Female Mccain''s VP pick

[partgypsy]

Yeah. I didn''t really get the sense that she is really "up to speed" on a number of things, including foreign policy. This is one area where GW really fell down on the job. For Diplomacy, sometimes, appearances matter. If Obama is in office we have a real chance of rebuilding strong relationships with our allies, something useful because terrorism is a global problem. McCain and Palin are saying antagonizing inflammatory statements. Is it a case of strong talk to look strong and cross our fingers when it comes to actual policy they will be reasonable? I don''t know. I think many moderates have taken the choice of Palin as an indication that the very conservative branch of Republican Party is still calling the shots. We have the strongest military out there; we can talk softly and carry a big stick.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/12/2008 9:29:54 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 9/12/2008 1:15:30 PM

Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/12/2008 1:10:18 PM


Author: goobear78


I''m sorry, but a VP candidate should know the Bush Doctrine especially since it was used in part to go to war with Iraq. And she didn''t. She flat out didn''t know it. That''s what happened, they can''t spin it, it''s on video but I''m sure going forward she will make sure she does know it. Does that make it any better? In my opinion no, but I''m still looking forward to hearing the rest of her interview and watching it in its entirety tonight.

I concur. FI hasn''t seen the interview yet but I was filling him in and he immediate said ''How is she a Governor of a state without knowing what the Bush Doctrine is?'' He knew straight off the bat what Gibson was talking about without me filing in those details. So if he knows, an average (er history and politics obsessed sure but not an elected official) citizen knows, how does she not?

I have seen a lot of comments today that the ''average person'' does not know what the Bush Doctrine is. Since when are we in the business of electing average people? If you are going to be the VP, you better know a HELL of a lot of stuff that I don''t. Further, others may dismiss her interview performance and say that Gibson was arrogant, or she did as well as can be expected, but she made some very aggressive statements about foreign policy, and I have a hard time believing that what she said was not being closely listened to by foreign heads of state that may be dealing with her. That is NOT something to take lightly, and she did NOT know what she was talking about, she avoided a number of questions, tried to redirect attention to what she felt comfortable with, and was postured VERY aggressively throughout the interview. (leaning forward, hunched over, winking at Gibson)


And I think it''s fantastic that people like her personality, or things that she represents. This is not a personality job, and she is not knowledgeable about foreign policy. Maybe she should run in 8 years, now that she is a nationally known politician. If she sat across from a PM Putin, a Kim Jung Il or any other foreign head of state and has the caliber of responses that she did last night, I am terrified for our country. Truly terrified. (and no, I was not invoking Matt Damon

) She knows nothing of diplomacy... but she has time to learn over the next several years.

I completely agree with you, trillionaire. Yikes.

I''m also terrified that so many young, apparently educated women don''t seem to care about their right to choose. It really blows my mind.

 

[partgypsy]

I agree thing 2 of 2 (is that a Dr. Seuss reference?

). My brother and sister in law were big Hillary fans and were considering McCain, but after McCain picked Palin he said there is no way in hell he would vote the McCain ticket. She is a strong woman, but almost everything she stands for is contradictory to Hillary''s message (including pro choice). It made me realize the strategy behind the Palin pick was not actually to court Hillary supporters, but to rally the (conservative) base.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/13/2008 9:25:10 AM
Author: part gypsy
Yeah. I didn''t really get the sense that she is really ''up to speed'' on a number of things, including foreign policy. This is one area where GW really fell down on the job. For Diplomacy, sometimes, appearances matter. If Obama is in office we have a real chance of rebuilding strong relationships with our allies, something useful because terrorism is a global problem. McCain and Palin are saying antagonizing inflammatory statements. Is it a case of strong talk to look strong and cross our fingers when it comes to actual policy they will be reasonable? I don''t know. I think many moderates have taken the choice of Palin as an indication that the very conservative branch of Republican Party is still calling the shots. We have the strongest military out there; we can talk softly and carry a big stick.

Exactly! This is what I was talking about when I said I had less of a problem with Obama''s choice of Biden than with McCain''s pandering to those he appeared not to agree with in 2000 but is now cozy with in order to win. You can''t do that much pandering without those people retaining some form of power once you are in office. It''s one of the reason many do not believe things will be different from Bush if McCain is elected.

 

[MoonWater]

Ok, so apparently Biden was trying to push a bill through in order to provide free exams to victims of sexual assault and McCain voted against it:

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/mccain-voted-against-biden-law.html

 

[icekid]

Date: 9/13/2008 10:22:57 AM
Author: MoonWater
Ok, so apparently Biden was trying to push a bill through in order to provide free exams to victims of sexual assault and McCain voted against it:

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/mccain-voted-against-biden-law.html

Uncool... for sure. But, in these cases you must always ask what ELSE was included on this bill? Perhaps he was opposed to something else included in the bill and thus voted against the whole thing. I don''t have time to look into at the moment myself. I seriously cannot imagine that anyone truly believes that a victim of rape ought to pay for the exam. Meh.. I find this whole political season so depressing...

 

[stone_seeker]

ABC News edited Palin interview and took out topics that made her look more knowledgeable in foreign affairs and left in segments out of context. More liberal bias. Worth a read:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview


LINK

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/13/2008 10:32:47 AM
Author: icekid

Date: 9/13/2008 10:22:57 AM

Author: MoonWater

Ok, so apparently Biden was trying to push a bill through in order to provide free exams to victims of sexual assault and McCain voted against it:


http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/mccain-voted-against-biden-law.html

Uncool... for sure. But, in these cases you must always ask what ELSE was included on this bill? Perhaps he was opposed to something else included in the bill and thus voted against the whole thing. I don''t have time to look into at the moment myself. I seriously cannot imagine that anyone truly believes that a victim of rape ought to pay for the exam. Meh.. I find this whole political season so depressing...

Yeah, that was the strategy behind Obama''s "present" votes but people always go nuts over that.

 

[stone_seeker]

Another article about the Palin interview edits and comparison between the Obama and Palin interviews.

ABC News confirms its weak standing as a news organization.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/13/did-gibson-have-a-double-standard-for-palin/

LINK

 

[Anna0499]

Great links stone seeker! Very informative, indeed.

Having a strong military doesn''t mean anything if the government isn''t behind you. There''s no evidence that any nations that pose threats to us would react better to Obama than Mccain...I''d rather talk loudly & carry a big stick. I guess that makes me a war monger.

 

[E B]

Has this story been posted yet? I haven''t been through all 36 pages, so I apologize if it has!

New Evidence: Palin Had Direct Role in Charging Rape Victims For Exams

 

[goobear78]

Date: 9/13/2008 12:27:56 PM
Author: EBree
Has this story been posted yet? I haven''t been through all 36 pages, so I apologize if it has!

New Evidence: Palin Had Direct Role in Charging Rape Victims For Exams

Yes, I posted that link yesterday.

 

[goobear78]

Date: 9/13/2008 11:51:59 AM
Author: IndyGirl22
Great links stone seeker! Very informative, indeed.

Having a strong military doesn''t mean anything if the government isn''t behind you. There''s no evidence that any nations that pose threats to us would react better to Obama than Mccain...I''d rather talk loudly & carry a big stick. I guess that makes me a war monger.

I personally, have had enough of war.

 

[E B]

Date: 9/13/2008 12:31:00 PM
Author: goobear78

Date: 9/13/2008 12:27:56 PM

Author: EBree

Has this story been posted yet? I haven't been through all 36 pages, so I apologize if it has!


New Evidence: Palin Had Direct Role in Charging Rape Victims For Exams

Yes, I posted that link yesterday.

Sorry about that! I went through the last few pages but must have missed it.

*Goes back to lurking*

 

[goobear78]

asdasd

ETA: Post got eaten.

 

[stone_seeker]

McCain Flies His Campaign Past Obama
By Michael Barone

John McCain was trained as a fighter pilot. In his selection of Sarah Palin, and in his convention and campaigning since, he has shown that he learned an important lesson from his fighter pilot days: He has gotten inside Barack Obama''s OODA loop.

That term was the invention of the great fighter pilot and military strategist John Boyd. It''s an acronym for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.

"The key to victory is operating at a faster tempo than the enemy," Boyd''s biographer Robert Coram writes. "The key thing to understand about Boyd''s version is not the mechanical cycle itself, but rather the need to execute the cycle in such a fashion as to get inside the mind and decision cycle of the adversary."

For a fighter pilot, that means honing in above and behind the adversary so you can shoot him out of the sky. For a political candidate, it means acting in such a way that the opponent''s responses again and again reinforce the points you are trying to make and undermine his own position.

The Palin selection -- and her performance at the convention and on the stump -- seems to be having that effect. Obama chief strategist David Axelrod admitted of the Palin pick: "I can honestly say we weren''t prepared for that. I mean, her name wasn''t on anybody''s list." But it was known that McCain''s VP adviser had traveled to Alaska, and anyone clicking on youtube.com could see Palin''s impressive performance in political debates. The McCain campaign shrewdly kept the information that she was on the short list and that she was the choice to a half-dozen people, who didn''t tell even their spouses. The Obama team failed to Observe.

Then they failed to Orient. Palin, as her convention and subsequent appearances have shown, powerfully reinforces two McCain themes: She is a maverick who has taken on the leaders of her own party (as Obama never has in Chicago), and she has a record on energy of favoring drilling and exploiting American resources. Instead of undermining these themes, they dismissed the choice as an attempt to appeal to female Hillary Clinton supporters or to religious conservatives.

Then team Obama and its many backers in the media failed to Decide correctly, so when they Acted they got it wrong. Their attacks on Palin tended to ricochet and hit Obama. Is she inexperienced? Well, what has Obama ever run (besides his now floundering campaign)? Being a small-town mayor, as Palin said, is like being a community organizer, "except that you have actual responsibilities."

Is she neglecting her family? Well, how often has Obama tucked his daughters in lately? For more than a week we''ve seen the No. 1 person on the Democratic ticket argue that he''s better prepared than the No. 2 person on the Republican ticket. That''s not a winning argument even if you win it. As veteran California Democrat Willie Brown says, "The Republicans are now on offense, and Democrats are on defense."

Perhaps the Obama campaign strategists expected their many friends in the mainstream media to do their work for them. Certainly they tried. But their efforts have misfired, and the grenades they lobbed at Palin have ricocheted back and blown up in their faces. Voters are on to their game.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen finds that 68 percent believe "most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win" and that 51 percent -- more than support McCain -- believe the press is "trying to hurt" Sarah Palin. The press and the Democratic ticket are paying the price for decades of biased mainstream media coverage.

I am not the only one to notice that John McCain and Sarah Palin have gotten inside the Obama campaign''s (and mainstream media''s) OODA loop. Blogger Charlie Martin sprang into pixels on www.americanthinker.com before I could spring into print with this column. But as I write, Barack Obama is in his second daily news cycle of explaining why his "lipstick on a pig" comments are not a sexist attack on the hockey mom who compared herself to a pit bull with lipstick.

Robert Coram describes what can happen when one player gets inside another''s OODA loop. "If someone truly understands how to create menace and uncertainty and mistrust, then how to exploit and magnify the presence of these disconcerting elements, the loop can be vicious, a terribly destructive force, virtually unstoppable in causing panic and confusion and -- Boyd''s phrase is best -- ''unraveling the competition.'' ... The most amazing aspect of the OODA loop is that the losing side rarely understands what happened."

John Boyd would have been a terrific political consultant.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 9/13/2008 10:40:34 AM
Author: stone_seeker
ABC News edited Palin interview and took out topics that made her look more knowledgeable in foreign affairs and left in segments out of context. More liberal bias. Worth a read:


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview



LINK

I don''t see how including the stuff that is bolded here makes her look any more knowledgeable. The points she makes in bold in that transcript are repeated at other points in the interview. Cut for length? Yes. Cut to make her look bad? Hardly. I think it''s ridiculous that the republican attack dogs continue to go after the "Liberal Media". It''s ok when a democrat has to answer tough questions, but if a republican is pushed on ANY POINT, they start complaining that the media is biased against them. Look at how they went after Campbell Brown because she wouldn''t let Tucker Bounds get away with not answering a SIMPLE QUESTION about Palin''s National Security Experience. He kept changing the subject and she wouldn''t let him get away with it, so McCain''s campaign cried "liberal media bias" and canceled an appearance on Larry King as protest.

And seriously, Stoneseeker? If you''re going to keep posting extraordinarily biased articles from conservative blogs, I''m going to start posting stuff from the Huffington Post. Find something from a reliable news source if you''re going to act like it has any credibility whatsoever.

 

[ladypirate]

Here''s an article from today''s New York Times that I found interesting--on McCain, not Palin, but this thread is getting the most activity:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

 

[stone_seeker]

Charlie Gibson got the Bush Doctrine wrong...LOL

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/charlie_gibsons_gaffe.html

LINK

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 9/13/2008 12:40:42 PM
Author: ladypirate

Date: 9/13/2008 10:40:34 AM

Author: stone_seeker

ABC News edited Palin interview and took out topics that made her look more knowledgeable in foreign affairs and left in segments out of context. More liberal bias. Worth a read:



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview




LINK

I don''t see how including the stuff that is bolded here makes her look any more knowledgeable. The points she makes in bold in that transcript are repeated at other points in the interview. Cut for length? Yes. Cut to make her look bad? Hardly. I think it''s ridiculous that the republican attack dogs continue to go after the ''Liberal Media''. It''s ok when a democrat has to answer tough questions, but if a republican is pushed on ANY POINT, they start complaining that the media is biased against them. Look at how they went after Campbell Brown because she wouldn''t let Tucker Bounds get away with not answering a SIMPLE QUESTION about Palin''s National Security Experience. He kept changing the subject and she wouldn''t let him get away with it, so McCain''s campaign cried ''liberal media bias'' and canceled an appearance on Larry King as protest.


And seriously, Stoneseeker? If you''re going to keep posting extraordinarily biased articles from conservative blogs, I''m going to start posting stuff from the Huffington Post. Find something from a reliable news source if you''re going to act like it has any credibility whatsoever.

post what you like. I love the desperation I''ve seen on HuffPo to try and smear Palin.

As for my post, I dont see how posting something in its entirety creates bias. The stuff in bold discusses how she hates war and shows she''s far more knowledgeable about NATO than the edited version tried to make it seem. ABC owned by Disney and is a top 5 contributor to Obama. So this was not a surprise.

 

[goobear78]

I have to agree with Lady pirate, Stoneseeker. If you are going to post items from conservitive bloggers and op-ed pieces from pundits, please alert us. I''ll do the same if I post any future articles.

I''m afraid, I''m getting lost in a barage of links. LOL.

Aren''t we here to discuss the issues?

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 9/13/2008 12:55:00 PM
Author: goobear78
I have to agree with Lady pirate, Stoneseeker. If you are going to post items from conservitive bloggers and op-ed pieces from pundits, please alert us. I''ll do the same if I post any future articles.


I''m afraid, I''m getting lost in a barage of links. LOL.


Aren''t we here to discuss the issues?

C''mon. We are all adults here. I have seen plenty of links to Huffington Post and worse on this thread. I didnt say anything I posted was from an unbiased source - not that there is one. The link to Newbusters site is a conservative web site but it was reprinting of the ENTIRE interview transcript which I feel is a lot less biased than the edited ABC interview that was aired by liberal and Obama funder Disney Corporation.

If you comment on how Sarah Palin botched the interview or looks inexperienced, then I have a right to post the entire transcript. There is no bias there. The comments surrounding some of the bold type was probably biased but we can form our own opinions after reading the entire transcript. I think we have been commenting on an interview that was edited with bias. But if you want to mute conservative voices on this thread let me know and I will go elsewhere.

Ironically, when I posted this on a Huffington blog it was met with less criticism.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 9/13/2008 12:46:22 PM
Author: stone_seeker
Charlie Gibson got the Bush Doctrine wrong...LOL


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/charlie_gibsons_gaffe.html


LINK

Except that Gibson specifically was discussing the document released on September 17, 2002. That document said "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few." The strategy called for such priorities as "defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders."

The whole "destroying the thread before it reaches our borders", sounds a whole lot like preemptive military strikes to me. And Gibson said "the Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is..." If she had been knowledgeable about the document, she could have given an answer that sounded somewhat intelligent. Gibson may not have gotten into the finer points of it, but she didn't even know what he was talking about. That is SCARY.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 9/13/2008 1:03:37 PM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 9/13/2008 12:55:00 PM

Author: goobear78

I have to agree with Lady pirate, Stoneseeker. If you are going to post items from conservitive bloggers and op-ed pieces from pundits, please alert us. I'll do the same if I post any future articles.



I'm afraid, I'm getting lost in a barage of links. LOL.



Aren't we here to discuss the issues?

C'mon. We are all adults here. I have seen plenty of links to Huffington Post and worse on this thread. I didnt say anything I posted was from an unbiased source - not that there is one. The link to Newbusters site is a conservative web site but it was reprinting of the ENTIRE interview transcript which I feel is a lot less biased than the edited ABC interview that was aired by liberal and Obama funder Disney Corporation.


If you comment on how Sarah Palin botched the interview or looks inexperienced, then I have a right to post the entire transcript. There is no bias there. The comments surrounding some of the bold type was probably biased but we can form our own opinions after reading the entire transcript. I think we have been commenting on an interview that was edited with bias. But if you want to mute conservative voices on this thread let me know and I will go elsewhere.


Ironically, when I posted this on a Huffington blog it was met with less criticism.

I read the transcript of the interview in its entirety--I didn't need to read it from a conservative news blog. I still say that the additional material doesn't make her sound any better. I think they cut it for length more than anything else.

ETA: And it's not that she looks inexperienced...it's that she is inexperienced. I don't care how many times the campaign tries to act like knowing about domestic energy is a National Security credential.

 

[goobear78]

Date: 9/13/2008 1:03:37 PM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 9/13/2008 12:55:00 PM
Author: goobear78
I have to agree with Lady pirate, Stoneseeker. If you are going to post items from conservitive bloggers and op-ed pieces from pundits, please alert us. I''ll do the same if I post any future articles.


I''m afraid, I''m getting lost in a barage of links. LOL.


Aren''t we here to discuss the issues?

C''mon. We are all adults here. I have seen plenty of links to Huffington Post and worse on this thread. I didnt say anything I posted was from an unbiased source - not that there is one. The link to Newbusters site is a conservative web site but it was reprinting of the ENTIRE interview transcript which I feel is a lot less biased than the edited ABC interview that was aired by liberal and Obama funder Disney Corporation.

If you comment on how Sarah Palin botched the interview or looks inexperienced, then I have a right to post the entire transcript. There is no bias there. The comments surrounding some of the bold type was probably biased but we can form our own opinions after reading the entire transcript. I think we have been commenting on an interview that was edited with bias. But if you want to mute conservative voices on this thread let me know and I will go elsewhere.

Ironically, when I posted this on a Huffington blog it was met with less criticism.

Which "you" are you talking about Stoneseeker? Are you talking about me? Because I take offense to your saying that "you want to mute conservative voices on the thread..." Let''s be adults. I''ve never said that and it is rude and offense to imply otherwise. I don''t want to mute anyone. I want to discuss the issues. See above! Which is why I think everyone posting should cite where the articles are from.

And If I remember correctly, I''ve only seen one article link from the huffington post. but I''d have to go back over 36 pages to double check.

 

[partgypsy]

I think the conservative commentator is being a bit disengenuous in saying that well the Bush doctrine means alot of things. What Charlie Gibson was referring to is the central tenet of the Bush doctrine.

Maybe the Bush Doctrine has other components to it (apparently none of them good LOL) but the core of the Bush doctrine is the stated right of the US to attack preemptively and unilaterally any country, and that only the US has that right. This is a distinct departure from our historical policy, such as with the Soviet Union. There may be other aspects to it, but this is important to know because it was the justification used to go to war with both Iraq and Afganistan. This is not something "liberals" made up; It is outlined in the "National Security Strategy of the United States" (2002) that the administration itself put out.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 9/13/2008 1:08:12 PM
Author: ladypirate

Date: 9/13/2008 1:03:37 PM

Author: stone_seeker

Date: 9/13/2008 12:55:00 PM


Author: goobear78


I have to agree with Lady pirate, Stoneseeker. If you are going to post items from conservitive bloggers and op-ed pieces from pundits, please alert us. I''ll do the same if I post any future articles.




I''m afraid, I''m getting lost in a barage of links. LOL.




Aren''t we here to discuss the issues?

C''mon. We are all adults here. I have seen plenty of links to Huffington Post and worse on this thread. I didnt say anything I posted was from an unbiased source - not that there is one. The link to Newbusters site is a conservative web site but it was reprinting of the ENTIRE interview transcript which I feel is a lot less biased than the edited ABC interview that was aired by liberal and Obama funder Disney Corporation.



If you comment on how Sarah Palin botched the interview or looks inexperienced, then I have a right to post the entire transcript. There is no bias there. The comments surrounding some of the bold type was probably biased but we can form our own opinions after reading the entire transcript. I think we have been commenting on an interview that was edited with bias. But if you want to mute conservative voices on this thread let me know and I will go elsewhere.



Ironically, when I posted this on a Huffington blog it was met with less criticism.

I read the transcript of the interview in its entirety--I didn''t need to read it from a conservative news blog. I still say that the additional material doesn''t make her sound any better. I think they cut it for length more than anything else.


ETA: And it''s not that she looks inexperienced...it''s that she is inexperienced. I don''t care how many times the campaign tries to act like knowing about domestic energy is a National Security credential.

That''s fine you are entitled to your opinion of it - some folks on here may not have read the transcript. Clearly liberal media outlets werent quick to link to the entire transcript because it doesnt help their cause. But dollars to doughnuts had she said something off camera that was negative, it would have been all over the place.

As for experience, you might be right but i''m voting for Mccain and Palin. Not just Palin. If you can let me know how 100 days in the senate makes the top of the democratic ticket more experienced I''d be willing to listen. And i dont mean that sarcastically - I am eager to learn what experience Barack has and I have not been able to find much. The typical response I get from my democratic friends is "well he''s not Bush". I wont vote for change just for the sake of change. But who i think can deliver it. Barack never once challenged his political party while in chicago so there is no reason to believe he will do so in washington.

in any event my view is moot since I live in new york and we know who will win that state. In the republican primaries I had a poll worker laugh at me when i asked for a republican ticket before going in the booth.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 9/13/2008 1:20:12 PM
Author: goobear78

Date: 9/13/2008 1:03:37 PM

Author: stone_seeker

Date: 9/13/2008 12:55:00 PM

Author: goobear78

I have to agree with Lady pirate, Stoneseeker. If you are going to post items from conservitive bloggers and op-ed pieces from pundits, please alert us. I'll do the same if I post any future articles.



I'm afraid, I'm getting lost in a barage of links. LOL.



Aren't we here to discuss the issues?

C'mon. We are all adults here. I have seen plenty of links to Huffington Post and worse on this thread. I didnt say anything I posted was from an unbiased source - not that there is one. The link to Newbusters site is a conservative web site but it was reprinting of the ENTIRE interview transcript which I feel is a lot less biased than the edited ABC interview that was aired by liberal and Obama funder Disney Corporation.


If you comment on how Sarah Palin botched the interview or looks inexperienced, then I have a right to post the entire transcript. There is no bias there. The comments surrounding some of the bold type was probably biased but we can form our own opinions after reading the entire transcript. I think we have been commenting on an interview that was edited with bias. But if you want to mute conservative voices on this thread let me know and I will go elsewhere.


Ironically, when I posted this on a Huffington blog it was met with less criticism.

Which 'you' are you talking about Stoneseeker? Are you talking about me? Because I take offense to your saying that 'you want to mute conservative voices on the thread...' Let's be adults. I've never said that and it is rude and offense to imply otherwise. I don't want to mute anyone. I want to discuss the issues. See above! Which is why I think everyone posting should cite where the articles are from.

And If I remember correctly, I've only seen one article link from the huffington post. but I'd have to go back over 36 pages to double check.

sorry, i wasnt referring to you alone but i dont see how posting a link to the entire transcript is somehow misleading. its a link so the source is obvious.

*sigh* too much drama for a saturday. time to give this a rest...

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/13/2008 12:31:47 PM
Author: goobear78

Date: 9/13/2008 11:51:59 AM
Author: IndyGirl22
Great links stone seeker! Very informative, indeed.

Having a strong military doesn''t mean anything if the government isn''t behind you. There''s no evidence that any nations that pose threats to us would react better to Obama than Mccain...I''d rather talk loudly & carry a big stick. I guess that makes me a war monger.

I personally, have had enough of war.

I think EVERYONE has had enough of war, but the reality is that sometimes it is the only solution. You can''t talk treaties with suicide bombers or fanatical groups who won''t keep them.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 9/13/2008 1:27:19 PM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 9/13/2008 1:08:12 PM

Author: ladypirate

Date: 9/13/2008 1:03:37 PM


Author: stone_seeker

Date: 9/13/2008 12:55:00 PM



Author: goobear78



I have to agree with Lady pirate, Stoneseeker. If you are going to post items from conservitive bloggers and op-ed pieces from pundits, please alert us. I''ll do the same if I post any future articles.





I''m afraid, I''m getting lost in a barage of links. LOL.





Aren''t we here to discuss the issues?

C''mon. We are all adults here. I have seen plenty of links to Huffington Post and worse on this thread. I didnt say anything I posted was from an unbiased source - not that there is one. The link to Newbusters site is a conservative web site but it was reprinting of the ENTIRE interview transcript which I feel is a lot less biased than the edited ABC interview that was aired by liberal and Obama funder Disney Corporation.




If you comment on how Sarah Palin botched the interview or looks inexperienced, then I have a right to post the entire transcript. There is no bias there. The comments surrounding some of the bold type was probably biased but we can form our own opinions after reading the entire transcript. I think we have been commenting on an interview that was edited with bias. But if you want to mute conservative voices on this thread let me know and I will go elsewhere.




Ironically, when I posted this on a Huffington blog it was met with less criticism.

I read the transcript of the interview in its entirety--I didn''t need to read it from a conservative news blog. I still say that the additional material doesn''t make her sound any better. I think they cut it for length more than anything else.



ETA: And it''s not that she looks inexperienced...it''s that she is inexperienced. I don''t care how many times the campaign tries to act like knowing about domestic energy is a National Security credential.

That''s fine you are entitled to your opinion of it - some folks on here may not have read the transcript. Clearly liberal media outlets werent quick to link to the entire transcript because it doesnt help their cause. But dollars to doughnuts had she said something off camera that was negative, it would have been all over the place.


As for experience, you might be right but i''m voting for Mccain and Palin. Not just Palin. If you can let me know how 100 days in the senate makes the top of the democratic ticket more experienced I''d be willing to listen. And i dont mean that sarcastically - I am eager to learn what experience Barack has and I have not been able to find much. The typical response I get from my democratic friends is ''well he''s not Bush''. I wont vote for change just for the sake of change. But who i think can deliver it. Barack never once challenged his political party while in chicago so there is no reason to believe he will do so in washington.


in any event my view is moot since I live in new york and we know who will win that state. In the republican primaries I had a poll worker laugh at me when i asked for a republican ticket before going in the booth.

I don''t understand why people keep bringing up that Obama votes with the Democrats. The Democrats aren''t the ones who have led us into this mess. McCain voting with the Republicans who screwed up over the last 8 years is a lot more damning than Obama voting for the other side.

And I already posted a few pages back about Obama''s record in the senate--he has authored and co-sponsored hundreds of bills in his time there. Does that not count as experience? Does his time in the Illinois legislature not count as experience? He had 8 years in the Illinois legislature, then an additional 2 years in the senate. Hardly "100 days".

Just because he''s only had 2 years at the Federal level does not make him inexperienced.