and two if by sea! Hide the womens and chillun's. Granny get the shotgun and by all means vote Republican! Ha Ha. We should be more worried about the destruction of the economy, inequality rising to the levels just prior to the Great Depression and the assault on our Constitutional rights to be free from government spying, arrest without a warrant, torture and government officials who sell us out to the oil companies for sex and cocaine treats. I am terrified of these nuts doing the same thing to our country for another five years. I'm just a scaredy cat. As Popeye would say: "Shiver me timbers!".

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-12T10:27:23-06:00

ID

135639

Comment

If y'all want to start a thread about Ayers, please go do it in the forums. It's a different topic. Back on point, though, Palin did not stop the Bridge to Nowhere. She did not tell Congress "no," as she has said repeatedly. Congress had killed it by then. She also did not sell or put the plan on eBay, as both she and McCain have said she did. That was the system in place; the state had been using eBay for three years before she took office. And then follow up on what happened with the plane next. She also didn't fire the chef; she moved him to another government job. And so on.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-12T10:41:34-06:00

ID

135640

Comment

Oh, and was her appearance with Charlie Gibson terrifying or what?!? She looks like a deer in a headlight without a scripted speech. And how in hell could the McCain people send her into an interview without briefing her on what the Bush Doctrine is!?! She's a rich embarrassment, but it is even worse to watch how McCain's handlers are managing her. It looks like they just plan to lie and attack their way into the White House. And then what? Do these campaign people start running the country? If people weren't terrified after seeing her on Charlie Gibson, they're not paying attention. Repeating "Islamic terrorism" every time you don't know a hard answer isn't acceptable for someone a heartbeat away from the presidency. I mean, look where that got us with Bush.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-12T10:46:25-06:00

ID

135641

Comment

Folo has video of the pitball and Charlie from last tonight. This is not a joke.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-12T10:48:06-06:00

ID

135642

Comment

I can't get the folo video to work for me. Is this operator error? :)

Author

Lori G

Date

2008-09-12T10:55:20-06:00

ID

135643

Comment

Whitley, it was you guys starting the "scare" tactics, not me, with your Palin and the "independence party" nonsense. So dont try and take the higher ground. So Whitley, now that you are redefining terrorism acts, by your standard had the twin towers been empty of humans and only the buildings destroyed, it wouldn't be considered terrorism? Ridiculous. When it boils down to it, the very fact that Obama was even remotely friendly(he was more) with Ayers is simply mind-boggling. The fact the press doesn't discuss it but rather continues talking about a bridge to nowhere crap, is even more mind-boggling. Also, I NEVER said I had facts backing Creationism, I simply stated it was interesting and by some is considered scientific. Also, I didn't say evolution wasn't true, but I refuse to believe in something wholeheartedly and blindly without more proof or understanding. To write anything off completely that is still being researched is simply closed minded thinking. And who gave you this notion that Creationism requires the belief in the Flintstones. You creat your own arguments, I never said any of those things. What are some holes in evolution....uh, where are the transitional fossils that should show millions maybe billions of years of this evolution. They simply don't exist. There should be thousands and thousands of these fossils, but nada. Doesn't necessarily mean it's not true, but come on, the elephant in the room so to speak. Do you even realize how complicated, sophisticated and organized the one single human cell is? I don't but I read about it. It contains billions of amount of information and it's all neatly tied together in perfect unison. Do you honestly in your heart believe that just happens by chance? It might? Just read about it before you crap on the idea, you might be fascinated.

Author

eagle1

Date

2008-09-12T10:57:31-06:00

ID

135644

Comment

If you can't impress them with brillance, baffle them with BS. She does seem to have a hearing problem or a comprehension problem doesn't she. That was sad.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-09-12T11:06:47-06:00

ID

135645

Comment

Ok. I just watched that video. I swear I thought Charlie was going to slap her at one point and scream, "JUST YES OR NO, WOMAN!!" You can tell at the end he just got tired and sighed really loudly. She wouldn't take a strong stand on anything because she has yet to be told what stand she is supposed to be taking. She was not prepared for that. How did they let her do that? She has absolutely no idea how to handle foreign affairs or security. This is scary, people.

Author

Lori G

Date

2008-09-12T11:10:34-06:00

ID

135646

Comment

Eagle, YOU are creating arguments. I didn't say bombing a building was not terrorism. You conjure this up in your own mind. You seem to confuse Creationism and Intelligent Design. Go read up on Creationism and maybe you can figure out where the Flintstones analogy comes from. They have a museum in Kentucky that shows cavemen and dinosaurs coexisting --- and they are serious (http://www.creationmuseum.org/)! I can sympathize with some of the intelligent design theory. Can you point me to a link or a book about Indiana Jones' missing fossil evidence? The Alaska Independence Party and the fringe groups it is associated with who believe in hatred of minorities and seccession is not nonsense. A very horrific war was fought over secession. Some would like to refight it.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-12T11:12:43-06:00

ID

135647

Comment

Why does the word hearing appear twice in my post here and is correct on the main page and the recent comments below?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-09-12T11:15:37-06:00

ID

135648

Comment

It's. Not. Nonsense, Eagle, even if you really, really wish that it was. Until 2002, when Palin ran for governor, Todd Palin was a registered member of an anti-U.S. government, secessionist party. They both attended its conventions, and she spole to them this year, telling them to keep up the good work. This may be an inconvenient truth for McCain suporters and Republican partisans, but it is the truth, and scary as hell. This woman may get to appoint three Supreme Court justices, as well as commander our families members in the military to die in wars that the fringe wants her to fight. You really need to stop trying to attack the messengers here, and start using your brain. Sarah Palin is one of the scariest candidates for national office to come along in a long time. And not just because of her lack of knowledge about the world, which is very similar to Georg Bush's. But because of the groups that stand to influence her as president or vice president. Even Bush didn't cavort with the radical-radical right. And Laura Bush sure isn't a secessionist who goes to conventions with white supremacists.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-12T11:15:41-06:00

ID

135649

Comment

No idea, Bubba. ;-) Agreed, Lori. She was seriously dumbfounded by very basic questions. It was if the McCain handlers just said mention "Islamic terrorists" anytime you don't know what to say. I truly don't think she knows how difficult and complicated the world is. She hasn't had, or sought, education about it. She has been Alaska-centric (which is fine for Alaska politicians). She either has extremist views or panders to them for easy votes. And she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. Be afraid. Seriously, folks. This is way beyond partisanship.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-12T11:18:45-06:00

ID

135650

Comment

Agreed that it was sad, Bubba. Now, imagine her sitting in a room with world leaders. Bush was bad enough; this I can't comprehend. It was telling, though. She managed to look a bit commanding on stage in her speech, but last night she just looked dramatically out of her league. Which she clearly is. Sadly, it reminds me of Geraldine Ferraro, who was also way out of her league, as the world saw when she tried to answer media questions. It's sad that the men who manage to consider women as running mates only pick them for political reasons, and not because they would actually be good presidents. BTW, someone who claims that drilling for oil here is goign to provide immediate energy solutions is either lying through their teeth, or woefully ignorant of facts.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-12T11:22:16-06:00

ID

135651

Comment

Oh, and the discussion ends here of who is "creating arguments." Obviously, we are all arguing and debating. What isn't allowed is personal attacks and whining. Go start your own blog to do that. Talk issues on this one, or get your booty out. Same with, er, vetting the science of evolution. You can start forum posts on that if you like. Stay on topic here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-12T11:23:47-06:00

ID

135652

Comment

I was talking to someone this morning and we were discussing how we really don't think she knew what she was getting into. She confirmed that with the "I didn't even blink." Who DOESN'T blink if someone offers them the Vice Presidency? She calls it "confidence". I call it "hubris born of ignorance." There is a small but significant difference between the two. I LOVED when he asked her the foreign country question. "I've been to Mexico, Canada..." and then started talking about the ONE trip he asked her to exclude. Going to Mexico and Canada is like visiting Texas or North Dakota. "Have you ever been to a foreign country?" "Yes, I've been to North Dakota."

Author

Lori G

Date

2008-09-12T11:25:08-06:00

ID

135653

Comment

With Palin's militant rhetoric about Russia I am afraid they might start World War III. McCain has already stated they he thinks we are in the early stages of World War III. Are we supposed to go to war to defend all folk everywhere in the world or should we reserve war for when WE are directly threatened? True conservatives do not believe in waging war in the absence of a direct threat. True conservatives opposed the Iraq debacle.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-12T11:33:48-06:00

ID

135654

Comment

Well, if she follows dominionist religious teachings, she may think it's her responsibility to help get a holy war going. Her language in church so far raises that concern.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-12T11:41:02-06:00

ID

135655

Comment

McCain lied today on The View about Palin and her pile of earmark requests. "Not as governor, she didn't," he told Barbara Walters, Whoopi et al. Lie. She requested $197 million in earmarks this year, and $256 million last year. Per capita, that's $288 this year and $376 last year. She requested personally 10 times the value of earmarks that most states get total each year. As governor. It just keeps getting deeper and scarier. Maybe McCain is so clueless that he doesn't know what his campaign is doing and feeding him right now. Or, maybe he's just a liar. Either way, doesn't bode well for the country.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-12T11:47:26-06:00

ID

135656

Comment

Ladd-that might be early dementia settling in. :) (No one give me the "He Was A POW" tongue-lashing for that comment. My grandfather got three Purple Hearts in Korea and he isn't fit to run an outhouse he's so out of his mind. And, he's only four years older than McCain.)

Author

Lori G

Date

2008-09-12T11:53:07-06:00

ID

135658

Comment

(This AP story about McCain's lies is important enough to double-post.) The Associated Press reports today on McCain's new trail of lies: The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak. Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He said Friday that Palin never asked for money for lawmakers' pet projects as Alaska governor, even though she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone's taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead. Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain's skirting of facts has stood out this week. It has infuriated and flustered Obama's campaign, and campaign pros are watching to see how much voters disregard news reports noting factual holes in the claims. McCain's persistence in pushing dubious claims is all the more notable because many political insiders consider him one of the greatest living victims of underhanded campaigning. Locked in a tight race with George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, McCain was rocked in South Carolina by a whisper campaign claiming he had fathered an illegitimate black child and was mentally unstable. Shaken by the experience, McCain denounced less-than-truthful campaigning. It is so very sad to see McCain turn into this kind of person and candidate, and divide the country based on lies, as I wrote about in my editor's note this week.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-12T12:13:23-06:00

ID

135660

Comment

CNN on McCain's "View" appearance. This is where he stated that she did not ask for earmarks as governor. Will they issue a correction?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-12T12:24:36-06:00

ID

135661

Comment

I think the lies are going to FINALLY produce a backlash: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia12-2008sep12,0,1493710.story?track=ntothtml

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-12T12:26:31-06:00

ID

135662

Comment

Unfortunately Ladd, people have the same opinions of your candidate, the one running for the ACTUAL PRESIDENCY who will be the scariest person and most unqualified arguably in the history of presidents. He is tied to fringe groups and people who have actually BOMBED government buildings. You people keep arguing over who is more radical, Obama or Palin, or who is less qualified, Obama or Palin. Problem is Obama is running against McCain who far exceeds his experience or any other presidential qualifications. (countdown to when someone will refer to my "you people" comment as racist or something far more ridiculous) You started ranting about Palin the very night of her speech so it's hard to take your arguments without some sort of biased skepticism. It's obvious the people of Alaska who voted her into office and give her astronomical approval ratings disagree with you. They obviously 1) don't think much ado about the Independence Party or 2) don't associate her with it. As far comparing that organization with what happened during the Civil War, what a crock. I simply got onto Wikipedia to read about it. The founder sounds a bit "out" there but they actually had a governor win office and he disagreed with the secession platform. So obviously there are many opinions involved. But to compare that party with the south is plain dishonest. They've only been a state for about 50 years and have districts the size of most of the lower 49. But, I haven't done that much research on the party and don't plan to. She relates to the everyday family, polls are showing it and it's killing you guys. Like Hillary said, Obama did give a good speech once.

Author

eagle1

Date

2008-09-12T13:25:53-06:00

ID

135664

Comment

Whitley, you cited the LA TIMES? Really? wow, what's next, will you reference Paul Krugman. How about the Washington Post? And while the FactCheck deal is interesting, who the hell annointed them the authority of Truth? I did a search on the site concerning Obama and Ayers, hmmm nothing. Strange. Also noticed that some of the fact checkers on the site have either worked for 1)democrats or 2)republicans friendly to Obama. Nice

Author

eagle1

Date

2008-09-12T13:34:48-06:00

ID

135665

Comment

Eagle, every reasonable person knows that you people are spreading outright lies. The AP is headed up by a right wing hack and THEY are generating stories about the profligate lying. Even SOME right wing hacks have some dignity. sadlY, SOME have no dignity OR integrity. McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election. How pathetic. He will lose BOTH! Ha Ha.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-12T14:54:04-06:00

ID

135667

Comment

Comrades don't let any eagle droppings get you down or start you to second-guessing yourself. We're going to win this baby (the election), no matter the racism or any pit bulls in lipstick or cleaned up shaggy dogs or wolfs in sheep clothings in the race put up to block our (good and decent people of all races, sexes, classes, cultures) path, if there be any. Good will win over evil. It must! Again, I say the devil can't be converted, it has to be defeated, therefore I make no attempt to reason with the dark side any further. The Palintology or paleontology quickly thrusted upon us was a surprise, I hate to admit, but the surprise and newness are soon to wear thin and we will see Palin as she is. Some of us already do. We have something planned for her to be unleashed shortly. Hang on in there!

Author

Walt

Date

2008-09-12T15:28:38-06:00

ID

135668

Comment

In 2000 McCain rejected the Christian right, comparing Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan. In 2008, McCain says of Hagee, "I'm glad to have his endorsement." Then, when it came out that Hagge was a wingnut who disparaged the Pope and the Catholic Church, McCain said he was no longer glad to have his endorsement. What a pal! Writes the Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman, "What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers – in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. How close are McCain and Liddy? Not only did Liddy spend four years in a federal prison for his involvement in the Watergate scandal, but as Chapman notes, he proposed kidnapping anti-war activists during the 1972 Republican National Convention and even planned the murder of an unfriendly newspaper columnist. In 1994, Liddy gave this advice to listeners after the tragedy in Waco, Texas: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests ... Kill the sons of bitches." Liddy, like Ayers, was openly promoting armed resistance against the U.S. government. Still, McCain calls Liddy an "old friend."

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-12T15:32:24-06:00

ID

135670

Comment

I think I see Eagle's point after all. There is no contest. People who would you choose for president of the U.S. after reviewing their educational credentials? McCain - U. S. Naval Academy who I heard ranked 894 out of a class of 899. But he had a father and grandfather who were Admirals or admirable. McCain was admirable. Pailin - Hawaii Pacific University, North Idaho College, University of Idaho, Matanuska-Susitna College, University of Idaha and Wasilla Fix Your Hair College. No sir, she didn't get a master or doctorate degree. Obama - Columbia and Harvard Law School (Magna Cum Laude) Biden - University of Delaware and Syracuse University College of Law.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-09-12T15:51:34-06:00

ID

135672

Comment

Well brother Baquan I realize a colored boy can't get enough of anything or do enough of anything to be seen as just a man, human, qualified, and not colored, in the eyes of some. Palin was vetted - make no mistake about that. She's a white woman, with decent looks, who likes what republicans like and don't like. Baquan, you know where that leaves you, Whitley, me and our kind. We either join up with a group that clearly hates and despises us or we suffer the wrath. But as Denzel said in Glory, "It don't matter what happens the mar, we men, ain't we. We men, ain't we." So, brothers, let's fight this war to death.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-09-12T16:07:07-06:00

ID

135674

Comment

More Associated Press on McCain's lies and Palin's earmarks: Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Friday defended the nearly $200 million in federal pet projects she sought as Alaska governor this year even as John McCain told a television audience she had never requested them. In the second part of her interview with ABC News, Palin was confronted with two claims that have been a staple of her reputation since joining the GOP ticket: that she was opposed to federal earmarks, even though her request for such special spending projects for 2009 was the highest per capita figure in the nation; and that she opposed the $398 million Bridge to Nowhere linking Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport. Palin actually turned against the bridge project only after it became a national symbol of wasteful spending and Congress had pulled money for it. Palin told ABC's Charles Gibson that since she took office, the state had "drastically" reduced its efforts to secure earmarks and would continue to do so while she was governor. "What I've been telling Alaskans for these years that I've been in office, is, no more," Palin said. When Gibson noted she had requested money to study the mating habits of crabs and harbor-seal genetic research - the kind of small-bore projects that draw McCain's ire - Palin said the specific requests had come through universities and other public entities and weren't worked out by lobbyists behind closed doors.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-12T16:43:25-06:00

ID

135675

Comment

Deepak Chopra, writing on the Huffington Post: "I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin's message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision. "Look at what she stands for: --Small town values -- a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism. --Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad. --Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded. --Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree. --Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war. --"Reform" -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology. "Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat." Read the entire article here.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2008-09-12T18:00:40-06:00

ID

135679

Comment

With Palin's militant rhetoric about Russia I am afraid they might start World War III. -Whitley i am afraid of this too

Author

Izzy

Date

2008-09-13T17:46:11-06:00

ID

135681

Comment

Obama memo debunks McCain's blitzkrieg of lies: http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-the-straight-talk-express/

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-13T18:15:25-06:00

ID

135682

Comment

You guys must watch Tina Fey do Palin on SNL last night. Tina does a dead on impression of her! This had me crying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc3Zxq078ns

Author

Lori G

Date

2008-09-14T09:04:08-06:00

ID

135683

Comment

Watched it this morning. Had me laughing out of my chair. Fey nails Palin as if she'd been doing it her whole life.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-09-14T09:14:50-06:00

ID

135686

Comment

The SNL video was taken off youtube because of copyright issues. Here's a link to it on NBC.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2008-09-14T15:34:04-06:00

ID

135687

Comment

I stayed up to watch it last night. Hilarious! Huffington Post also has a clip. Amy Poehler cracked me up as well.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-09-14T15:51:00-06:00

ID

135691

Comment

Great impersonation of Mrs. Airhead. President Bush shall not be missed if she wins. She aims to bring sexy, messy and density to Air Force II.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-09-15T08:49:49-06:00

ID

135692

Comment

They should do a play off the Charlie Gibson interview.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-15T08:53:35-06:00

ID

135693

Comment

This is an interesting analysis of the Palin effect: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/9/12/palin-pushes-non-moms-toward-obama.html?s_cid=rss:erbe:palin-pushes-non-moms-toward-obama

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-15T09:44:19-06:00

ID

135694

Comment

The interview with Gibson may not hurt her at all. Too many people don't care that she's an airhead puppet. She'll be protected, hidden and told to be quiet from now on. And if she has to do another interview she'll have more hidden microphones and wires than that big bang machine the UK just completed.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-09-15T09:52:12-06:00

ID

135695

Comment

Also did anyone see Bill Maher this weekend? Some nut on there was suggesting the more we attack Palin the more the general public would be endeared to her. I just don't believe this, but if I'm wrong then I hope the so-called general public gets what it deserves, including an ill-conceived and ill-advised attack on Russia, China and everything.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-09-15T09:57:50-06:00

ID

135696

Comment

Also as I walked thru WalMarts this weekend looking for cheap stuff I noticed in the NY Times or National Inquirer that Cindy McCain can't stand Palin. It turned out she confiscated an email sent to Palin by McCain that seemed inapproprite and unrelated to running for office. It reads, "Baby hair with a woman's eyes. I can feel you watching in the night. All alone with me and we're waiting for the sunlight. When I feel cold, you warm me. And when I feel I can't go on, you come and hold me. It's you and me forever. If you feel like leaving, you know you can go. But why don't you stay until tomorrow. And if you want to be free, you know all you have to do is say so." This relationship appears beyond politics. I don't blame Cindy for being suspicious. I didn't see any policy or plans for the country in that piece.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-09-15T11:52:47-06:00

ID

135697

Comment

speaking of the National Inquirer, these posts are beginning to sound like it. Reaching across the lines....Obama loses.... http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/ read the last paragraph of this story concerning the stupid "bush doctrine" question from Charlie Gibson. Good article, but the last paragraph pretty much sums up what I think about the posters on this site...and I think the general public agrees.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

Author

eagle1

Date

2008-09-15T14:14:15-06:00

ID

135698

Comment

What seems clear and somewhat appalling is that in Sarah Palin, Republicans would really prefer to have another cheerleader (oh, it sounds sexist, but Bush was a cheerleader in college) in the White House - someone who shoots from the hip, is unafraid to steer the ship of state (but should be), uses the gut to make decisions, and has a poor grasp of the issues, distrusts intellect, but has an aura of confident conviction born of an inflated sense of self. It is Kool-aid in spades. The integrity that John McCain had is now the faint shadow of a memory with a VP pick like Palin. I wish both parties would steer to the cooperative center instead of the fragmenting extremes, but right now it is Obama that looks like the true moderate.

Author

gwilly

Date

2008-09-15T14:17:05-06:00

ID

135702

Comment

Sorry Gwilly, but the race isn't Obama vs. Palin it's Obama vs. McCain. And Obama is to the left what Palin is to the right. McCain is the moderate, just check out the Times article I posted, proves me right and you wrong.....facts do get in the way sometimes....

Author

eagle1

Date

2008-09-15T14:52:47-06:00

ID

135703

Comment

McCain's a moderate? If supporting Bush more than 90% of the time is moderate, what is conservative?

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-09-15T15:09:21-06:00

ID

135704

Comment

You're dramatically wrong, eagle. Palin is far to the right of most Republicans even. Obama is to the right of most leftists (even though that isn't convenient for most conservatives to admit). Kucinich isn't even as far to the left as Sarah (and Todd) are to the right. You'd have to go fringe-left to find a comparison. And they're out there. But none of them have ever been a nominee for veep or prez. At this point, the sad thing is that Obama is running against Palin, at least on the McCain end. But, ultimately, McCain has tto be held responsible for this choice. He made the decision that would put her a heartbeat away from the presidency because he was desperate to even get Republicans excited enough to turn out. She lied out of the gate, and now he is lying constantly to try to cover up that he picked a veep with such a shaky record. McCain isn't really moderate, but in the past he has shown himself to be willing to go against the Republican status quo. And that's impressive whether or not you agree with his views. Also, as I wrote in my editor's note this week, in the week he hasn't pushed the social conservative views (which, if you look at his family history, are probably for political convenience anyway); but with Palin and his sell-out to the radical right, they are going to expect him to follow through. And she certainly will if something happens to McCain. If they win, we'll be a heartbeat (or three Supreme Court justices) away from a theocracy. Be afraid. Personally, I like America as she is: a big messy melting pot of freedom (and the ability to fight for more freedom). We cannot go backward. And if we do, we certainly won't remain the powerhouse of the world for those who want that to be true. And gwilly, Palin is very, very Bushian. You're right. Go, Tina Fey. She nailed this woman as only she could do. Eagle1, are you so self-involved that you think that posters on this site are losing sleep over what you are thinking? You are clearly a partisan ideologue who seems willing to defend any running mate that a Republican puts up. You just don't like it that we are sharing the truth and having a discussion based on facts that you (and McCain) would rather weren't facts. If you, or anyone, really think that, in America, criticism and hearty discussion about the background of a potential president/veep of the United States is a "smear" or helps liars get into office, then I feel sorry for you. You're not quite getting the point of being American. So take your insults elsewhere. We talk about facts and issues here, and your attempts to smear someone because they are saying something you don't like is petty and childish. Take it elsewhere. Issues only here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-15T15:10:58-06:00

ID

135705

Comment

Also, eagle1, I presume you know that the Washington Times' ideological bent and moonie ownership? They are going to set the left-right bar at a very different place than most Americans. It's their right to do their kind of news, of course, but the rest of us need to understand what we're dealing with there and put it into context. I mean, they've proudly run white-supremacist columnists.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-15T15:16:57-06:00

ID

135706

Comment

Palin has expressed her sympathy with the "vision" of the Alaska Independence Party: SECESSION FROM THE UNION. A comparable extreme on the left would be Angela Davis.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-15T15:19:07-06:00

ID

135707

Comment

Thank you, Whitley. Angela Davis would be a decent comparison. Except for the gun-used-in-a-murder part. But radical political views, yes.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-15T15:51:05-06:00

ID

135708

Comment

I reject the old left v. right argument or positions as a mere attempt to make the righteous less right and the evildoers less evil. This is a devil worshiping concoction by you know whom to muddy the lines of integrity, honor, honesty and morality so that the vile, corrupt, pathological and ugly can have a equal place at the table.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-09-15T15:52:53-06:00

ID

135837

Comment

If Palin were a Democrat: http://www.salon.com/comics/knig/2008/09/17/knig/

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-17T13:47:49-06:00

ID

135838

Comment

If Palin were a Democrat or a black woman her family wouldn't be off limits and the shotgun wedding by that thug and unfit for marriage boy (if he were black) wouldn't be considered such a beautiful and understandable thing. Bristol would be a you know what and the Palin family would be seen as dysfunctional, disgraceful and decadent. If Palin were a Democrat or black women that 6 years of college to get an undergraduate degree from 5 or 6 colleges would show she's a quitter, slow and unfit to hold the highest office in America. That course work Palin took at Wasilla Git Your Nails Done Right Community College wouldn't have been transferable for college credits making it possible for her to regain re-entry to college and graduate. If Palin were a Democrat or black woman mayor of a town with 6 people or thereby that wouldn't count count significantly toward making her ready or adequate. Nor would her being Governor of Alaska for 6 months and wanting to bomb Russia count for much except gross inadequacy or stupidity. I guess she couldn't remember Russia jumped on Georgia recently, and told us to f-off, and we readily complied. White privilege is the only thing that can make this election a competition after 7 years of George Bush and republicans' reigh with McCain voting with the Bush Aadministration 90% of the time, and refusing to oppose him or them boldly the other 10% of the time. And racism and sexism are the only things that can make Obama and Biden less acceptable and qualified than McCain and Palin for this election. In America when you're white, you're alright, and it doesn't matter whether you're bright or rite-bright as my grandmother used to call it. When you're black, you better get back, way back, stay back, and it doesn't matter how capable, educated or prepared you are. You can never have enough of anything to beat the white man or white woman. Moreover, it's not appreciated when you try to upset the pecking order - white man, white woman, uncle Toms of all races, then blacks, hispancis, indians, asians and others not necessarily in this oder.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-09-17T14:25:13-06:00