VP Candidate Palin

[Atrevido82]

WMPYkNQlJMM

[Claydon]

the true humor here is the media and team obama are going round and round about this nothingness. mccain's campaign has scored a victory here, get the obama camp on the defense and have them play damage control for a couple three days, while mccain continues with his message.

fucked up, but a nice move.

[Atrevido82]

Obama camp shrugged it off - at least by way of statement. I haven't seen much more than the whole "phoney politics" statement from Obama.

[Claydon]

Obama camp shrugged it off - at least by way of statement. I haven't seen much more than the whole "phoney politics" statement from Obama.

obama was talking about it in his speeches today, and the news cycle was dominated by this stupidity.

[Atrevido82]

he's on Letterman right now. Hasn't mentioned it yet.

[Claydon]

he's on Letterman right now. Hasn't mentioned it yet.

yah...because he wants to move the news cycle back to his message, not the attack by mccain or the 'gaff' by him.

[freegood]

The irony is that McCain used the cliche once in response to what Hillary was proposing.

I don't think the average voter wants to talk about real fucking issues.

[Claydon]

The irony is that McCain used the cliche once in response to what Hillary was proposing.

I don't think the average voter wants to talk about real fucking issues.

no, you do not want that.

because then the awful truth would come out... the nanny state needs cut backs in spending, and taxes need to be raised to pay down the debt and preserve the darling of the nanny state for which you and others hold so dear.

Social Security

[Rover]

Obama's comment had nothing to do with Palin. What he said was (referring to McCain's "we are for change" bs) "...John McCain is saying 'Watch out Pres. Bush, except on Economic policy, Education policy, Foreign policy, etc.' You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

He never mantioned Palin at all in that statement. And everyone there knows it. Anyone who listened to the entire clip and not just "lipstick on a pig" knows it.I know it's not about Palin. He didn't mean it the way it's being construed, but it's still a comment he shouldn't have made, or as soon as he realized his mistake he should have corrected it. Look at the reaction to the crowd. Are they really whooping it up because Obama just compared McCain to Bush for the 434,202,234th time in this campaign?

I'm just glad that liberals are busy defending comments that are perceived to be politically incorrect. Maybe they'll finally see how stupid this is. This story will be over tomorrow when Charlie Gibson asks Palin about it and she'll say what she's always said about comments that are perceived to be sexist.

What won't be over is Rep. Steven Cohen comparing Palin to Pontius Pilate and Obama to Jesus. And that SC democrat saying Palin's only qualification to be VP is that she hasn't had an abortion. That should be good for another 2 days.
"If you want change, you want the Democratic Party," Cohen said on the House floor. "Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister just prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor."

Obama has been brought down for a roll around in the gutter of politics. HRC said he wouldn't be able to handle the GOP machine, and she's right. The only people able to slug it out in the mud with the GOP are the Clintons. Obama hasn't been on message since the day he gave his speech in Denver. That's the last time he drove the debate.

Oh, and I forgot about Biden saying that HRC should have been Obama's choice for VP, that should bring the campaign through the weekend. In fact, I can't wait for the ad that shows Biden saying that Obama isn't qualified to be president, and that he (Biden) shouldn't be VP. That should be entertaining.

[Claydon]

Oh, and I forgot about Biden saying that HRC should have been Obama's choice for VP, that should bring the campaign through the weekend. In fact, I can't wait for the ad that shows Biden saying that Obama isn't qualified to be president, and that he (Biden) shouldn't be VP. That should be entertaining.

i posted about that in the election thread

[Rover]

The irony is that McCain used the cliche once in response to what Hillary was proposing.

I don't think the average voter wants to talk about real fucking issues.

no, you do not want that.

because then the awful truth would come out... the nanny state needs cut backs in spending, and taxes need to be raised to pay down the debt and preserve the darling of the nanny state for which you and others hold so dear.

Social SecurityHahaha. A debate on the issues? Nobody wants to discuss issues. The truth would disgust people. 2/3rd of our budget is spent on nanny state programs that are rapidly approaching insolvency. Our budget isn't so much a budget, as a checklist of things we've actually decided to spend money on, regardless of cost. Deficits soaring. And I don't even mind a little deficit spending. But it's not like we're building this bridge that we need, or an oil pipeline. No, instead we deficit spend on $600 checks to everyone, or bailout programs to speculators who got burned on that 2nd house they couldn't afford.

Instead, John McCain would have you believe that the 2% of the budget spent on earmarks is the real problem. And Obama would have you believe that he can both cut taxes on the middle class, and increase spending to the stratosphere.

No, nobody wants to debate the issues. I'm interested in hearing more about McCain's 'Reform' ideas, though. Because the list of the governmental reforms that are necessary is huge. Every aspect of the government needs to be reformed, but good luck pushing that agenda.

[freegood]

no, you do not want that.

because then the awful truth would come out... the nanny state needs cut backs in spending, and taxes need to be raised to pay down the debt and preserve the darling of the nanny state for which you and others hold so dear.

Social Security

lol, I think you mean Medicare...

No politician wants to be known as the one who ended those two entitlement programs. Budgetary concerns run deeper than that. Google statements by former Comptroller David Walker if you want to shit in your panties. Might make you re-read what Ron Paul has been saying.


Anyways, there's plenty other stuff that can be discussed by both politicians. Hell, McCain can grill Obama on his surge comments for all I care. MUCH better than this bullshit.

Foreign policy, education, addressing our collapsing infrastructure, energy policy beyond domestic drilling, our place in an integrated world economy, immigration and the national debt/budget if they ever get to it....whatever.

[Claydon]

speaking of that world economy, i kept hearing that buzz word decoupling as in if the US economy goes down, the world can keep going forward.

laughable

[Debo]

he's on Letterman right now. Hasn't mentioned it yet.

Keep watching...
http://wcbstv.com/campaign08/barack.obama.david.2.814491.html

[Pharon]

Our budget isn't so much a budget, as a checklist of things we've actually decided to spend money on, regardless of cost.
Well said. I wish a politician (besides Ron Paul) would have the balls to say this.

[Smokestack]

Andrew Sullivan on McCain/Palin and earmarks:

This is beyond karma at this point. Here's John McCain (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/so_what_does_alaskas_millions.php) with one of his endlessly repeated, grandpa-at-Thanksgiving, punchline provided, anecdotes:
"We're not going to spend $3 million of your tax dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana," McCain said earlier this year, referring to a request from Montana for federal money to study the endangered grizzly bear. "I don't know if it was a paternity issue or criminal, but it was a waste of money."
Here's what Sarah Palin brought home (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4E2E5BFD-18FE-70B2-A815903CFF648F68) to Alaska in pork:
According to a “summary of requests for federal appropriations” (http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/FFY09%20Summary%20of%20Fed%20Request.pdf) posted to her budget office’s website earlier this year, Palin requested millions of federal dollars for everything from improving recreational halibut fishing to studying the mating habits of crabs and the DNA of harbor seals.
Sure, he vetted her. But all this is only really instructive when you listen to Palin on the stump (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4E2E5BFD-18FE-70B2-A815903CFF648F68):
“In just three years our opponent has requested nearly one billion dollars in earmarks. That’s nearly a million dollars for every working day,” Palin told a crowd in Lebanon, Ohio, Tuesday. “So as we reform the abusive earmarks in our state our opponent was requesting nearly a billion dollars in earmarks as a senatorial privilege as I was vetoing half a billion as an executive responsibility.”
The DNA of seals?



(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-pork-of-pal.html)

[Claydon]

Newsflash, governors cannot legislate earmarks.

a governor is the state executive head of the government, earmarks are a federal/congressional deal.

just an fyi

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

Newsflash, governors cannot legislate earmarks.

a governor is the state executive head of the government, earmarks are a federal/congressional deal.

just an fyi


Awww....don't ruin his fun.

[Claydon]

Andrew Sullivan on McCain/Palin and earmarks:

This is beyond karma at this point. Here's John McCain (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/so_what_does_alaskas_millions.php) with one of his endlessly repeated, grandpa-at-Thanksgiving, punchline provided, anecdotes:"We're not going to spend $3 million of your tax dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana," McCain said earlier this year, referring to a request from Montana for federal money to study the endangered grizzly bear. "I don't know if it was a paternity issue or criminal, but it was a waste of money."
Here's what Sarah Palin brought home (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4E2E5BFD-18FE-70B2-A815903CFF648F68) to Alaska in pork:According to a “summary of requests for federal appropriations” (http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/FFY09%20Summary%20of%20Fed%20Request.pdf) posted to her budget office’s website earlier this year, Palin requested millions of federal dollars for everything from improving recreational halibut fishing to studying the mating habits of crabs and the DNA of harbor seals.
Sure, he vetted her. But all this is only really instructive when you listen to Palin on the stump (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4E2E5BFD-18FE-70B2-A815903CFF648F68):“In just three years our opponent has requested nearly one billion dollars in earmarks. That’s nearly a million dollars for every working day,” Palin told a crowd in Lebanon, Ohio, Tuesday. “So as we reform the abusive earmarks in our state our opponent was requesting nearly a billion dollars in earmarks as a senatorial privilege as I was vetoing half a billion as an executive responsibility.”
The DNA of seals?



(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-pork-of-pal.html)

She can ask for whatever she wants, but she has zero say if she is going to get it. Im sure Barry asked for money for midnight basketball when he was a great community organizer.

[kareyn01]

She can ask for whatever she wants, but she has zero say if she is going to get it. Im sure Barry asked for money for midnight basketball when he was a great community organizer.

I understand that a governor can't authorize earmarks. But you can't campaign as an anti-earmark crusader when you hire a lobbying firm to procure $27 million in federal earmarks for your town, support the federally-funded Bridge to Nowhere until it becomes a national punchline, and then keep the federal funds when its canceled.

Most of all, you can't say:

"And our congressional delegation, God bless 'em. They do a great job for us," she said at the forum hosted by the Alaska Professional Design Council. "Representative Don Young, especially God bless him, with transportation -- Alaska did so well under the very basic provisions of the transportation act that he wrote just a couple of years ago. We had a nice bump there. We're very, very fortunate to receive the largesse that Don Young was able to put together for Alaska."

That seems pretty pro-earmark to me.

[Morfin]

That's the problem right there: Everyone hates and wants to do any with all those unnecessary earmarks. Of course, the definition of an "unnecessary earmark" is one going to a state other than yours.

[Genius]

Hahaha, this bitch IS a cocky wacko. Lincoln Chafee nailed that shit right on the head. Fuckin' cocky wacko.

[Pharon]

I'd be perfectly willing to give up my own state's earmarks in exchange for eliminating all other state's earmarks, as well.

And I'm sure most people would agree with that.

Problem is that candidates get elected based mostly on favors from powerful people. And those are the ones who benefit from earmarks.

And I'm not really sure how you ever get rid of that kind of corruption. But I'm open to ideas.

[URFloorMatt]

Newsflash, governors cannot legislate earmarks.

a governor is the state executive head of the government, earmarks are a federal/congressional deal.

just an fyi

Wait, but I thought Governor Palin was a laudable selection because she said "Thanks, but no thanks" to the wasteful pork "Bridge to Nowhere"? Turns out not only was that an outright lie, but Alaska is also the most subsidized state in the Union, and she's getting earmarks to research the DNA of seals.

I wonder why she didn't say "Thanks, but no thanks" to the seals study. Could it be it wasn't politically convenient, like when she flip-flopped on the bridge?

[Claydon]

Wait, but I thought Governor Palin was a laudable selection because she said "Thanks, but no thanks" to the wasteful pork "Bridge to Nowhere"? Turns out not only was that an outright lie, but Alaska is also the most subsidized state in the Union, and she's getting earmarks to research the DNA of seals.

I wonder why she didn't say "Thanks, but no thanks" to the seals study. Could it be it wasn't politically convenient, like when she flip-flopped on the bridge?

you really just need to shut the fuck up and realize that A. Hawaii is the most subsidized state and B. what governor isnt going to accept earmarked money. She did cancel it when the cost overruns got too high. I am quite pleased with the earmarks elton galleghy my congressman got to redo a lot of the farm roads around here (some 20 million if i remember correctly).

[lce-man]

I really don't like her at all. She's from a tiny village in the middle of nowhere, and obviously has no clue about what's going on in the world.

[Atrevido82]

Palin looks like she would make delicious sandwiches for President McCain. Done. Deal.

[nirvanasaves]

Palin was recently interveiwed by Charles Gibson and when she was asked about her foriegn policy credentials it appears that she side-stepped the question and pretty much stated that she didn't have any:

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

[Genius]

you really just need to shut the fuck up and realize that A. Hawaii is the most subsidized state and B. what governor isnt going to accept earmarked money. She did cancel it when the cost overruns got too high. I am quite pleased with the earmarks elton galleghy my congressman got to redo a lot of the farm roads around here (some 20 million if i remember correctly).
Wonderful argument. Except she is SWEARING THAT SHE DIDN'T ACCEPT EARMARKS, AND THAT SHE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN HER POWER TO END THEM. Jesus you're dense most of the time. You can't run on the claim that you didn't accept earmarks, and hate them, when you did accept them, and used them. Unless you're running a campaign based on complete and total hypocracy . Sometimes I wonder.

[Atrevido82]

But i bet she makes a delicious sammich.

[Genius]

Remains to be seen. And tasted. I bet she's caught jizz before.

[Genius]

Fuck, the bitch gives one goddamn interview and already has us at war with Russia. Fuckin' world's comin' to an end, I knew it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26664074/

[Hanover Fist]

Fuck, the bitch gives one goddamn interview and already has us at war with Russia. Fuckin' world's comin' to an end, I knew it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26664074/


Okies new dupe account?

[Genius]

Okies new dupe account?
All right, all right. I went too far. but what if im right guys??? what if shess the dvil and were all about to be burningg??? all i no is that if shess elected im goin too canaada..

[kid_vidrio]

All right, all right. I went too far. but what if im right guys??? what if shess the dvil and were all about to be burningg??? all i no is that if shess elected im goin too canaada..
Well played.

But in reality, and not to step on Arch's cold war thread, her lack of knowledge and blind toeing of the party line is EXACTLY what we don't need and what she is supposedly railing against.

You dont' have to like Obama to admit that this person should not be on the ticket.

[Nosebuckle]

All right, all right. I went too far. but what if im right guys??? what if shess the dvil and were all about to be burningg??? all i no is that if shess elected im goin too canaada..

We can all take solace in the fact she's only the VP and lots of people are for some reason influenced by VP selections

[freegood]

All right, all right. I went too far. but what if im right guys??? what if shess the dvil and were all about to be burningg??? all i no is that if shess elected im goin too canaada..

Wasn't her handlers claiming she had foreign policy experience just by the virtue of Russia bordering Alaska?

I hope she gives more interviews to show her Executive Experience at work.

[Hanover Fist]

What exactly was it that she said that was incorrect anyway? If Georgia is admitted to NATO then that is one of its charters. An attack on one country is considered an attack on all NATO countries.
The fact that she said the US should consider economic sanctions against Russia is called diplomacy. It's not all that different than the Russians using energy sanctions against countries in Eastern Europe when they disagree with them.
I think a tough approach to Russia is what's called for, not wishy washy appeasement and negotiating from a position of weakness.

[kid_vidrio]

What exactly was it that she said that was incorrect anyway? If Georgia is admitted to NATO then that is one of its charters. An attack on one country is considered an attack on all NATO countries.
The fact that she said the US should consider economic sanctions against Russia is called diplomacy. It's not all that different than the Russians using energy sanctions against countries in Eastern Europe when they disagree with them.
I think a tough approach to Russia is what's called for, not wishy washy appeasement and negotiating from a position of weakness.
We attacked. Russia reacted. We don't have a leg to stand on.
You clearly don't get it.

[freegood]

Nuclear powers don't go directly to war with other nuclear powers. Admitting Georgia to NATO now will be seen as a declaration of war.

[kid_vidrio]

And by 'we' I mean Georgia is out bitch.

[Debo]

Nuclear powers don't go directly to war with other nuclear powers. Admitting Georgia to NATO now will be seen as a declaration of war.

Do you think that Russia is really going to start firing off nukes because we let Georgia into NATO? Their army isn't that powerful...

[Hanover Fist]

We attacked. Russia reacted. We don't have a leg to stand on.
You clearly don't get it.


Say what? I think it may be you who doesn't have a clue what's going on.

Anyway, even the New York Times admits that ABC was probably pushing the "Palin would go to war with Russia!!!" angle a little too much

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/palin-interview-she-didnt-blink-when-asked-to-run/?hp

The network teased the interview on its Web site this afternoon with this eye-popping bulletin: “Exclusive: Gov. Sarah Palin warns war may be necessary if Russia invades another country.”
But the transcript showed that she was merely repeating Mr. McCain’s position and had not used provocative language. And we’re wondering if the McCain camp is reconsidering its selection of ABC, since it hyped the teaser to sound like Ms. Palin was ready to press the button.

[freegood]

Do you think that Russia is really going to start firing off nukes because we let Georgia into NATO? Their army isn't that powerful...

I don't know what would happen in a war with Russia, but I sure as hell know any leader wouldn't know either.

[Debo]

I don't know what would happen in a war with Russia, but I sure as hell know any leader wouldn't know either.

I agree. But Russia's aggression hasn't struck fear into the hearts of Western Europe. The Strategy Page has a good piece on it here (http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20080910.aspx).

And look at how fast our missile shield deal passed once the tanks started rolling. Without Russia's actions, we would still be negotiating.

[kareyn01]

How about the fact that she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is:

Charlie: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine? Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Charlie: What do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His worldview.
Charlie: No, No, the Bush Doctrine. He enunciated it in September 2002, before the Iraq War.
Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is to rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hellbent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership--and that's the beauty of American elections and democracy--with new leadership comes the opportunity to do things better.
Charlie: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory defense. We have the right to preemptively strike any other country that we believe is going to attack us.



Yeah, she's ready to step in at a moment's notice.

[Genius]

I think a tough approach to Russia is what's called for, not wishy washy appeasement and negotiating from a position of weakness.
What other position do we have than a weak one? We talk tough and rattle the saber. Russia knows that there is no way we can afford to fight another war right now. They do whatever they want. Sounds like a pretty weak position to me.

[VoxAngelikus]

How about the fact that she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is:

Charlie: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine? Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Charlie: What do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His worldview.
Charlie: No, No, the Bush Doctrine. He enunciated it in September 2002, before the Iraq War.
Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is to rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hellbent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership--and that's the beauty of American elections and democracy--with new leadership comes the opportunity to do things better.
Charlie: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory defense. We have the right to preemptively strike any other country that we believe is going to attack us.



Yeah, she's ready to step in at a moment's notice.

That sounds like one of my answers for a college history class, where I haven't studied or paid any attention for weeks at a time. The answer sounds good, but it's WRONG!!!!!

Yeah, let's elect her though because she's purty. Duh-hur-hur.

[Debo]

How about the fact that she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is:

Charlie: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine? Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Charlie: What do you interpret it to be?
Palin: His worldview.
Charlie: No, No, the Bush Doctrine. He enunciated it in September 2002, before the Iraq War.
Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is to rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hellbent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership--and that's the beauty of American elections and democracy--with new leadership comes the opportunity to do things better.
Charlie: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory defense. We have the right to preemptively strike any other country that we believe is going to attack us.



Yeah, she's ready to step in at a moment's notice.

You are making quite a stretch here.

The Bush Doctrine was born when he said "You either stand with the free world against terrorism or you stand with the terrorists. We will make no distinction between those that commit terrorists actions and those that facilitate their actions"...or something like that.

The notion of a pre-emptive strike only came into play when he started talking about Iraq. And even then it was a pre-emptive strike to ensure that Iraq did not obtain WMDs. We haven't yet launch a pre-emptive war to prevent a nation from becoming a terrorist safevahen.

Try again.

[freegood]

I agree. But Russia's aggression hasn't struck fear into the hearts of Western Europe. The Strategy Page has a good piece on it here (http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20080910.aspx).

And look at how fast our missile shield deal passed once the tanks started rolling. Without Russia's actions, we would still be negotiating.

What exactly do you want in Eastern European policy? If Russia is weak, then what are we sending our toys there for?

[Debo]

What exactly do you want in Eastern European policy? If Russia is weak, then what are we sending our toys there for?

I am not saying that we should roll in the tanks.

But we should:
- put economic pressure on them;
- Admit Georgia into NATO;
- Cut financial aid to Russia;
- And arm their neighbors.

What toys are you referring to?

[Genius]

I am not saying that we should roll in the tanks.

But we should:
- put economic pressure on them;
- Admit Georgia into NATO;
- Cut financial aid to Russia;
- And arm their neighbors.

What toys are you referring to?
We can agree on something. I wish the Cold War wouldn't have ended, too.

[BIG PIZZLE]

OMG sara palin wants to bomb russia!~!

[kid_vidrio]

Turns out Sarah Palin wants to bomb Russia.

[freegood]

We can agree on something. I wish the Cold War wouldn't have ended, too.

When Bush snorted the Gipper's remains, he must've passed that shit to his supporters too.

[Debo]

We can agree on something. I wish the Cold War wouldn't have ended, too.

And how would you propose that we deal with Russia? Bend over and take in the ass?

[Hanover Fist]

And how would you propose that we deal with Russia? Bend over and take in the ass?

Well that is pretty much what liberals love to do isn't it?

[URFloorMatt]

You are making quite a stretch here.

The Bush Doctrine was born when he said "You either stand with the free world against terrorism or you stand with the terrorists. We will make no distinction between those that commit terrorists actions and those that facilitate their actions"...or something like that.

The notion of a pre-emptive strike only came into play when he started talking about Iraq. And even then it was a pre-emptive strike to ensure that Iraq did not obtain WMDs. We haven't yet launch a pre-emptive war to prevent a nation from becoming a terrorist safevahen.

Try again.

Anyone with one ounce of knowledge regarding American foreign policy knows that the Bush Doctrine involves anticipatory war. The reason this should be the first thing that comes to mind is because it's the single most significant shift in global understanding of international law since the creation of the United Nations and the notion of collective security--mostly because it challenges the fundamental underpinnings of that agreement.

In the domestic sphere, the equivalent ignorance would be holding the office of President without having a clue about the Steel Seizure case and thereby the relationship between your executive powers and laws passed by Congress.

I don't think this error will resonate with voters, mostly because the average voter is surely at least as ignorant as Governor Palin is, but anyone with knowledge of how law and government actually work should be incredibly frightened that this woman will be one heartbeat away from the presidency should John McCain get elected.

[Genius]

And how would you propose that we deal with Russia? Bend over and take in the ass?
I don't know. I'm not a foreign policy expert and don't pretend to be. Ok sometimes I do. But what I do know is that if we weren't fighting a drawn out two-front war that never had a solid established objective and has absolutely no end in sight, our bargaining position against Russia would be substantially better. Better as in, we'd actually have options other than screaming and yelling and threatening and being wishy-washy and bending over and taking it in the ass.

[BIG PIZZLE]

I didnt know what the "Bush Doctrine" was and neither did she. The funny thing is that her answer wouldnt have changed if she knew what it was.

[nirvanasaves]

Well that is pretty much what liberals love to do isn't it?

Yeah, that's exactly it. Thank God for the conservative Christian right.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Well if it werent for priests, there wouldnt be any fags at all.

[Hanover Fist]

Well if it werent for priests, there wouldnt be any fags at all.

Is that why there aren't any homos in Iran? Mahmoud kicked all the Catholics out?

[Debo]

Anyone with one ounce of knowledge regarding American foreign policy knows that the Bush Doctrine involves anticipatory war. The reason this should be the first thing that comes to mind is because it's the single most significant shift in global understanding of international law since the creation of the United Nations and the notion of collective security--mostly because it challenges the fundamental underpinnings of that agreement.

In the domestic sphere, the equivalent ignorance would be holding the office of President without having a clue about the Steel Seizure case and thereby the relationship between your executive powers and laws passed by Congress.

I don't think this error will resonate with voters, mostly because the average voter is surely at least as ignorant as Governor Palin is, but anyone with knowledge of how law and government actually work should be incredibly frightened that this woman will be one heartbeat away from the presidency should John McCain get elected.

Here is the birth of the Bush Doctrine (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html).

As outlined in this position paper, U.S. foreign policy rests on three main pillars: a doctrine of unrivaled military supremacy, the concept of preemptive or preventive war, and a willingness to act unilaterally if multilateral cooperation cannot be achieved.

http://www.peace.ca/bushdoctrine.htm

Can you give me an example of when we have gone to war with anyone under this doctrine?

The Iraq War was the final chapter in the story of the 1991 Gulf War, so don't try to throw it in the mix here.

And I am not a lawyer so I don't know anything about the Steel Seizure case.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Bush doctrine = jew doctrine.

[Debo]

I don't know. I'm not a foreign policy expert and don't pretend to be. Ok sometimes I do. But what I do know is that if we weren't fighting a drawn out two-front war that never had a solid established objective and has absolutely no end in sight, our bargaining position against Russia would be substantially better. Better as in, we'd actually have options other than screaming and yelling and threatening and being wishy-washy and bending over and taking it in the ass.

I didn't realize that we had the only army in the world.

All of Europe has a vested interest in keeping Russia at bay. France, surprisingly, has lead the way but the Germans are in the bag with the Ruskies so there isn't a whole lot that they can do. This is why the rest of the continent needs to come together to get the Germans on board and take a fucking stand against Putin and his thugs.

[URFloorMatt]

you really just need to shut the fuck up and realize that A. Hawaii is the most subsidized state and B. what governor isnt going to accept earmarked money. She did cancel it when the cost overruns got too high. I am quite pleased with the earmarks elton galleghy my congressman got to redo a lot of the farm roads around here (some 20 million if i remember correctly).

Wrong. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-22-earmarks_N.htm)

As for me personally, I agree with you about earmarks. I have no problem with them. I'd like my senator and Congressmen to get earmarks too. But this is about hypocrisy and lying. It's about announcing your candidacy for the Vice Presidency on a platform in support of "reform" and against pork barrel spending--the highlight of your term as Governor of Alaska being that you said "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere. Forgetting for a moment that particular claim was an outright lie (she said "No thanks" to the bridge, but had no problem keeping the $223 million dollars (http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html)), you've also been taking more handouts from Congress than any other state in the country.

[Debo]

Wrong. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-22-earmarks_N.htm)

As for me personally, I agree with you about earmarks. I have no problem with them. I'd like my senator and Congressmen to get earmarks too. But this is about hypocrisy and lying. It's about announcing your candidacy for the Vice Presidency on a platform in support of "reform" and against pork barrel spending--the highlight of your term as Governor of Alaska being that you said "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere. Forgetting for a moment that particular claim was an outright lie (she said "No thanks" to the bridge, but had no problem keeping the $223 million dollars (http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html)), you've also been taking more handouts from Congress than any other state in the country.

Alaska leads the nation in earmarks because of Ted Stevens and Don Young, not Sarah Palin.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Realistically, what governor is going to say no to federal money?

[Nature's Folly]

None

[Debo]

Realistically, what governor is going to say no to federal money?

Mark Sanford.

But you are right, it is very easy to spend other people's money.

The solution is to defund the federal government and put the burden on the states. Let private charities handle the social programs and let the state stick to building roads.

[heelsguy]

nobody chooses the president based on their VP candidate. if that was the case, dan quayle would have been enough to keep bush out in 88

[BIG PIZZLE]

Thanks for saying something that's been said 100 times.

[heelsguy]

Thanks for saying something that's been said 100 times.


about the same number of cocks you've sucked this week.

[kareyn01]

Here is the birth of the Bush Doctrine (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html).



http://www.peace.ca/bushdoctrine.htm

Can you give me an example of when we have gone to war with anyone under this doctrine?

The Iraq War was the final chapter in the story of the 1991 Gulf War, so don't try to throw it in the mix here.

And I am not a lawyer so I don't know anything about the Steel Seizure case.

I don't care what Charlie Gibson's explanation of the Bush Doctrine was. That doesn't change the fact that Palin obviously had no idea what it was. Its also interesting that Palin basically agrred with Obama's position on unilateral attacks on terrorism in Pakistan, even though that's a position that McCain has repeatedly ridiculed.

There's no way for anyone, regardless of political affililiation, to legimately defend her responses to either question, in terms of either knowledge of the topic (the Bush Doctrine), or staying on message (Pakistan).

[freegood]

I don't care what Charlie Gibson's explanation of the Bush Doctrine was. That doesn't change the fact that Palin obviously had no idea what it was. Its also interesting that Palin basically agrred with Obama's position on unilateral attacks on terrorism in Pakistan, even though that's a position that McCain has repeatedly ridiculed.

There's no way for anyone, regardless of political affililiation, to legimately defend her responses to either question, in terms of either knowledge of the topic (the Bush Doctrine), or staying on message (Pakistan).

The irony is that both sides will act more or less the same in foreign policy even if they're talking differently.

Palin doesn't know how to sell it yet. Going to war with Russia or provoking one to act "tough"...not even Bush is going to step on that landmine.

[freegood]

Bizzare article...
http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_wolves/index.html
Palin's deadly wolf program

With a disdain for science that alarms wildlife experts, Sarah Palin continues to promote Alaska's policy to gun down wolves from planes.

[Smokestack]

Newsflash, governors cannot legislate earmarks.

a governor is the state executive head of the government, earmarks are a federal/congressional deal.

just an fyi

Well, aren't you conveniently procedural? Simply excluding her from the legislative portion of the process of procuring earmarks does by no means preclude her from the process of advocating for certain earmarks to her state's senator. And it has been shown that she's had a fairly friendly and collaborative relationship with Captain Earmark, Ted Stevens...at least when she was for him before she was kinda against him, or at least evasive about him. But the main point here isn't what part of the procedural process in which she resided as Governor. It's that she's running as a fucking anti-earmark reformer reformer when she's been knee deep in this shit for quite some time. Thanks, though, for her illuminating lesson in the political process.

[freegood]

Her interview w/ Gibson:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5783816

[Claydon]

You guys go nuts over Ted Stevens, look up Senator Inoye of Hawaii sometime. That guy is an earmark whore.

[Ghostrider]

Realistically, what governor is going to say no to federal money?

At Least it was not spent on an obviously wasteful project.

[BIG PIZZLE]

What was it spent on?

[freegood]

Palin Links Iraq to 9/11, A View Discarded by Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789.html?hpid=topnews)

By Anne E. Kornblut (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/anne+e.+kornblut/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008; Page A01
FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Sarah+Palin?tid=informline) linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin's statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday's anniversary.

"America can...

[URFloorMatt]

The Iraq War was the final chapter in the story of the 1991 Gulf War, so don't try to throw it in the mix here.

Annnnd, this conversation is pointless. No one with actual knowledge of international law believes this claim has any merit.

Alaska leads the nation in earmarks because of Ted Stevens and Don Young, not Sarah Palin.This is true, but it only makes her claim of bringing reform to Washington and being tough on government spending even more of an empty hat. I'm tough on government spending because I don't actually control it! And Alaska's coffers are bursting with money because of oil prices! Yay, governing is a piece of cake!

[Ghostrider]

Obviously something not controversial as it was dropped until now. LOL

[heelsguy]

Palin Links Iraq to 9/11, A View Discarded by Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789.html?hpid=topnews)

By Anne E. Kornblut (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/anne+e.+kornblut/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008; Page A01
FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Sarah+Palin?tid=informline) linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin's statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday's anniversary.

"America can...

let's see...

al-Qaeda DID plan 9-11.

al-Qaeda is present in Iraq.


what exactly is the problem here? The washington post might as well be "the keith olbermann special comment gazette". way to reach around your elbow to get to your nose, Post

[Axel]

let's see...

al-Qaeda DID plan 9-11.

al-Qaeda is present in Iraq.


what exactly is the problem here?let's see it again...

al-Qaeda DID plan 9-11.

al-Qaeda is present in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt,... USA

***

Wait, what was our point again?

[Debo]

let's see it again...

al-Qaeda DID plan 9-11.

al-Qaeda is present in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt,... USA

***

Wait, what was our point again?

Apparently your point is that we should invade the entire planet because AQ might be operating there.

It sounds like you are not a fan of the flypaper strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flypaper_theory_(strategy)).

[Axel]

I'm totally in for a Flypaper strategy, except that I suggest that USA should exploit a home field advantage in the finals.

[freegood]

let's see...

al-Qaeda DID plan 9-11.

al-Qaeda is present in Iraq.


what exactly is the problem here? The washington post might as well be "the keith olbermann special comment gazette". way to reach around your elbow to get to your nose, Post

Palin was wrong. Pentagon sez (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/) al-Qadea wasn't collaborating with Saddam. Their major presence in Iraq is because we invaded their country.

Perpetuating that lie just reminds people how Bush fooled them.

[Deadhead Derek]

what a bad interview. wow. I am stunned.

[Axel]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/political-pictures-sarah-palin-abstinence-education.jpg

[freegood]

what a bad interview. wow. I am stunned.

McCain says he'll lose a campaign in order to win a war, but Palin is a pure campaign move that wouldn't strengthen a presidency.

[VoxAngelikus]

Here's what is still baffling to me:

Even if I was a staunch Republican, I would never want this bitch in the White House. Not as VP, not as a potential President, not as a Press Secretary, not as a fucking janitor. Every time I read an article about her she looks more and more like a hyper-religious nut-job who comes across like a mean CCD teacher.

And no offense to Republicans, but someone who disparages science and promotes creationism going to the White House as a possible Presidential successor frightens me, and it should frighten everyone else, as well.

[The Batman]

Here's what is still baffling to me:

Even if I was a staunch Republican, I would never want this bitch in the White House. Not as VP, not as a potential President, not as a Press Secretary, not as a fucking janitor. Every time I read an article about her she looks more and more like a hyper-religious nut-job who comes across like a mean CCD teacher.

And no offense to Republicans, but someone who disparages science and promotes creationism going to the White House as a possible Presidential successor frightens me, and it should frighten everyone else, as well.


Like Matt Damon said, its like a bad Disney movie.

[hatepoppy]

someone help me out.

i had been following the election pretty closely until about the time they named VPs. at the time, it seemed halfway up in the air. could go either way.

then mccain named palin, and it seems like its laughable to vote for him. the dems i know talk like new yorkers after tom brady went down. the gops i know tend to shy away from the topic.

has this race actually turned into a laffer? i mean,the old, the racist, and the rich will vote for mccain. but thats about it?

[freegood]

It made red states even redder. No question it threw the Obama campaign off guard, so some are worrying about McCain's post-convention bounce. Formerly thought battleground states might be out of play because of Palin energizing the base.

Assuming Palin doesn't turn off her constituents, the Electoral College battlefield might just end up like 04 again.

[Soup Nazi]

Her interview w/ Gibson:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5783816

I would really have liked to hear her actually answer some of the questions, and not redirect foreign policy experience questions into Alaska oil production answers. I really think they should have waited a couple weeks so she could have been coached up a little more (for example, she NEEDS to know what the Bush doctrine is, pretty much verbatim, word for word. She also NEEDS to know McCain's stance on following terrorists into Pakistan, even if she does not share the same belief. Yes or No bitch.), because all she came across as is evasive, possibly because shes ignorant.

I also found her thought process to so flippantly say we should pretty much go to war with Russia to be quite disconcerting. I also was very disappointed with her legs, I expect them to be more toned, maybe a little bit more tan. And her footwear was certainly not helping accentuate them at all.

[riseabove!]

someone help me out.

i had been following the election pretty closely until about the time they named VPs. at the time, it seemed halfway up in the air. could go either way.

then mccain named palin, and it seems like its laughable to vote for him. the dems i know talk like new yorkers after tom brady went down. the gops i know tend to shy away from the topic.

has this race actually turned into a laffer? i mean,the old, the racist, and the rich will vote for mccain. but thats about it?


QFE

Senior citizens have the highest voter turnouts.

[Pike Bishop]

Wasn't her handlers claiming she had foreign policy experience just by the virtue of Russia bordering Alaska?

Yes.

I grew up across the street from a river, and by this logic I am now qualified to be a rainbow trout.

[Rover]

Anyone with one ounce of knowledge regarding American foreign policy knows that the Bush Doctrine involves anticipatory war. The reason this should be the first thing that comes to mind is because it's the single most significant shift in global understanding of international law since the creation of the United Nations and the notion of collective security--mostly because it challenges the fundamental underpinnings of that agreement.
Actually, anyone with an ounce of foreign policy knowledge would know that the Bush Doctrine was laid out in his 2nd inaugural. I know this because it solidifies why I'm neoconservative in my foreign policy philosophy. Anticipatory war, as you and Charlie Gibson and other like-minded liberals believe, is not a part of the Bush doctrine. It's part of the belief that nations have a right to self-defense. It's been practiced forever. Bush didn't sit around one day and think up "self-defense." Look at most wars. Most wars are "anticipatory". Great Britain is particularly good at anticipatory war.

This is the Bush doctrine:
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.The whole of Bush's 2nd inaugural is his "doctrine". Charlie Gibson looked like an ass during that question. He was trying to show up his interviewee and that never looks good, especially if you're wrong in your facts.
Here's what is still baffling to me:

Even if I was a staunch Republican, I would never want this bitch in the White House. Not as VP, not as a potential President, not as a Press Secretary, not as a fucking janitor. Every time I read an article about her she looks more and more like a hyper-religious nut-job who comes across like a mean CCD teacher.

And no offense to Republicans, but someone who disparages science and promotes creationism going to the White House as a possible Presidential successor frightens me, and it should frighten everyone else, as well.Well, I'm not afraid of religious people, who don't strap bombs to their chest or fly planes into buildings. You really believe that a VP or President could institute religious doctrine into governmental policy. Like, everyone has to give confession? Or are you uncomfortable with the idea of religious people in general? Is a hyper-religious nut job worse than a militant athetist? Your problem with her seems to be more like a problem with religion in general.

As long as she doesn't demand that I pray to her god, I don't care.

[freegood]

Charlie Gibson's a liberal? That's news to me...

James Fallows on the Palin interview. (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php#more)

12 Sep 2008 09:01 am
It is embarrassing to have to spell this out, but for the record let me explain why Gov. Palin's answer to the "Bush Doctrine" question -- the only part of the recent interview I have yet seen over here in China -- implies a disqualifying lack of preparation for the job.

Not the mundane job of vice president, of course, which many people could handle. Rather the job of potential Commander in Chief and most powerful individual on earth.

The spelling-out is lengthy, but I've hidden most of it below the jump.

Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I'd really like to hear answered is A.

Here's the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio.

Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals.

People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate. I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture, the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (blush) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion. So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

Two details in Charles Gibson's posing of the question were particularly telling. One was the potentially confusing way in which he first asked it. On the page, "the Bush Doctrine" looks different from "the Bush doctrine." But when hearing the question Palin might not have known whether Gibson was referring to the general sweep of Administration policy -- doctrine with small d -- or the rationale that connected 9/11 with the need to invade Iraq, the capital-D Doctrine. So initial confusion would be understandable -- as if a sports host asked about Favre's chances and you weren't sure if he meant previously with the Packers or with the Jets. Once Gibson clarified the question, a person familiar with the issue would have said, "Oh, if we're talking about the strategy that the President and Condoleezza Rice began laying out in 2002...." There was no such flash of recognition.

The other was Gibson's own minor mis-statement. American foreign policy has long recognized the concept of preemptive action: if you know somebody is just about to attack you, there's no debate about the legitimacy of acting first. (This is like "shooting in self-defense.") The more controversial part of The Bush Doctrine was the idea of preventive war: acting before a threat had fully emerged, on the theory that waiting until it was fully evident would mean acting too late.

Gibson used the word "preemptively" -- but if a knowledgeable person had pushed back on that point ("Well, preemption was what John F. Kennedy had in mind in acting against the imminent threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba"), Gibson would certainly have come back to explain the novelty of the "preventive war" point. Because he knows the issue, a minor mis-choice of words wouldn't get in the way of his real intent.

Sarah Palin did not know this issue, or any part of it. The view she actually expressed -- an endorsement of "preemptive" action -- was fine on its own merits. But it is not the stated doctrine of the Bush Administration, it is not the policy her running mate has endorsed, and it is not the concept under which her own son is going off to Iraq.

How could she not know this? For the same reason I don't know anything about European football/soccer standings, player trades, or intrigue. I am not interested enough. And she evidently has not been interested enough even to follow the news of foreign affairs during the Bush era.

A further point. The truly toxic combination of traits GW Bush brought to decision making was:

1) Ignorance
2) Lack of curiosity
3) "Decisiveness"

That is, he was not broadly informed to begin with (point 1). He did not seek out new information (#2); but he nonetheless prided himself (#3) on making broad, bold decisions quickly, and then sticking to them to show resoluteness.

We don't know for sure about #2 for Palin yet -- she could be a sponge-like absorber of information. But we know about #1 and we can guess, from her demeanor about #3. Most of all we know something about the person who put her in this untenable role.

[Deadhead Derek]

cnn ran a palindrama this evening. I again state that I am now, and have been for near 20 years, an independant voter, often with no candidate, and as such do not enter this fracas with malice towards either party, but truth be told, she came off horribly even with the right discounting the "liberal media" and as an attempt at full disclosure, I missed the segment on Biden. She should not, in the opinion of this citizen who respects and loves the Constitution, be the second CINC. The bit about banning books in the backwater Of Wasillais more troubling than any other position she has spoken of. First the books in a library, next, the Mask. It is worth the fight my friends.

[vasili denisov]

Actually, anyone with an ounce of foreign policy knowledge would know that the Bush Doctrine was laid out in his 2nd inaugural. I know this because it solidifies why I'm neoconservative in my foreign policy philosophy.
There have been several Bush doctrines (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?nav=hcmodule), arguably the one stated in the inaugural supercedes the others; this is complicated by the fact that the multiple policies labelled the "Bush doctrine" have common ideas that were in embryo for many years, among them, that america is a nation which has used force not simply out of self-interest, but to the benefit of other nations. It may only have been articulated explicitly in the second inaugural, but it was certainly in policy papers written by Wolfowitz.

My problem is not that Sarah Palin says "which one?" And I don't care that your answer, arguably, isn't right either. I do have a problem when someone is unable to identify certain policy ideas and discuss them; there are many ways to answer Gibson's question which indicate that Bush's policy ideas were an animal of many species, as well as her agreement and dissent, even within the polite restrictions of a campaign. Her response indicates none of that, that's why it's so troubling.

Well, I'm not afraid of religious people, who don't strap bombs to their chest or fly planes into buildings. You really believe that a VP or President could institute religious doctrine into governmental policy. Like, everyone has to give confession? Or are you uncomfortable with the idea of religious people in general? Is a hyper-religious nut job worse than a militant athetist? Your problem with her seems to be more like a problem with religion in general.

As long as she doesn't demand that I pray to her god, I don't care.
I don't have a problem with her faith or the extent of her faith. I have a problem with someone who conceives of history as being part of "god's plan", a benevolent god that's on the side of good works. For five years, we've been told "trust me, I know what I'm doing" by a president who believed that well-intended statecraft (instilling or reviving democracy) which would somehow work out, under the benign aegis of the almighty.
Instead we're left with thousands having died for a country that may ultimately become a shia tyranny. I'd like someone who decides on actions based on the empirical, doesn't resolve to act and believes the action is sound because it is moral, and therefore, god's plan will ultimately validate it.

Global politics is very, very complicated. It requires examination and re-examination of huge masses of facts, which is very much antithetical to the ideal of a moral structure with a divine purpose.
cnn ran a palindrama this evening.
A palindrama? Like, almost a palindrome? Nil, a pharas(ee)?

[Archetype]

Global politics is very, very complicated. It requires examination and re-examination of huge masses of facts, which is very much antithetical to the ideal of a moral structure with a divine purpose.

Or at least to one that doesn't have an intensive time to think and philosophize over the ethical first. Morality is a serious issue, and not one what should be left to politics to decide.

[Smokestack]

Actually, anyone with an ounce of foreign policy knowledge would know that the Bush Doctrine was laid out in his 2nd inaugural. I know this because it solidifies why I'm neoconservative in my foreign policy philosophy. Anticipatory war, as you and Charlie Gibson and other like-minded liberals believe, is not a part of the Bush doctrine. It's part of the belief that nations have a right to self-defense. It's been practiced forever. Bush didn't sit around one day and think up "self-defense." Look at most wars. Most wars are "anticipatory". Great Britain is particularly good at anticipatory war.

This is the Bush doctrine:
The whole of Bush's 2nd inaugural is his "doctrine". Charlie Gibson looked like an ass during that question. He was trying to show up his interviewee and that never looks good, especially if you're wrong in your facts.


Are you that dense? Just because he trademarked it or named it or whatever the hell he did in his 2nd inaugural, that in no way means that that was the moment it was conceived. More accurately, it was an articulation (strange to use that word with that man) of the philosopy that sought to explain his previous actions. And just because Bush conflated "pre-emptive war" and "self-defense" into some sort of half-strategy against carefully-chosen nations that "hate freedom" doesn't make it so. There is a distinction and the Iraq War does not pass the "self-defense" smell test. Most wars may be anticipatory in some regard, but that doesn't justify all anticipatory wars. What the fuck was he anticipating? Seems what we found post-invasion belies his anticipatory acumen.

And calling Charlie Gibson a "like-minded liberal" is taking the liberal media argument to a pretty idiotic extreme. Congratulations. Can't wait until you call Sean Hannity a treehugger after he interviews Palin.

[URFloorMatt]

Actually, anyone with an ounce of foreign policy knowledge would know that the Bush Doctrine was laid out in his 2nd inaugural. I know this because it solidifies why I'm neoconservative in my foreign policy philosophy. Anticipatory war, as you and Charlie Gibson and other like-minded liberals believe, is not a part of the Bush doctrine. It's part of the belief that nations have a right to self-defense. It's been practiced forever. Bush didn't sit around one day and think up "self-defense." Look at most wars. Most wars are "anticipatory". Great Britain is particularly good at anticipatory war.

Most wars? As in, in all of history? Well yes, most wars are "anticipatory" in the sense that most wars are also instigated with a primary goal of conquest. Funny thing, by creating the U.N. we've outlawed that notion of aggressive war. What remains is a notion of preemption only where the threat of attack is "imminent." The preemption doctrine that is the core of Bush's foreign policy, on the other hand, expands this notion of preemptive self-defense far beyond the definition ever originally intended. Whether it was justified, given the changing structure of international affairs and the rise of non-state actors as major, if not the primary, harbingers of violence against traditional states, will be a question that people several generations from now will answer.

If the Bush Doctrine is as you say--as Bush himself says--then I guess Bush doesn't believe in it any longer. We sat by idle while an increasingly dictatorial Russia beat the shit out of a young democracy in Georgia for no other reason than it could without repercussion. Maybe that's because Russia's asserted reason for invading Georgia (which was a load of crap, but that's beside the point) stands on stronger international law grounds (humanitarian intervention) than our own asserted justification for invading Iraq (preemption lacking an imminent threat of attack)?

It's worth noting perhaps that Bush's foreign policy doctrine, as you describe it, isn't fundamentally different from Clinton's own doctrine. Bush's is framed more in the sense of political freedoms rather than fundamental human rights, but in both cases functionally we'll be invading nations to promote democracy and end tyrannic oppression.

[scraty55]

remember when the united states used to be an isolationist nation?
Ahh those were the good days... now we have bush looking for any excuse to warrant a 'pre-emptive strike' ... think about one of palin's answers during the interview. in response to the question regarding russia invading georgia if they joined NATO, would the US go to war. Her answer was a very definitive yes.

Palin is the typical right fringe that thinks that governing is shooting first and asking questions later.

[freegood]

remember when the united states used to be an isolationist nation?

Are you 70? I know I don't remember those good ol days.

[Rover]

My problem is not that Sarah Palin says "which one?" And I don't care that your answer, arguably, isn't right either. I do have a problem when someone is unable to identify certain policy ideas and discuss them; there are many ways to answer Gibson's question which indicate that Bush's policy ideas were an animal of many species, as well as her agreement and dissent, even within the polite restrictions of a campaign. Her response indicates none of that, that's why it's so troubling.The question was too open-ended to be answered with specifics. If she'd gone off on a treatise about spreading democracy, Gibson would have said, "That isn't the Bush Doctrine. GOTCHA!" and asked his question about preemptive war, which is really what he wanted to talk about. It was a poorly worded question to ask, unless you were intentionally trying to confuse your interviewee.

I don't have a problem with her faith or the extent of her faith. I have a problem with someone who conceives of history as being part of "god's plan", a benevolent god that's on the side of good works. For five years, we've been told "trust me, I know what I'm doing" by a president who believed that well-intended statecraft (instilling or reviving democracy) which would somehow work out, under the benign aegis of the almighty.Most Christians believe that God has a plan and that we are supposed to live life according to His plan. This doesn't mean that Christians pretend to know what God's plan is, only that He has one. Presidents throughout history have made public statements "praying" that we are on God's side. All that means is that they are hoping that the decision they've made is the correct one, and thus "on God's side."

Hoping that we are doing God's plan is particularly popular with wartime presidents.Instead we're left with thousands having died for a country that may ultimately become a shia tyranny. I'd like someone who decides on actions based on the empirical, doesn't resolve to act and believes the action is sound because it is moral, and therefore, god's plan will ultimately validate it.Not everything can be broken down to the empirical. If every decision could be made from empirical evidence, the country could be run by a computer, hopefully not SkyNet or HAL. Kennedy had no empirical evidence that the Soviets would back down from setting up ICBMs in Cuba. He listened to one guy in his Cabinet, and made a decision that nobody really agreed with. Could you imagine if he'd listened to the joint chiefs and ordered a full-scale invasion? The point being that no decision is empirically derived. That would imply that there is only one correct decision.

I'm assuming you mean empirical to be: If A happens then B happens. or If A happens then B caused A.

Global politics is very, very complicated. It requires examination and re-examination of huge masses of facts, which is very much antithetical to the ideal of a moral structure with a divine purpose.What evidence do you have that she consults with the Bible when making governmental policy decisions? Is she issuing executive orders that make references to chapter and verse?
If the Bush Doctrine is as you say--as Bush himself says--then I guess Bush doesn't believe in it any longer. We sat by idle while an increasingly dictatorial Russia beat the shit out of a young democracy in Georgia for no other reason than it could without repercussion. Maybe that's because Russia's asserted reason for invading Georgia (which was a load of crap, but that's beside the point) stands on stronger international law grounds (humanitarian intervention) than our own asserted justification for invading Iraq (preemption lacking an imminent threat of attack)?Well, it's easy to believe in spreading democracy (whether through military force or not) when you aren't facing a country with enough nuclear weapons to destroy everything.

But, Bush is following his doctrine. There is more than one way to promote democracy in all countries. With Georgia he chose the diplomacy route. With Iraq and Afghanistan he picked the military route.

It's worth noting perhaps that Bush's foreign policy doctrine, as you describe it, isn't fundamentally different from Clinton's own doctrine. Bush's is framed more in the sense of political freedoms rather than fundamental human rights, but in both cases functionally we'll be invading nations to promote democracy and end tyrannic oppression.It isn't. US foreign policy isn't radically different no matter who is in charge. I watched an interesting interview on CSPAN the other day. I can't remember the guy, but he wrote a book about Bush foreign policy. He's British. And one of the points he made is that even Obama isn't radically different from Bush. Obama just believes that Bush chose the wrong battlefield for the war on Terror and Obama's basic argument is, "I'll be a better war-monger, and choose better battlefields."

The point he was making was that Europe is likely to be very disappointed when it comes to Obama's foreign policy.

remember when the united states used to be an isolationist nation?
Ahh those were the good days... now we have bush looking for any excuse to warrant a 'pre-emptive strike' ... think about one of palin's answers during the interview. in response to the question regarding russia invading georgia if they joined NATO, would the US go to war. Her answer was a very definitive yes.That's the entire point on NATO. The unstated point of NATO is that the US assumes military protection of Europe. And we do it with an unusual amount of fairness. Every country in NATO that is attacked is supposed to be helped by the other member countries. In fact, the US invoked this when Afghanistan was attacked. The idea that US would help a NATO country that was under attack is a presupposition that has allowed Europe to have an economy for the last 50 years.

[freegood]

It isn't. US foreign policy isn't radically different no matter who is in charge. I watched an interesting interview on CSPAN the other day. I can't remember the guy, but he wrote a book about Bush foreign policy. He's British. And one of the points he made is that even Obama isn't radically different from Bush. Obama just believes that Bush chose the wrong battlefield for the war on Terror and Obama's basic argument is, "I'll be a better war-monger, and choose better battlefields."

The point he was making was that Europe is likely to be very disappointed when it comes to Obama's foreign policy.


I don't doubt it. Obama calls for increased Euro participation for Iran and Afghanistan, and he supports greater involvement in the Georgian crisis. Difference is in the details.

I'm not sure about the Brit writer's bias, but Europeans tend to think of the War on Terror as criminal behavior that can be prevented through intel and law enforcement and dismiss military involvement as overkill. Americans obviously think it has uses and claim European success is contingent upon ours. I believe Obama will shift towards the European style, given his sickening change of heart for FISA legislation, but it remains to be seen how much military involvement he'll bring in or out. Even his stance on Iraq is uncertain. Could it be Clintonian, where we intervened in smaller fires (Haiti, Balkans, Somalia) through official coalitions, or will he use the existing order Bush put in place? I don't know. I don't think McCain will be some great military genius either. His hot headedness and ability to paint issues in black and white disturbs me. So both candidates have qualifying strengths and weaknesses in foreign policy, IMO.

I don't even want to imagine a President McCain dying. Cronyism pt2, ftl.

[Rover]

I don't doubt it. Obama calls for increased Euro participation for Iran and Afghanistan, and he supports greater involvement in the Georgian crisis. Difference is in the details.

I'm not sure about the Brit writer's bias, but Europeans tend to think of the War on Terror as criminal behavior that can be prevented through intel and law enforcement and dismiss military involvement as overkill. Americans obviously think it has uses and claim European success is contingent upon ours. I believe Obama will shift towards the European style, given his sickening change of heart for FISA legislation, but it remains to be seen how much military involvement he'll bring in or out. Even his stance on Iraq is uncertain. Could it be Clintonian, where we intervened in smaller fires (Haiti, Balkans, Somalia) through official coalitions, or will he use the existing order Bush put in place? I don't know. I don't think McCain will be some great military genius either. His hot headedness and ability to paint issues in black and white disturbs me. So both candidates have qualifying strengths and weaknesses in foreign policy, IMO.

I don't even want to imagine a President McCain dying. Cronyism pt2, ftl.Since you brought it up, I looked up what the program I watched was and it was this interview (http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=280531-1). This is the book he wrote (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/After-Bush/Timothy-J-Lynch/e/9780521880046). I got the impression that he was neoconservative, and the guy interviewing him was the former CEO of the PNAC.

[scraty55]

Are you 70? I know I don't remember those good ol days.


I'd have to be somewhere around 90 to remember those days, the US hasnt had a doctrine of isolationism since WWI and WWII

staying on topic, Palin is crazy.

It is a shame that today's political system will only support this two party system. So the dems pander to the far left all the way up to the DNC and then try to tell the country that they are centrist. The GOP plays the same game pandering to the religious right and future shoe bombers, then they keep pointing the finger at the dems reminding the US of the horrors of big government via socialism.

Sad thing is Mccain had a real opportunity to be a great moderate president, someone to really unify this country from a political perspective (not from a socio-economic viewpoint) but then he went pandering to the fundamentalist right wingers to get the same bush votes voting for him.

[Stax]

The question was too open-ended to be answered with specifics. If she'd gone off on a treatise about spreading democracy, Gibson would have said, "That isn't the Bush Doctrine. GOTCHA!" and asked his question about preemptive war, which is really what he wanted to talk about. It was a poorly worded question to ask, unless you were intentionally trying to confuse your interviewee.


Cmon now. An acceptable answer would've dealt with:

-Preemptive war
-The idea that those who harbor or support terrorists are just as much in US crosshairs as the terrorists themselves
-Spreading democracy

Preemptive war is the technical definition of the Bush Doctrine, but ANY of those would've been an acceptable response to the question. She danced and obfuscated for 45 seconds before Gibson said "Well, no, that's not what it is at all." She wasn't confused by the question, she was wrong.

[Stax]

someone help me out.

i had been following the election pretty closely until about the time they named VPs. at the time, it seemed halfway up in the air. could go either way.

then mccain named palin, and it seems like its laughable to vote for him. the dems i know talk like new yorkers after tom brady went down. the gops i know tend to shy away from the topic.

has this race actually turned into a laffer? i mean,the old, the racist, and the rich will vote for mccain. but thats about it?

It made red states even redder. No question it threw the Obama campaign off guard, so some are worrying about McCain's post-convention bounce. Formerly thought battleground states might be out of play because of Palin energizing the base.

Assuming Palin doesn't turn off her constituents, the Electoral College battlefield might just end up like 04 again.

I think freegood is just about right, though I'm not so negative as to say it'll just be 04 electorally. Electoral-Vote.com presented a nice little table summarizing this data from Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108037/Candidate-Support-Region.aspx) (and keep in mind Gallup was the organization with the outlier crazy pro-McCain poll that showed him up 10 points following the convention).

http://i38.tinypic.com/dlm3rr.jpg

The Democratic convention was Aug. 25-28 and the Republican convention was Sept. 1-4. So even in the most pro-McCain poll that was out there he mostly picked up ground where he was already going to win. What bringing back the base did do was color states like South Dakota in pretty clearly red (they were far less so pre-convention) and make the states that had made the thing already Obama's electorally almost automatically (Nevada and New Mexico) far more questionable (not to mention Colorado, which is still slightly his but only slightly).

[Federal Farmer]

No doubt that Biden can debate the hell out of anyone, but in a ticket where image is emphasized so much, he'll still have to temper it some. The older, debate-watching crowd isn't going to take kindly to a guy like Biden stompimg on a woman with remarks like, "I think I have a much higher IQ than you do."

I wish he would try to pull that one on her, because she'd prove him wrong!

[Morfin]

I found this comment about Sarah Palin by David Brooks, in his column in yesterday's New York Times to be interesting:

"But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?em)

[VoxAngelikus]

Sarah Palin doesn't play politics the old fashioned way?

John McCain's camp announced that Palin would not cooperate with a bipartisan investigation (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/palin.investigation/index.html) -- which includes an independent investigator -- of her role in firing Alaska's public safety commissioner. McCain's campaign spokesman said Palin wouldn't take part "so long as it remained tainted and run by partisan individuals who have a predetermined conclusion, referring to a Democratic state legislator who had said the case might produce criminal charges.

But hasn't Palin said she has nothing to hide in this case -- which means she should be cooperating fully.

Hmmm... Backtracking when things don't go her way? Attacking anyone that doesn't agree with her? That sounds like some Good Ol' Fashioned politics to me. Nothing original. Nothing new.

However in this particular case, she invites a subpoena for her testimony. If that happens in the next few weeks, Palin could face a nasty legal affair touching on her veracity as governor around the same time as Americans go to the polls to pick the next President.

It's just my opinion, so I really don't care what closed-minded, "If-it's-Red-it's-Right!" people like Claydon and Hanover think, but beyond swinging the momentum with his pick, I think McCain's selection of Palin is a weak choice. I think she is there specifically for the novelty of her gender, and seeing as how McCain's campaign has thus far relied heavily on smear adverts, I am not surprised that he would use chicanery to try and lure voters to his side.

Palin's knocked-up daughter is nothing. There are lots of knocked-up daughters across America. That might endear them to Palin's situation. But the shit with "Troopergate", with the amount of federal funds she has tried to procure, and with attempting to get books banned, for starters, are signs of a politician whose actions are being construed as "maverick" and "outside the box" when really they are just the earmarks of a truly inexperienced individual.

But hey, she's purty and she talks tough so, yeah, she'd make a great leader. :rolleyes:

[The Batman]

Sarah Palin doesn't play politics the old fashioned way?

John McCain's camp announced that Palin would not cooperate with a bipartisan investigation (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/palin.investigation/index.html) -- which includes an independent investigator -- of her role in firing Alaska's public safety commissioner. McCain's campaign spokesman said Palin wouldn't take part "so long as it remained tainted and run by partisan individuals who have a predetermined conclusion, referring to a Democratic state legislator who had said the case might produce criminal charges.

That is something Bush has perfected over the years but his excuse was always executive privelage.

[Claydon]

Yah...bush is the first to invoke executive privilege.

Clinton, Bush Sr., Carter, Nixon, Johnson..... none of these guys EVER did that.

[VoxAngelikus]

Yah...bush is the first to invoke executive privilege.

Clinton, Bush Sr., Carter, Nixon, Johnson..... none of these guys EVER did that.


Proof positive that when it comes to politics, Palin is simply playing the same old tired game that has been played since the 1960's.

How original and "maverick" of her! I tell you, it's "hockey moms" like this that are going to change America!!

[The Batman]

Yah...bush is the first to invoke executive privilege.

Clinton, Bush Sr., Carter, Nixon, Johnson..... none of these guys EVER did that.

Let me correct you.
Clinton, Bush Sr., Carter, Nixon, Johnson..... none of these guys EVER did that ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

[Rover]

Let me correct you.
Clinton, Bush Sr., Carter, Nixon, Johnson..... none of these guys EVER did that ALL THE FUCKING TIME.Since we're big on corrections, Clinton invoked executive privilege 14 times. Bush 43 only 4 times.

[Yelram]

Since we're big on corrections, Clinton invoked executive privilege 14 times. Bush 43 only 4 times.

No no no, didnt you read the papers, Bush is BAD, he's like one of those things, those dictatorers or something, he like makes people do bad things, and takes away rights, and hurts the little guy!!! And all clinton did was get a blow job, go figure(/naive rant)

[nirvanasaves]

Carly Fiorina, a key surrogate for John McCain on economic issues, said on Tuesday that Sarah Palin does not have the experience needed to run a major company like the one that Fiorina formerly headed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yyc32ciiGs

[The Batman]

Since we're big on corrections, Clinton invoked executive privilege 14 times. Bush 43 only 4 times.

If he did use it only 4 times, he used it to stay out of trouble for incredibly illegal and stupid things. One of them was to avoid talking about the outing of a CIA Agent. Then Bush used it when they were investigating Alberto Gonzalez one of the worst examples of Attorney General that this country has EVER had. Then he used it to stop Sara Taylor, one of the worst injustices ever in our judicial system who hired a bunch of Christian lawyers from a no name law school because the first thing we really need are a bunch of religious people in our courts.I don't know what Clinton used it for and if you find anything close to that, then I will give you that argument. But if i remember correctly, Clinton didn't have issues like this in his presidency besides the whole blow job thing, and that's all bullshit anyway.

[Yelram]

Carly Fiorina, a key surrogate for John McCain on economic issues, said on Tuesday that Sarah Palin does not have the experience needed to run a major company like the one that Fiorina formerly headed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yyc32ciiGs

Can we all say.... irrelevant?

[Yelram]

If he did use it only 4 times, he used it to stay out of trouble for incredibly illegal and stupid things. One of them was to avoid talking about the outing of a CIA Agent. Then Bush used it when they were investigating Alberto Gonzalez one of the worst examples of Attorney General that this country has EVER had. Then he used it to stop Sara Taylor, one of the worst injustices ever in our judicial system who hired a bunch of Christian lawyers from a no name law school because the first thing we really need are a bunch of religious people in our courts.I don't know what Clinton used it for and if you find anything close to that, then I will give you that argument. But if i remember correctly, Clinton didn't have issues like this in his presidency besides the whole blow job thing, and that's all bullshit anyway.

How old are you? Like 16, 17?

[Genius]

Can we all say.... irrelevant?
I wish it was. Sad indeed that this is what it comes to. Can't wait until 2016 or so. How can they even get more irrelevant? I'm sure we'll find out.

[The Batman]

How old are you? Like 16, 17?

If you wanna disagree with what i said, feel free, but trying to ask me my age makes no point what so ever.

[Genius]

By the way, this is an idiotic line of reasoning, concerning the Tina Fey sketch:

“The portrait was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive, and Sarah Palin as totally superficial,” McCain advisor Carly Fiorina told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Monday. “I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme, and yes I would say sexist.”

“Just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance. She has a lot of substance,” Fiorina said.


Especially after reading this in the very same article:

Palin, on the other hand, found the sketch amusing, according to her spokesperson. The governor and the press corps watched the sketch in the back of her plane, laughing at Tina and Amy’s satirical take on the two politicians.

I don't think any of the people running these elections are even consulting the candidates anymore. Fuck it, what the hell do we need candidates for anyway? Let's just let Karl Rove run against James Carville and get it over with.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26743182/

[freegood]

Palin wants to make a bill Obama co-created and got passed into law...
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h21ZbzgPbTVRftcJPT5vkHkonY5QD937FNK80

She also said she would play a role in an effort to reform government.

"I've got another idea that I think Senator McCain likes. In Alaska, we took the state checkbook and put it online, so everyone can see where their money goes. We're going to bring that kind of openness to Washington," she said.

In fact, there already is a searchable database that allows the public to track federal grants and contracts, and Obama was a principle force behind the 2006 law that created it, along with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act is one of Obama's few legislative accomplishments in his short Senate tenure.

Heck, even her own running mate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Ac t_of_2006) had a hand creating in it.

Guess who was the senator (http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2006/08/18/week_in_review/news/friday/news04.txt)that tried to block it...

[Yelram]

If you wanna disagree with what i said, feel free, but trying to ask me my age makes no point what so ever.
Only the point that if you think nothing happened during the Clinton years, you must have been in a pre-fetal state of one sort or the other,mentally or literally. And if you think Alberto Gonzalez is the "worst" attorney general ever, i'm sure theres some people in waco who disagree with you. Or when clinton fired ALL of the US attorneys, so he could stack the justice system. And Bush tries to remove a couple (of course clinton appointees) and they throw a little hissy fit. No CIA agent was outed, that was the biggest bullshit story of the past 8 years, go read up about it, and find out who actually leaked the information. The things scooter libby went to jail for werent even used in the case. In other words, he recalled something incorrectly, and could not explain why. Talk about a fucking witch hunt. There were plenty of things under clinton everyone sweeps under the rug.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Clinton was a douche but this guy is the worst president I have ever seen in my life time.

[Yelram]

Clinton was a douche but this guy is the worst president I have ever seen in my life time.
I just must not be seeing it. In my opinion, clinton was a bad president at a good time, and Bush has been a good president at a bad time.

[twotones]

what is it, exactly, that makes bush a good president?

[BIG PIZZLE]

http://kroq-data.com/kevinandbean/images/sights/vpdaughter.jpg

[BIG PIZZLE]

I just must not be seeing it. In my opinion, clinton was a bad president at a good time, and Bush has been a good president at a bad time.

The only thing that went bad that wasnt his fault was 9/11. Which basically caused him to ruin the world while simultaneously neglecting america.

[Yelram]

The only thing that went bad that wasnt his fault was 9/11. Which basically caused him to ruin the world while simultaneously neglecting america.


Exactly, a bunch of mealy mouthed bullshit, thats no worse than any other president. You've just decided to demonize him. It makes you feel better about yourself or something. Neglecting america? What did you want, a blowjob or something? What exactly was neglected? You Bushhaters talk in such vague generalities sometimes, I dont even know where to start.

[The Batman]

Only the point that if you think nothing happened during the Clinton years, you must have been in a pre-fetal state of one sort or the other,mentally or literally. And if you think Alberto Gonzalez is the "worst" attorney general ever, i'm sure theres some people in waco who disagree with you. Or when clinton fired ALL of the US attorneys, so he could stack the justice system. And Bush tries to remove a couple (of course clinton appointees) and they throw a little hissy fit. No CIA agent was outed, that was the biggest bullshit story of the past 8 years, go read up about it, and find out who actually leaked the information. The things scooter libby went to jail for werent even used in the case. In other words, he recalled something incorrectly, and could not explain why. Talk about a fucking witch hunt. There were plenty of things under clinton everyone sweeps under the rug.

No, of course not. There were many controversies like that guy who stayed in the Lincoln bedroom and some investment scandal. I know that Clinton was far from a perfect president, but you must be a complete fool to believe that Bush has done a better job. And its not that Bush tried to remove a couple people in Justice. Thats fine, in fact thats a president's prerogative. The problem is that he put a lot of UNDER QUALIFIED people into important positions in our justice department because they graduated from the law school Pat Robertson found. People interviewing for the job were hired on the basis of loyalty to Bush and not to the understanding of the LAW, which is what they are needed for. (yes this is on RECORD. YES this was admitted to by the lady hiring them.) And I don't give a shit what people in Waco think. One bad strategic mistake is nothing compared to all the things that Alberto Gonzalez FUCKED up. There is a reason why he left before his term. No one is perfect and I will give anyone room for mistakes, but this guy was obviously not someone who should have been put into the position he was given.
Bush didn't give out the information on the CIA agent, but again he did nothing about it. Another example of which he held no one RESPONSIBLE as he usually does. Bush has not held ANYONE responsible for ANYTHING. Hell the Mayor of Houston fired someone because they sent a Fema truck back to a holding place instead of staying in town and being more prepared for this hurricane recovery.

[The Batman]

Exactly, a bunch of mealy mouthed bullshit, thats no worse than any other president. You've just decided to demonize him. It makes you feel better about yourself or something. Neglecting america? What did you want, a blowjob or something? What exactly was neglected? You Bushhaters talk in such vague generalities sometimes, I dont even know where to start.

Man, sometimes it hurts to hear idiots talk sometimes...
Lets just name some random things that Bush and his cabinet messed up that cannot be disputed.
1. War in Iraq.
2. Justice Department Scandal in hiring more than 50 lawyers because they all subscribed to the Pat Robertson Law School of bullshit.
3. Katrina
4. 9-11. He held no one responsible for the mistakes made.
5. Not really going after Osama Bin Laden
6. Destroyed international relations with a lot of countries who we had good ties with
7. The deficit.

and if you want some more, here is a link with 100 mistakes and promises that weren't kept by the Bush Administration and other links to support every single one of them.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1023-23.htm

[The Batman]

I just must not be seeing it. In my opinion, clinton was a bad president at a good time, and Bush has been a good president at a bad time.

Your the reason why people are allowing someone who is obviously not ready to be vice president to be voted into office. I swear, you sound like someone with down syndrome.

[Yelram]

Your the reason why people are allowing someone who is obviously not ready to be vice president be voted into office. I swear, you sound like someone with downs syndrome.

You sound like the same broken record i've been listening to for 8 years. Those are things that happened, those are not mess ups. Last time I checked congress approved the war in Iraq. There are still troops stationed in places now that clinton sent there, and yet no mention of this is ever made. 8 years, of the "worst president ever" and you cant even come up with 8 things.

Destroyed international relations? I fucking swear some of you idiots are completely delusional. You need to learn more than reading headlines and regurgitating rhetoric. That site you linked to is some of the farthest leftwing bullshit I have ever stumbled across. I couldnt get through 10 of them without laughing out loud.

[Mustard]

It's Yelram's delusion... and we're all just living in it.

Good to have you back aboard.

[BIG PIZZLE]

What exactly was neglected? You Bushhaters talk in such vague generalities sometimes, I dont even know where to start.

Um, the economy? Katrina killed WAY more people than 9/11, not just because of the storm but of the failure to help people, and people's lives are still fucked. I still cant take a water bottle on a plane if I want to flip $600 for a 2 hour trip.

[Claydon]

Um, the economy? Katrina killed WAY more people than 9/11, not just because of the storm but of the failure to help people, and people's lives are still fucked. I still cant take a water bottle on a plane if I want to flip $600 for a 2 hour trip.

1000 deaths from katrina, and 3000 from our eternal friends the saudis on 9/11.

katrina can be blamed on MANY including the state of louisiana, NO's fine mayor, and of course the feds bear some of the blame as well.

[mongo]

Man, sometimes it hurts to hear idiots talk sometimes...

sometimes the idiots are sometimes posting on gmf sometimes under stupid superhero names sometimes.


i don't give a fuck about palin, but if you're going to rip on her, learn some sentence structure.

[eleveneighteen]

Read the NY Times piece about Palin giving jobs to friends and chasing vendettas. She's MORE crooked than the Washington establishment.

[Creepnation]

You can post all you want about Palin some people just refuse to believe anything negative about her. I can just imagine what things would be like if the democrats put out a candidate with that much inexperience and baggage. It would be attack after attack.

[Hanover Fist]

You can post all you want about Palin some people just refuse to believe anything negative about her. I can just imagine what things would be like if the democrats put out a candidate with that much inexperience and baggage. It would be attack after attack.


You mean like Obama?

[Creepnation]

I don't think he's quite as inexperienced as she is. Baggage, maybe.

Could you imagine if he had a 17 year old daughter who was pregnant? Christ.

[Emjanss]

You can post all you want about Palin some people just refuse to believe anything negative about her. I can just imagine what things would be like if the democrats put out a candidate with that much inexperience and baggage. It would be attack after attack.
shouldn't be hard to imagine what it would be like if the Democrats put forth a presidential candidate that has 0 years of executive experience and lots of personal baggage.

He'd get a total pass on the baggage from the media and a constant drumbeat that running for president is experience for being President.

[Creepnation]

Please.

[Kilgore]

If Palin can't keep her own family in check. Like little thing such as keeping tabs on her knocked up daughter. Those little things are magnified 1000x as a VP or even President. What is she going to let get by her this time?

[Genius]

It's nice to see that not only has Palin motivated the extreme nutjob right-wing base, she's also brought the extreme nutjob left-wing-can't-put-a-complete-sentence-together base out of the woodwork. Now, if only we could get all of these idiots into one room...

[Smokestack]

shouldn't be hard to imagine what it would be like if the Democrats put forth a presidential candidate that has 0 years of executive experience and lots of personal baggage.

He'd get a total pass on the baggage from the media and a constant drumbeat that running for president is experience for being President.

"Total pass on the baggage from the media"? Where were you for Rev. Wright, the "bitter" controversy, questions about his patriotism, if he's a Muslim, etc. etc. etc.?

This is one of those phrases that's thrown out there as some kind of truism when there's no truth to it at all, ranking up there with the assertion that Obama's supporters believe he's a messiah that can part waters. C'mon.

[Creepnation]

I wasn't even planning on voting for Obama this election, I was probably going to vote 3rd party. But now that Palin is in the picture I have to vote for Obama for sure, it would be too fucking scary having that woman as our President when McCain dies.

[redsox39]

Your the reason why people are allowing someone who is obviously not ready to be vice president to be voted into office. I swear, you sound like someone with down syndrome.

And your party is about to vote someone directly to the Big seat who is not qualified. At least every single day she is VP she has that many more days of qualification over Barry the Pretender who has nothing to show except for "biden his time" in seats where he did...nothing. (Pun intended)

My favorite part of this is that you guys are actually attacking the VP. When was the last time anyone gave a shit about the VP?

(Let me answer for you with predicability: John McCain is old and is about to die. She is one heartbeat away from the presidency. Thanks.)

[redsox39]

I don't think he's quite as inexperienced as she is. Baggage, maybe.

Could you imagine if he had a 17 year old daughter who was pregnant? Christ.

As long as she had an Abortion, everything would be ok.

[Smokestack]

And your party is about to vote someone directly to the Big seat who is not qualified. At least every single day she is VP she has that many more days of qualification over Barry the Pretender who has nothing to show except for "biden his time" in seats where he did...nothing. (Pun intended)


Thanks for alerting us that the pun was intended. It would have been difficult to figure that out since you used his name rather than the word "biding."

[Hanover Fist]

"Total pass on the baggage from the media"? Where were you for Rev. Wright, the "bitter" controversy, questions about his patriotism, if he's a Muslim, etc. etc. etc.?

This is one of those phrases that's thrown out there as some kind of truism when there's no truth to it at all, ranking up there with the assertion that Obama's supporters believe he's a messiah that can part waters. C'mon.

I will believe that Obama doesn't have a pass from the media when they ask him about violating the Logan Act on his recent trip to Iraq.

[redsox39]

Thanks for alerting us that the pun was intended. It would have been difficult to figure that out since you used his name rather than the word "biding."

You never know with this crowd, I mean, you support Obama and that works out fine with your logic, so I thought I would point this out, just in case.

[The Batman]

And your party is about to vote someone directly to the Big seat who is not qualified. At least every single day she is VP she has that many more days of qualification over Barry the Pretender who has nothing to show except for "biden his time" in seats where he did...nothing. (Pun intended)

My favorite part of this is that you guys are actually attacking the VP. When was the last time anyone gave a shit about the VP?

(Let me answer for you with predicability: John McCain is old and is about to die. She is one heartbeat away from the presidency. Thanks.)

Not my party. Personally, I hate this two party system. I LOVE the republican fiancial system and I LOVE the democratic social system. There is no one that seems to fit that criteria right now besides Ron Paul.
The only reason a VP is important in this election is not just because McCain could die of a lot of things, but as Cheney has proved, turns out a vice president does have a lot of power to do a lot of things besides being a deciding ovte.

[Creepnation]

The media doesn't ask tough questions period. Just like there are no true debates anymore.

It's not that the media is left or right winged, it's just that they're invalids. It's all about entertainment. It's basically a giant American Idol competition now, actually it's not even that giant, im pretty sure more people voted for American Idol than they do president.

[Hanover Fist]

The media doesn't ask tough questions period. Just like there are no true debates anymore.

It's not that the media is left or right winged, it's just that they're invalids. It's all about entertainment. It's basically a giant American Idol competition now, actually it's not even that giant, im pretty sure more people voted for American Idol than they do president.


It seemed to me that Charles Gibson asked Sarah Palin about every tough question he could think of. I don't recall Gibson asking Obama anywhere near the sort of tough questions he asked her when he interviewed Obama. If you compare the two, Gibsons interview of Obama seemed more like a campaign commercial than anything else, while his interview of Palin looked to be a gotcha hit job. I have no problem whatsoever about asking tough questions of candidates and I love when interviewers don't accept typical "political" speak answers and keep pressing for real answers.
I will give Obama credit for appearing on O'Reilly, Bill put some of the toughest questions I have seen to date asked of Obama. Why the mainstream media won't put as much focus on Obama in the 20 or so months he's been running for President as they have on Palin in the short time she has been running with McCain is beyond me.
There's been almost no mention of the shenanigans involving Rezko, about how Obama lied about crafting the stimulus bill, about how Obama lied about being on the banking committee, about how he rails about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but was one of the biggest recipients in the senate of donations from the two institutions.

[Creepnation]

So Gibson is the mainstream media but O'Reilly isn't? Bill O'Reilly is always boasting about his ratings, how they're higher than CNN and MSNBC, doesn't that make him the main stream media?

[Hanover Fist]

So Gibson is the mainstream media but O'Reilly isn't? Bill O'Reilly is always boasting about his ratings, how they're higher than CNN and MSNBC, doesn't that make him the main stream media?

Obamas first tough interview comes almost 2 years after he started running for President?

[vasili denisov]

It seemed to me that Charles Gibson asked Sarah Palin about every tough question he could think of.
I never saw the interview, only the transcripts, so these may have been omitted, but from what I read that was a puffball interview lacking questions on a number of important subjects. Here would be a few:

-Troopergate: every aspect of it. You were for an investigation, now you're against it. Why? Why are people refusing to be subpoenaed now if they previously consented?

-Taxes and budgets: you heavily taxed oil companies, then returned the money to citizens, then went to the federal government for projects of only state or local benefit. Should all mayors and governors follow this approach? Why or why not?

-You have a son who is serving in the army of this country and a husband who was in a party advocating for the secession from this country. Do you see a paradox there, why or why not?

-Iraq. You've stated in the recent past that you hope the administration has an exit strategy for Iraq. Under what conditions would you be willing to leave Iraq? If there was the possibility that the Sunni minority would be persecuted when american troops left, but within the US there was no support for a continued presence, would you be for an exit?

Those would be the ones off the top of my head. Again, it was an easy interview and she looked lousy.
I will believe that Obama doesn't have a pass from the media when they ask him about violating the Logan Act on his recent trip to Iraq.
What's your basis for that accusation, other than Amir Taheri's column? I think the press is staying away from that until they can substantiate the quote from the Iraq Foreign Minister, since Taheri was already caught for his false story about Iran instituting yellow stars.

[Hanover Fist]

What's your basis for that accusation, other than Amir Taheri's column? I think the press is staying away from that until they can substantiate the quote from the Iraq Foreign Minister, since Taheri was already caught for his false story about Iran instituting yellow stars.

I'm not accusing him of anything, I'm just wondering why the media hasn't even asked him about it. For something as significant as what is alleged to have happened, it seems rather preposterous that they haven't even asked him about it. It would seem they would ask him if he indeed did what Hoshyar Zebari said he did and if not, then what exactly did he discuss with Zebari.
I would love to hear Obamas answer to that question personally.

just thought I'd add this:

donations for the 2008 election cycle


McCain -----------------------Obama
Fannie Mae $6,550--------------$137,950
Freddie Mac $9,100-------------$68,750
Lehman Bros $117,500----------$370,524
AIG $36,875-------------------$75,899

[Creepnation]

Obamas first tough interview comes almost 2 years after he started running for President?


How can you answer a question with a question? Can't answer?

[Claydon]

So, apparently Palin had her private email hacked and her emails published on gawker.com. I think this is disgusting, and I am sure it is illegal.

[Hanover Fist]

How can you answer a question with a question? Can't answer?

Of course O'Reilly is part of the MSM and libs hammer him for being part of the vast right wing conspiracy, yet he has been the only member of the media to sit down face to face with Obama and ask him some tough questions rather than swoon over the Obamessiah. In all the interviews Obama has done he never gets asked even close to the sort of edgy questions that Gibson was asking Palin, not by a long shot.
The difference between the Gibson interviews of Palin and Obama were striking.
I'm not saying that asking tough questions is unfair by any means. I think very few subjects are out of bounds for presidential/vice presidential candidates. Palin should be willing to go in front of the country and expect those questions, but so should the other 3 candidates.
There are still questions I would like to see McCain answer, mainly on illegal immigration and torture.
If in 5 minutes I can think of 20 tough questions that I could ask every candidate, how is it that our media can't come up with them in 6 months, 12 months, 18 months?

[Mustard]

So, apparently Palin had her private email hacked and her emails published on gawker.com. I think this is disgusting, and I am sure it is illegal.
Looks pretty legit to me. Shameful to say the least.

...And seriously? who the fuck uses Yahoo? It was only a matter of time before her account got haxored.

[Claydon]

Looks pretty legit to me. Shameful to say the least.

...And seriously? who the fuck uses Yahoo? It was only a matter of time before her account got haxored.

I concur, but still it is disgusting.

Now if it had titty pics of her...I would not be bitching.

Cuz...you know...Im a slave to the tittays.

[Mustard]

As am I... ah I remember we do have the fakes tho on like page 4 of this very thread.

[Rover]

-You have a son who is serving in the army of this country and a husband who was in a party advocating for the secession from this country. Do you see a paradox there, why or why not?Should it be illegal to associate with certain political parties? Should these parties be outlawed, why or why not? Should association be made illegal, even if these parties do not advocate the violent overthrowing of the United States government? What other thoughts would you like banned?

[UNC]

I love her in Baby Mama

[Creepnation]

Should it be illegal to associate with certain political parties? Should these parties be outlawed, why or why not? Should association be made illegal, even if these parties do not advocate the violent overthrowing of the United States government? What other thoughts would you like banned?


No, it shouldnt be illegal, but it is a little odd that you would want to break away from the United States, and then try and assume a position running it.

[Hanover Fist]

No, it shouldnt be illegal, but it is a little odd that you would want to break away from the United States, and then try and assume a position running it.


Her husband is running for President too? I'm confused.

[Creepnation]

Oh well im sure she was going to move to the lower 48 after her husband and his political party broke away. My bad.

[Rover]

No, it shouldnt be illegal, but it is a little odd that you would want to break away from the United States, and then try and assume a position running it.A. They want a vote they claim they were denied in 1958. Just a vote. This isn't SC launching cannonballs into Ft. Sumter.

B. The spouse of the VP doesn't really "run" anything, unless you think women really belong in the kitchen.

C. Gov. Palin has never been a member of the AIP, according to the AIP.

[Creepnation]

Of course O'Reilly is part of the MSM and libs hammer him for being part of the vast right wing conspiracy, yet he has been the only member of the media to sit down face to face with Obama and ask him some tough questions rather than swoon over the Obamessiah. In all the interviews Obama has done he never gets asked even close to the sort of edgy questions that Gibson was asking Palin, not by a long shot.
The difference between the Gibson interviews of Palin and Obama were striking.
I'm not saying that asking tough questions is unfair by any means. I think very few subjects are out of bounds for presidential/vice presidential candidates. Palin should be willing to go in front of the country and expect those questions, but so should the other 3 candidates.
There are still questions I would like to see McCain answer, mainly on illegal immigration and torture.
If in 5 minutes I can think of 20 tough questions that I could ask every candidate, how is it that our media can't come up with them in 6 months, 12 months, 18 months?


Palin is probably the first one they've been tough on then, out of any of them. And that was one interview. I can't remember Bush answering a single tough question the last 8 years in office.

And Palin's questions wernt all that tough to begin with, and technically, that's the type of questions they should be answering anyways.

If any of the candidates had to start focusing on issues instead of rhetoric, they would all be in trouble.

[BusterPortugal]

It seemed to me that Charles Gibson asked Sarah Palin about every tough question he could think of. I don't recall Gibson asking Obama anywhere near the sort of tough questions he asked her when he interviewed Obama. If you compare the two, Gibsons interview of Obama seemed more like a campaign commercial than anything else, while his interview of Palin looked to be a gotcha hit job. I have no problem whatsoever about asking tough questions of candidates and I love when interviewers don't accept typical "political" speak answers and keep pressing for real answers.


Oh come on. It wasn't THAT long ago that Gibson (and Stephanopoulos) was pressing Obama about Rev. Wright, William Ayers, flag wearing/patriotism and other "gotcha" items at the Philadelphia debate. I don't think those items would be found in any of Obama's campaign commercials.

[Rover]

I will admit that Gibson explaining capital gains and taxes to Obama was funny. Funny, but worrisome, if he's actually in a position to approve a budget. That should make it into a McCain campaign commercial.

[BiōHazard]

McCain camp seeks investigation over reported e-mail hack (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/17/mccain-camp-seeks-investigation-over-reported-e-mail-hack/) Posted: 07:30 PM ET

From CNN's Alexander Mooney (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnns-alexander-mooney/), CNN's Carol Cratty (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnns-carol-cratty/), CNN's Kevin Bohn (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnns-kevin-bohn/)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/09/17/art.palin.gi.jpg Palin's personal e-mail was reportedly hacked Wednesday.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

(CNN) — John McCain's campaign said Wednesday it has contacted "appropriate authorities" over a report that Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin's personal e-mail had been hacked.
"This is a shocking invasion of the Governor's privacy and a violation of law," campaign manager Rick Davis said in a statement. "The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them. We will have no further comment."
The statement came hours after a user on the Web site WikiLeaks said he had gained access to Palin's Yahoo e-mail account and gained access. Screenshots of the e-mail messages and photos of the Alaska governor's family were published on that Web site and later on gossip Web site gawker.com.
FBI Spokesman Eric Gonzalez in Anchorage, Alaska confirms to CNN an investigation is underway.
"We are aware of the allegations and we are coordinating with Secret Service as far as the allegation that someone has hacked into Governor Palin's personal e-mail account," he said. "We are going to be working a joint investigation with Secret Service on this."

Brian Hale, an FBI spokesman in Washington, also confirms the FBI has been contacted about the incident. Two federal law enforcement sources say the FBI and Secret Service would have concurrent jurisdiction normally on a matter such as this, but it remains to be seen if the Secret Service will take the lead on the investigation because Palin is a protectee.
The e-mails shown include one from July between Palin and Alaska Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell and another dated earlier this week from Amy McCorkell, the woman Palin appointed to the Governor's Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse in 2007.
Palin has faced criticism for using a private e-mail account to conduct some state business — prompting critics to allege she was attempting to hide information from the public record.




Oh god. they are willing to go at any length to find dirt on her.

This is exactly why i can never get into politics.
Backstabbing liars if you ask me....
Obama=No experience
Palin=Same.
Does any of this matter when they have Cabinet telling them what to do anyway?
No.
Just vote and STFU about experience people.

[Cornelius]

Just vote and STFU about experience people.

Cheers.

[kid_vidrio]

Her husband is running for President too? I'm confused.
Michelle Obama isn't running for President either, no matter when or how she became proud to be American.

[The Batman]

Does any of this matter when they have Cabinet telling them what to do anyway?
No.
Just vote and STFU about experience people.
That is a very fair point, and you know what your probably right, but I would say experience would dictate what you would choose to do in certain situations and show if your borderline retarded like the people we have in the White House right now.

[kid_vidrio]

here are a couple of entertaining links:

http://www.blackbottom.com/watch.php?v=WdBJd9b9i8A

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

http://dwb.adn.com/front/story/5572779p-5504444c.html

[BiōHazard]

Actually tell me a couple countries that actually genuinely like us and/or our president(excluding countries we give help/funding to).

[vasili denisov]

I'm not accusing him of anything, I'm just wondering why the media hasn't even asked him about it. For something as significant as what is alleged to have happened, it seems rather preposterous that they haven't even asked him about it.
I know his campaign already issued a denial. You're saying media bias is proved because reporters aren't following up on a claim based around one quote written by someone who's utterly fabricated stories in the past. That's not being left-wing, that's having common sense.
Should it be illegal to associate with certain political parties? Should these parties be outlawed, why or why not? Should association be made illegal, even if these parties do not advocate the violent overthrowing of the United States government? What other thoughts would you like banned?
I think of all possible interview questions, this was the most innocuous. You've also turned one query (how do you reconcile these two different ideas of belonging to and serving your country) into another, that any such question implies that such an idea is verboten. I think any family where one member serves in the military and another belongs to a secessionist party would elicit the question of how the family juggles the ideal of belonging first and foremost to a state (which many Alaskans feel) and belonging to a country.
A. They want a vote they claim they were denied in 1958. Just a vote. This isn't SC launching cannonballs into Ft. Sumter.

I think you're being disingenuous. Below is what the party's founder said in an interview in 1991. Palin is fond of the word "hellbent" to describe the enemies of the United States. Someone who describes their anger towards the federal government as comparable to the fires of hell seems to fit that word aptly.

I don't consider this a side issue. If you're trying to discern someone's political philosophy, their reaction to their spouse belonging to a secessionist party is of some interest. It's of importance to this country, of importance to the Mideast, where the Kurds wish to establish their own state, and of course, importance in the former Soviet Union, which is rife with secessionist sentiments.

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government," Vogler said in the interview, in which he talked extensively about his desire for Alaskan secession, the key goal of the AIP.
"And I won't be buried under their damn flag," Vogler continued in the interview, which also touched on his disappointment with the American judicial system. "I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."
At another point, Volger advocated renouncing allegiance to the United States. In the course of denouncing Federal regulation over land, he said:
"And then you get mad. And you say, the hell with them. And you renounce allegiance, and you pledge your efforts, your effects, your honor, your life to Alaska."

[Pollo]

anyone catch Palin's interview with Hannity? anything of note? hopefully it was much better than the sit down with Gibson.

[Axel]

Actually tell me a couple countries that actually genuinely like us and/or our president.You should distinguish between “you” and "your president", because at least the enlightened part of the world is capable of that so far.

But if Americans would chose a pro-creationism and anti-abortion zealot for VP, exactly that part of the world might lose that ability.

[Creepnation]

anyone catch Palin's interview with Hannity? anything of note? hopefully it was much better than the sit down with Gibson.


Im sure Hannity really threw her some tough ones!

[Rover]

I think of all possible interview questions, this was the most innocuous. You've also turned one query (how do you reconcile these two different ideas of belonging to and serving your country) into another, that any such question implies that such an idea is verboten. I think any family where one member serves in the military and another belongs to a secessionist party would elicit the question of how the family juggles the ideal of belonging first and foremost to a state (which many Alaskans feel) and belonging to a country.Yes, how did those poor Civil War families manage? The struggles they must have dealt with as they tried to reconcile their differences between Union and State.

[redsox39]

Not my party. Personally, I hate this two party system. I LOVE the republican fiancial system and I LOVE the democratic social system. There is no one that seems to fit that criteria right now besides Ron Paul.
The only reason a VP is important in this election is not just because McCain could die of a lot of things, but as Cheney has proved, turns out a vice president does have a lot of power to do a lot of things besides being a deciding ovte.

Batman! I love you!

That is how I describe myself, even in my intro back when. I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I usually fall in those two categories.

[Stax]

anyone catch Palin's interview with Hannity? anything of note? hopefully it was much better than the sit down with Gibson.

You mean the one where he asked basic policy questions, she danced around and said nothing?

[Claydon]

You mean the one where he asked basic policy questions, she danced around and said nothing?

You mean she was acting like a politician?

[kid_vidrio]

You mean she was acting like what she says she is not?

[Stax]

You mean she was acting like a politician?

Not knowing things isn't being a politician, LYING about things is being a politician.

[Hanover Fist]

So the Palin E-mail hacker turns out to be the son of a Democrat State Representative. Nice job.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/sep/18/tennessean-state-reps-son-contacted-palin-e-mail-p/

[kid_vidrio]

If I wanted to fuck shit up, I'd do it and use someone else's handle, say 'Hanover Fist' or something.

[Yelram]

You should distinguish between “you” and "your president", because at least the enlightened part of the world is capable of that so far.

But if Americans would chose a pro-creationism and anti-abortion zealot for VP, exactly that part of the world might lose that ability.

Oh yes, our presidents stance on cosmology, and abortion REALLY affects the price of your expensive hair Gel. If you fucks in Europe care that much about our domestic social policies, you've got major issues. It seems that most of Europe has swung towards the conservative side in the past 8 years.

[kid_vidrio]

You will note from the title of this thread that it is about the VP Candidate Sarah Palin, not the 'president' or any 'fucks' in Europe.
I already moved a shitload of threads that were digressing. Pay attention or deletions will ensue.

[vasili denisov]

Yes, how did those poor Civil War families manage? The struggles they must have dealt with as they tried to reconcile their differences between Union and State.
So, when asked about the Alaskan Independence Party, she should mention a conflict that left half a million americans dead? Not being a high-paid campaign consultant, my guess might be wrong, but I'm going to guess that's a really, really bad idea.
So the Palin E-mail hacker turns out to be the son of a Democrat State Representative. Nice job.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/sep/18/tennessean-state-reps-son-contacted-palin-e-mail-p/
If it leads to a state investigation, maybe the McCain campaign can lend them some lawyers to quash it.

[eleveneighteen]

So what about more discussion on her husband, Todd, and his being "looped-in" on emails pertaining to official State business. Also being present in meetings regarding the same when it was inappropriate on all counts. Is he running the show and she's a pretty face just to get elected?

[kid_vidrio]

I'd like to know why some people feel he is so irrelevant or untouchable in the discussion of her.
He's a substantial part of her ability to do what she does, a high school sweetheart, and generally a good indicator of who she is.

[eleveneighteen]

Agreed. So to me, we need to know more about him, and what his involvement has been with government in Alaska. We will need to know whether she needs him to be effective and whether we can expect him to have heavy influence if they were to win.

[eleveneighteen]

Here's the link to the Times article I referenced earlier:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=sarah%20palin%20vendettas&st=cse&oref=slogin

[redsox39]

I'd like to know why some people feel he is so irrelevant or untouchable in the discussion of her.
He's a substantial part of her ability to do what she does, a high school sweetheart, and generally a good indicator of who she is.

So we can also get a basic understanding of who Obama is from his Wife and others he surrounds himself with?

[eleveneighteen]

So we can also get a basic understanding of who Obama is from his Wife and others he surrounds himself with?

If she attends official federal government meetings and gets official fed emails, then sure, we would need to know. Todd Palin is in on meetings and emails pertaining to Alaska business. My feeling is spouses should not be a party to official business.

[redsox39]

So we can figure out who "SHE" is by disecting her husband. We cannot find out who "HE" is by disecting his wife.

Michelle gives a speech in a public forum, has published articles, but is not allowed public scrutiny? Really?

[Desperado]

So we can figure out who "SHE" is by disecting her husband. We cannot find out who "HE" is by disecting his wife.

Michelle gives a speech in a public forum, has published articles, but is not allowed public scrutiny? Really?


Are you reading...

If she attends official federal government meetings and gets official fed emails, then sure, we would need to know. Todd Palin is in on meetings and emails pertaining to Alaska business. My feeling is spouses should not be a party to official business.

[redsox39]

I got that. He is involved in her work. I get it. I was responding to this
He's a substantial part of her ability to do what she does, a high school sweetheart, and generally a good indicator of who she is.

But in Michelle's case, she is a good wife who knows her place. Obama knows better than to dicuss work with a mere "woman". She would never overstep her boundries and help shape one of her husbands opinions. Is this what I am to believe? She gives speeches, is highly educated, publishes opinions, but is in a vacuum when it comes to her husband politics?

[kid_vidrio]

So we can also get a basic understanding of who Obama is from his Wife and others he surrounds himself with?
I have found the reports on her relevant and interesting.
And when you read/see/hear them in full context they don't typically have the same meaning as the original assertion.
I think he deserves the same because yes, I do think Michelle Obama is relevant to her husband.

[Desperado]

I got that. He is involved in her work. I get it. I was responding to this


But in Michelle's case, she is a good wife who knows her place. Obama knows better than to dicuss work with a mere "woman". She would never overstep her boundries and help shape one of her husbands opinions. Is this what I am to believe? She gives speeches, is highly educated, publishes opinions, but is in a vacuum when it comes to her husband politics?


I see what you're saying about her relevance... But I think when it comes to "her husband politics" shes not as involved as Palin's husband was. Hence nobody really giving a shit about her.

[redsox39]

Glad we are all close to the same page now.

[Rover]

I see what you're saying about her relevance... But I think when it comes to "her husband politics" shes not as involved as Palin's husband was. Hence nobody really giving a shit about her.How in the fuck do you know how involved Todd Palin was in the Alaskan government? You hadn't even heard of the man 2 weeks ago, and now you believe he was running a shadow government.

[kareyn01]

How in the fuck do you know how involved Todd Palin was in the Alaskan government? You hadn't even heard of the man 2 weeks ago, and now you believe he was running a shadow government.

Well, he was involved enough for the Alaska Legislative Council to decide to issue him a subpoena in the Troopergate scandal, an investigation that was unanimously agreed upon by a nonpartisan groups consisting of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats. And there is also the issue of Sarah Palin copying him on official state emails. I'd say that's more involved than Michelle Obama has been shown to be to this point.

Look, I think that if you send your spouse out on the stump, they're fair game. When your husband could be charged with contempt for ignoring a federal subpoena, that's fair game as well. One thing I don't think RedSox understands, though, is there's a difference between Obama saying the campaigns should make families off-limits, and the media and those of us on a message board doing the same thing.

[kid_vidrio]

one thing i'll give sarah palin - she finished college.
she must have had a few obstacles too, as she had to go to five schools in six years to get it done.
college doesn't teach you much that you really use (especially undergrad) in real life, but people who can keep their head down and get the job done are frequently more deserving of a second look than people who haven't.
here's some more on all that: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjGaAjQoUCE3VQ4N3M852LEdOVtwD9304JE80

[Desperado]

Well, he was involved enough for the Alaska Legislative Council to decide to issue him a subpoena in the Troopergate scandal, an investigation that was unanimously agreed upon by a nonpartisan groups consisting of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats. And there is also the issue of Sarah Palin copying him on official state emails. I'd say that's more involved than Michelle Obama has been shown to be to this point.

Look, I think that if you send your spouse out on the stump, they're fair game. When your husband could be charged with contempt for ignoring a federal subpoena, that's fair game as well. One thing I don't think RedSox understands, though, is there's a difference between Obama saying the campaigns should make families off-limits, and the media and those of us on a message board doing the same thing.

QFT

[The Batman]

I have found the reports on her relevant and interesting.
And when you read/see/hear them in full context they don't typically have the same meaning as the original assertion.
I think he deserves the same because yes, I do think Michelle Obama is relevant to her husband.

You know anyone who says she is irrelevant and thinks that whole thing with is pastor is relevant, than you have to rethink that one. I think she is obviously relevant like most of us, because your spouse has a big impact on your life, and most certainly more relevant than a pastor.
And to this Palin thing, her husband is relevant and the fact that her husband is in on all this government business is more relevant than anything because he has no business getting information like that.

[Rover]

And to this Palin thing, her husband is relevant and the fact that her husband is in on all this government business is more relevant than anything because he has no business getting information like that.Hillary Rodham Clinton, First Lady 1993-2001, Co-president 1993-1995, Health Care Czar(ina) 1993-1994. Yes, let's have a debate on how much input the spouse of the chief executive should have on government policy. Todd Palin being copied on emails isn't weird. I get copied on 100's of emails a week at work. Most of which have no relevance to my job at all.

[Desperado]

Hillary Rodham Clinton, First Lady 1993-2001, Co-president 1993-1995, Health Care Czar(ina) 1993-1994. Yes, let's have a debate on how much input the spouse of the chief executive should have on government policy. Todd Palin being copied on emails isn't weird. I get copied on 100's of emails a week at work. Most of which have no relevance to my job at all.


Did he get appointed to something in the Alaskan Government? I remember reading that Bill appointed Hillary to chair a commitee.

[VoxAngelikus]

Hillary Rodham Clinton, First Lady 1993-2001, Co-president 1993-1995, Health Care Czar(ina) 1993-1994. Yes, let's have a debate on how much input the spouse of the chief executive should have on government policy. Todd Palin being copied on emails isn't weird. I get copied on 100's of emails a week at work. Most of which have no relevance to my job at all.


I'm not saying I think Todd Palin is implicit in anything. In fact, I don't know enough facts to even give you an opinion. But I do know that the part in boldface is not a logically sound argument. Just because things are one way for you doesn't mean they are the same for Todd Palin.

[redsox39]

Well, he was involved enough for the Alaska Legislative Council to decide to issue him a subpoena in the Troopergate scandal, an investigation that was unanimously agreed upon by a nonpartisan groups consisting of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats. And there is also the issue of Sarah Palin copying him on official state emails. I'd say that's more involved than Michelle Obama has been shown to be to this point.

Look, I think that if you send your spouse out on the stump, they're fair game. When your husband could be charged with contempt for ignoring a federal subpoena, that's fair game as well. One thing I don't think RedSox understands, though, is there's a difference between Obama saying the campaigns should make families off-limits, and the media and those of us on a message board doing the same thing.

I get it, but what is fair for one is fair for all...sounds like something Obama would say anyways...

[Morfin]

Rover: You get cc'd at work because, right or wrong, people want you to see them. But the point is that you are part of that business organization.

Personally, I could care less about Todd Palin and his political beliefs. But I do raise an eyebrow to why a Governor is sending official business e-mails to someone who is not part of the government -- spouse or friend or political contributor, it doesn't matter.

[redsox39]

Rover: You get cc'd at work because, right or wrong, people want you to see them. But the point is that you are part of that business organization.

Personally, I could care less about Todd Palin and his political beliefs. But I do raise an eyebrow to why a Governor is sending official business e-mails to someone who is not part of the government -- spouse or friend or political contributor, it doesn't matter.

It happens all the time, including the President of the United States, let alone the Gov'nor of a Glacier.

Are we going to censor the dinner conversation too? Get out of here.

Did the emails Say "TOP SECRET" in big red letters on them? Then who really gives a fuck except for Petty Democrats trying to get a finger grasp on something, ANYTHING, to smear the woman with that will stick.

Apparently, this woman must e a terrifying figure.

[Morfin]

You may find this hard to understand, but, yes. In my job (I'm a lawyer), I cannot discuss specifics of matters with anyone, even my wife.

Now, that may be difficult to proscribe in terms of dinner conversation. But an e-mail is a document, one that can be distributed. To the extent that official documents are being sent to non-official people, where they can be further distributed, where they can inadvertently be disclosed, yes, that is a problem.

Going one step further (hopefully your ADD has not kicked in yet). Our laws against insider trading specifically prohibit all of these discussions. And to the extent that Mr. CEO tells his wife something and she spills the beans to her friends who then dump or buy stock based on that info, yes, it is a problem (i.e., civil and criminal).

[Soup Nazi]

Maybe its just me, but I do not see the rationale behind anything being off-limits, at least for the media and discussions on message boards. We are electing these people to the highest office in the world and like it or not, the vast majority of the voting public cares much more about these individuals' character than the actual issues at hand. So at least in my mind, Todd Palin is as much open to scrutiny as Michelle Obama, Jill Biden or Cindy McCain.

If people care about Reverend Wright, or the Pentecostal church in terms of character, why the fuck should a spouse be off-limits? I would imagine that a spouse likely is a better indicator of an individuals character than their religious institution they attend.

[halfabubbleoff]

You may find this hard to understand, but, yes. In my job (I'm a lawyer), I cannot discuss specifics of matters with anyone, even my wife....

I'm with Morfin on this one. My job requires me to work with a government contractor. now understand, I don't work for the government, I work for someone who works for the government. Still, there are things that we are simply not to discuss outside the section fo the office we are in. I even have people here who aren't allowed to say WHERE they work, even to their wives and families.

I have been fairlyquiet on this issue sinply because I don't have all the background info as to what emails were forwrded, etc. Morfin is right, though. If those emails contained official state business, there are legal remifications to them being sent along.

Any person who works in the White House knows that there are issues that cannot be discussed. While your spouse must be your anchor to relaity and, often, your most trusted advisor, they can't know everything.

Morfin's point about insider trading is doubly true of govenrment "secrets". It is criminal to discuss even some mundane issues outside the office. So a spouse having too much acces to their partner's information or doings would be something that would definately raise concerns.

I also agree with the stement from Soup Nazi. Seeing someone's spouse does give you a lot of insight as to the person. A spouse ususaly has the most influence on a person's life and decisions. They show what traits the individual places the most emphasis on. Granted, there are limits. I would say that some topics are off limits. I would never ask a canidate how their sex life is (with thier spouse or otherwise). Some issues are personal and should not be delved into, even if they would have some bearing on the person's performance. That is jsut a matter of being polite and showing repsect for them as a person first and a candiate second.

[Genius]

It happens all the time, including the President of the United States, let alone the Gov'nor of a Glacier.

Are we going to censor the dinner conversation too? Get out of here.

Did the emails Say "TOP SECRET" in big red letters on them? Then who really gives a fuck except for Petty Democrats trying to get a finger grasp on something, ANYTHING, to smear the woman with that will stick.

Apparently, this woman must e a terrifying figure.
So you would have been perfectly ok with Obama CCing congressional emails to Jeremiah Wright? Don't give me holier-than-thou, "petty Democrat" arguments when that's been the entire McCain campaign to this point. McCain smeared Obama using peripheral figures, and cited his lack of experience as reason not to elect. Now, Palin is getting smeared because of peripheral figures and people are citing her lack of experience as reason not to elect. It's a little late in the process to be bitching about this kind of shit, when the McCain camp brought it into play in the first place.

[Yelram]

So you would have been perfectly ok with Obama CCing congressional emails to Jeremiah Wright?

You mean like Bill and Hill?

[Tar Heel]

Damn Yelram.

I came in this thread specifically because I haven't seen you post in awhile and this is what you give me????

I was expecting one of those classic ranttastic pwnership posts.

[Yelram]

Damn Yelram.

I came in this thread specifically because I haven't seen you post in awhile and this is what you give me????

I was expecting one of those classic ranttastic pwnership posts.

Hey, I was looking for something, and here it is.

A Precedent from the Clinton Years
Finally, no case to this point holds that executive privilege applies to conversations between Executive officials and persons outside the government, such as corporate officers of Enron and other companies.
The closest the courts have come to extending the privilege to such discussions was in the 1993 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Hillary Clinton. That case raised the question whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA") applied to the health-care-reform panel chaired by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. And that question, in turn, depended on whether the First Lady is, or is not, an officer or employee of the government.
Under FACA, if a person who is not an officer or employee of the government is a member of a government group, then the group's proceedings must be open to the public. The health-care-reform panel had kept its proceedings private, so if the First Lady was not a government officer or employee, it had broken the law. Fortunately for the Clinton Administration, however, the court held that the First Lady is indeed an officer or employee of the government, and FACA thus did not apply.
The court strained the statutory language in order to reach this conclusion - but why? The answer is that a contrary result--to be precise, a finding that the statute's requirement of public meetings applied to the health-care-reform panel--would have raised a difficult constitutional question. And, under a well-established principle of legal interpretation, courts construe statutes in order to avoid difficult constitutional questions. The D.C. Circuit applied that principle in this case.
According to the D.C. Circuit, the difficult constitutional question was this: Does executive privilege extend to conversations between Executive officials and persons outside the government? If so, then FACA unconstitutionally violates that privilege by requiring those conversations to be disclosed. Had the court ruled that the First Lady was neither a government officer nor a government employee, it would have had to decide the difficult constitutional question--for FACA then would have required disclosure of deliberations between the (non-government) First Lady and the executive branch government officials on the commission.



That ruling more or less allows there to be privileged information shared between a government official and their spouse, because it grants the label of "government official" to the first lady.

[redsox39]

Hey, I was looking for something, and here it is.

A Precedent from the Clinton Years



That ruling more or less allows there to be privileged information shared between a government official and their spouse, because it grants the label of "government official" to the first lady.

Wait, are you saying this is another dead end for the Palin dirt sniffers? Dammit!

[Yelram]

Wait, are you saying this is another dead end for the Palin dirt sniffers? Dammit!
I dont see why being in a secession party is a bad idea when the federal government is overextending its bounds over your state either. I mean shit, if the government started taking powers reserved for the state, and noone did anything about it, we'd be in some shit(/sarcasm)

[Cornelius]

A Precedent from the Clinton Years

Good find. Puts a lot of the current uproar into perspective.

[The Batman]

You know, most of this thread has been about why Palin is a bad choice for VP, which is obvious to some of us. Besides the reform thing, why do people think she would be a good choice?

[redsox39]

I have alot of lefty "friends" who are so pissed McCain picked someone so "un-qualified" to be his running mate. As I choke back my laughter, they continue with "she is just a gimmick to get the women vote".

I say so what?

Here's the thing. Dumb people vote. Nothing you can do about it, ya know?
For every Woman voting for Palin because she is a woman, there is a black man voting for Obama because he is a black man. Don't pretend that we don’t have stupid people on both sides. You have to get them to the poll. Are you telling me that out of all the democrats, Obama was the most qualified guy to lead the nation in the whole party? A guy with no executive Exp? Come on, everyone plays the game.
Obama doesn't try to play the race card up himself, but he is the face of the most expensive race card ever played.
Same with Palin. She isn't going around saying "vote for me, I gave birth!", but she is the face of the most expensive gender card ever. (Edit**Maybe second most Expensive)
Some people think a person who shares their same ideas on Abortion makes them fit to run a country.
Some people think a person who shares their same ideas on Religion makes them fit to run a country.

Games are played on every level, and the objective is to get all your bone heads out to vote. If it weren't for the idiots, we would have about 10,000 people voting each election.
If Hitler were to run for office tomorrow, there would be some Germans voting for him because he was a German.
This is why it was so shocking and reveling when Al Gore couldn’t carry his own state. Voting numbers jump dramatically in a state where a person is from when running for president. Usually FOR their guy because, well shucks, he is from Tennessee.
The hardest vote I ever made was to Elect our governor. Tom Osborn (Republican) was running against him. Now I love Tom. He is my hero. Best coach of all time if you ask me. And a lot of people voted for him because, well, he sits next to Jesus in my state. But he wants to Perma-Ban Porn, Casinos, and just about anything I, or anyone on this board would deem "fun". WAY too socially conservative. But Deep down, I would be lying if I didn’t just want to cast a vote for good ole' TO.
Now, in hindsight! HOORAY! He is back as the AD at University of Nebraska, and by making the right decision, Karma came back to me.
My point is, you can pretend this isn't going on and just lose. Or you can play to the dummies so you can win and implement your goals into the society.

You should watch "Man of the Year". People really would vote for a comedian, I am sure of it.
Whew.

[Yelram]

You know, most of this thread has been about why Palin is a bad choice for VP, which is obvious to some of us. Besides the reform thing, why do people think she would be a good choice?

She isnt an entrenched Washington Bureaucrat. She isnt afraid to speak her mind, and if anyone can control a family of 7, and be governor of Alaska, I think they certainly qualify. I find any governor a much better choice to head executive than ANY senator, PERIOD.And really the VP does very very little, beyond the obvious possible death of the president, and tie breaking in the senate. I havent heard her say one thing I disagree with yet. Joe Biden has 30 years of things I dont agree with (and half the time not agreeing with himself). And with Obama trying to pretend that hes some sort of reformer with Biden on board is pretty hard to swallow.

[Desperado]

See I guess I just see it differently... Isnt afraid to speak her mind, like woman who have been raped shouldnt be able to have an abortion. Control her family, ummm shotgun wedding much?. Govenor of Alaska, really? The last numbers I saw of Alaskas population was something like 700,000. But again everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[redsox39]

Oh No! 17 year olds having SEX!!! You are kidding me! Sometimes, there is nothign you can do. I know I got lucky about 100 times until age 20 where I DID have one. Shit happens. since when were the libs so upset about teen pregnancy? Don't you pay the poor to have as many teen babies as possible?

[Desperado]

Oh No! 17 year olds having SEX!!! You are kidding me! Sometimes, there is nothign you can do. I know I got lucky about 100 times until age 20 where I DID have one. Shit happens. since when were the libs so upset about teen pregnancy? Don't you pay the poor to have as many teen babies as possible?


So...teen babies are good thing then?

[Yelram]

See I guess I just see it differently... Isnt afraid to speak her mind, like woman who have been raped shouldnt be able to have an abortion. Control her family, ummm shotgun wedding much?. Govenor of Alaska, really? The last numbers I saw of Alaskas population was something like 700,000. But again everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Please show me the quote that says women who are raped shouldnt be allowed to have an abortion. Her daughter is 17, I guess you would rather she kept her chained in the basement or something? Being a good mother doesnt mean your children never make mistakes. Alaska is one of the most important states in this country, and its very pertinent to the energy crisis. About 100,000 people less than Delaware. And she was GOVERNOR not a dumb senator who runs his mouth.

[redsox39]

If you and your family can support it, sure. Who cares? All you did was fuck up your own 20's. If you can't support it, than there is a problem.

Maybe we should ban sex before marriage! That will solve the problem. Or go the other route and force the birth control shot on everyone until they are 25 or married.

Come on.

[Yelram]

Oh No! 17 year olds having SEX!!! You are kidding me! Sometimes, there is nothign you can do. I know I got lucky about 100 times until age 20 where I DID have one. Shit happens. since when were the libs so upset about teen pregnancy? Don't you pay the poor to have as many teen babies as possible?
They love teen pregnancy, as long as it ends in an abortion. So that a women can exert her ultimate right of fetal execution.

I believe, for the last 6000 years or so, teen pregnancy has been the norm, not the exception.

[The Batman]

Oh No! 17 year olds having SEX!!! You are kidding me! Sometimes, there is nothign you can do. I know I got lucky about 100 times until age 20 where I DID have one. Shit happens. since when were the libs so upset about teen pregnancy? Don't you pay the poor to have as many teen babies as possible?

Its not about a 17 year old getting pregant though. Its her moms stance of lack of education about it. If her daughter had any clue, she could have easily prevented it with condoms/birth control. When the day comes that I have a kid, they will know what the reprocussions from fucking without a condom are. And fuck, i hate how they pay people to have kids. Thats bullshit.

[Desperado]

Please show me the quote that says women who are raped shouldnt be allowed to have an abortion. Her daughter is 17, I guess you would rather she kept her chained in the basement or something? Being a good mother doesnt mean your children never make mistakes. Alaska is one of the most important states in this country, and its very pertinent to the energy crisis. About 100,000 people less than Delaware. And she was GOVERNOR not a dumb senator who runs his mouth.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-on-abortion-id-oppo_n_122924.html

[The Batman]

They love teen pregnancy, as long as it ends in an abortion. So that a women can exert her ultimate right of fetal execution.
And republicans love the kid to be born so that it can be born in a pennyless, loveless home with parents who hate each other. Then they are also annoyed that they have a kid they weren't mature enough to have and didn't have enough income to support their family properly.