What slays me is it seems that all the things that were used to criticize Obama for months now seem to apply to Palin. Not enough experience. A wacky preacher known for years who says crazy things in recorded sermons. Objectionable associations. Being investigated.
and now, like magic, all of those things don’t matter when associated with Palin. If all those things were really incredibly valid reasons to discount Obama you’d think republicans would be furious at McCain for choosing her {although I suspect some are}
ftr, I don’t criticize her for lack of experience, or her religious beliefs except in how they affect her policies. I’m not interested in the guilt by association game except to point out hypocrisy when it is so incredibly clear.
Clearly, the court heard all these claims, and found them to be non-credible harassment (of the sort that is all too common in bitter divorce cases) rather than legitimate issues.
I don’t want to open a new thread, so I’ll just say that, apparently, Sarah Palin is someone who rewards her friends. Especially if they like cows.
" So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.
Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages." Article
They do not seem to have to turn themselves inside out to do anything. Simply showing the “straight” facts appears to be enough to make the charges silly. Ayers gave Obama a $200 donation to run for the Illinois legislature years ago. The two served on the board of a group trying to improve the lives of poor Chicagoans. Ayers has not been associated with anything resembling trerrorism in over 30 years (however much he has declined to condemn his own actions). In fact, his statement that he wished he had done more–to stop the war–was artificially linked to his confession to the bombings, a point he immediately noted at the time the interview was published.
What has his national prominence got to do with ten years of local investigations that have turned up nothing?
You do know that bloggers are not really part of the news organizations, right? You do realize that partisans on both sides of the election continue to say horrible things about their candidates’ opponents. That you compare the blogger actions on the Left (ignoring the blogger actions on the Right) to the overall media simply indicates that you are participating in the very actions you claim to condemn.
I do not recall your condemnation of the stories (still in circulation) that Obama is actually a stealth Muslim or that he was indoctrinated in a Muslim madrassah or that he is an illegal candidate for the presidency because one of his parents was not a U.S. citizen. So your claims seem a bit self-serving to me.
Piffle.
After Wright got media attention due to his (now) most famous congregant, he went out and made some really inflammatory remarks–remarks that were disavowed by his replacemnet pastor as well as by Obama. The other remarks were simply cut-and-paste phrases taken completely out of context. ::: shrug :::
For every “condemn America” that you can drag up from the Left to allow yourself to be horrified, I suspect that I could find at least as many statements from the Right that will horrify Left-leaning persons that you would consider quite right and proper. We are not actually talking about “horrendous” thoughts so much as ideas with which each side is unhappy.
Again, ::: shrug :::
Arguing against the ideas is fine. (I wish that more posters would actually do that rather than get into these silly pissing contests), but making claims againsat "the media’ or otherwise trying to spin one’s candidacy as though it was an uphill battle against a stacked deck* is just silly posturing so that each side can claim a greater victory if they win or excuse their defeat if they lose.
*(I apologize for the mixed metaphor.)
Apparently the best thing that can be said about her is that she pisses off liberals. Nevermind why, what her skills are, what she’s done, or how the country will be with her as leader. It’s she pisses off liberals.
Welcome to the conservative mindset. Scary ain’t it.
Yes, that was bad *financial *judgment on all our parts. Again, national spin on a local problem. We ALL (well most of us) wanted to save Matmaid. The $600k was supposed to help them jumpstart their recovery and she and we all knew it would be a toss of the dice that may not work. It was a last ditch, emotionally fueled effort that most of us (though no, not all), supported.
I don’t call “I wish I’d done more” as declined to condemn.
There was more in that article than merely his national prominence.
Again, no need to get snarky. Of course I realize that, which is why is said News AND bloggers. And talked about how their common practice of labeling people who bring up these questions as “racist”. No, of course the bloggers aren’t the press, they’re worse. They are voters, and poisoners of other potential voters even more so than the press at times.
Dennis Prager is one that has denied these claims and defended Obama against that claim as well as the Lipstick nonsense and the stupid garbage about Obama’s African half brother that he “doesn’t take care of” though he said he’s “his brother’s keeper”.
As to the lipstick nonsense, I don’t believe that Obama meant Sarah Palin, but his audience sure thought he did. And those are some of the folks of whom I speak.
I just watched an entire hour of Obama on one of the campaign interviews, and I make it a point to listen to his speeches whenever possible, I have not yet heard this from the horse’s mouth, but I’ll take your word for it.
Such as? And yes, I agree wholeheartedly with the last sentence there. The trouble is, America was founded and means many things which many of today’s young people and all far lefters, don’t believe in. So to make those people happy means to change what America is, for some of us, for the worse.
Well, in my case, I’m more trying to say “Look, media, and those who are buying into the ‘Sarah is evil’ spin OF the media, that’s just not how it went down here locally”. Also, I personally don’t care a whit about " getting to claim victory" great or otherwise. I will merely be relieved if Obama isn’t our next president. I honestly do not think he is the right person. And I believe that not only is he not the right person, but that he would be actively harmful to the American people. I have very good intuition. (I know, that’s neither here nor there, since none of you have experienced that first hand, but my friends can vouch for it! :D).
This is my first foray into the GD. I’m just not smart enough for it, but in this case, I’m an Alaskan girl (one who hates moose and fish, and doesn’t hunt or fish), and we kick ass, and so I’ve GOT to try and defend my girl! So bear with me while I learn here.
And to those who are asking questions of me and I miss them, I apologize, I’m not ignoring you, I just have a very limited time, (mostly just on the weekends), as more classes at the Univ. are starting (I’m an adjunct faculty member, I know! Whodda thunkit?) in addition to my regular day job.
I really gotta ask … did you even bother to read the article? The whole MatMaid fiasco was one tiny bit of the article. The rest of it dealt with Palin’s entire history of cronyism and enforcing petty personal grudges with government.
Let me list some of the major points in this article, which should be required reading for all.
A builder complained to her that the city attorney put a stop work order on his housing project. She fired the attorney.
In the endangered polar bears suit, she said that state scientists found no ill effects of warming on the bears. In fact they had. The request to block the listing would cost nearly a half million dollars to process. That’s fiscal conservatism for you.
She fired an aide after he fell in love with another friend. When the guy was hired by the Republican Speaker of the House, her husband called to say how upset she was about it.
The Wasilla museum was a point of contention between progressive and conservative factions. She fired the museum director, and then sent an aide to the museum telling the three remaining employees to decide one more person to fire. They all quit.
As for the library issue, social conservatives had been trying to get books banned for ages. As a councilwoman she tried to get “Daddy’s Roommate” banned. So the request about the process to ban books didn’t come from nowhere. The original article, by the way, never claimed that there was a list, so defending her on that basis is pointless. Defending her because she was never actually able to ban anything is also pointless.
But the worst thing, in my opinion, is that she and her aides use their personal emails to avoid having an official record. (Sound familiar?) An aide claims that the emails would be copied if “there was significant state business.” Decided by who?
Why would she do this?
Does she scare me? Fuck yes. To quote a Disney movie:
though I’ll confess there is no evidence she wants to make a coat out of the skins of Dalmation puppies.
Which sounds like you’re swallowing the already debunked lie that he claimed to have wanted to bomb more.
However, when I pointed out that there has never been evidence of wrongdoing or close association between Rezko and Obama in over ten years of “inquiry,” you were the one who tried to deflect the statement by claiming that Obama had not been a national figure for ten years.
Actually, that is not what you actually posted, which was
I suppose that you intended “supporters on the news” to mean people reported in the news, but your statement (particularly in conjunction with other comments) made it appear that you have joined the people who like to pretend that “the media” has sheltered Obama or defamed Palin.
So? I do not make any claim that everyone on the political Right is equivalent to Limbaugh, Hannity, or Beck. I noted that while I see you complaining that some evil force on the “Left” (including, without citation, the news media) attacks Palin, I have not seen you condemn those attacks on Obama while whining about similar attacks from similar sources against Palin.
Did you turn off the radio and TV and prevent every paper from entering your house the last week of April and the first week of May? Wright gave a highly publicized speech at the National Press Club on April 28 in which he stepped out with a list of odd claims to which Obama replied with complete condemnation on April 29, withdrawing his church membership on April 30. Why would Obama need to keep raising the issue in speeches? It was a one-time event that has no bearing on his candidacy.
Well, I’m sure that we all really want to return to those halcyon days when only free, white, land-owning males were permitted to vote and each state collected taxes to support the religious denomination of some group’s choice, but there are those other people who think that the U.S. still has a way to go before it actually embraces “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all its citizens.
There is no “spin OF the media” that Palin is evil. There are questions about her behavior (just as there are questions about the behaviors of Obama, McCain, Biden, Clinton, Romney, Edwards, Huckabee and so on) that get asked and answered on an ongoing basis. That you consider such stories as the actual reported news of the timeline for Palin to have “opposed” the bridge to nowhere or for the news media to correctly report that the Secretary of the AIP had reported that she was a member, only to have that same media report that the Secretary had misspoken, to be evil spin while continuing, yourself, to condemn Obama for going to a church led by Reverend Wright (with no corresponding condemnation for Palin for having attended a church led by Larry Kroon) simply indicates, to me, that you want “your side” to be given favorable treatment while ignoring that Palin has not received any harsher or worse treatment than the other candidates.
But then, that is one of the fundamental appeals of the Republican party. They run on two bases: simplistic answers, and ever and eternally lower taxes, even if that means the dams burst and the bridges fall down. They’ll tell you that they just want it to be handled locally, but the fact is, they’ll elect anyone down to city councilmen who will promise lower taxes.
And those are the reasons Democrats lose. We recognize that reality isn’t simple, and we acknowledge that prices have to be paid for things. We don’t enjoy paying taxes any more than anyone else, but we admit that it’s necessary to keep bunches of people from drowning or falling into rivers as they did in Minnesota a couple of years ago. The Republicans refer to this as “pork” and scorn it. Interstate highways, folks. It’s a national responsibility, not state or local. And the effects of dams are usually multi-state as well.
