Female Mccain''s VP pick

[Anna0499]

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

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've been with this thread since page 1 and I can tell you there has been several links from liberal sources (including Huffington Post) posted, as well as some from conservative sites. No biggie SS, I get what you were saying.

 

[goobear78]

Date: 9/13/2008 1:32:05 PM
Author: stone_seeker

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...

I never said anything about you “somehow misleading people.” Please reread my post and I’m sorry if you thought otherwise. I just stated that we should all (myself included) cite where articles are coming from. That it. Because most people will not look at the link, they just click. Thank you Stoneseeker for clarifying your point.

Moving on…to Stoneseeker’s point about ABC & Disney their parent company being "liberal". Where is the proof that they gave money to Obama? I’ve never heard or read anything about that, I’d be interested to see that.

My point is the McCain campaign picked ABC. They picked Charlie Gibson. So they obviously didn’t think that ABC or Disney would make Palin out to look bad or be liberal. They hand picked that interview and the interviewer. The McCain campagin wouldn’t have done so if they thought the big bad liberal media at ABC was out to get them.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/13/2008 1:44:04 PM
Author: ladypirate

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.

Because instead of saying McCain votes with his entire PARTY 90% of the time, Obama says that McCain votes with BUSH 90% of the time. The same can be said of Obama voting with Democrats 97% of the time (when he does vote & hardly bipartisan), so the ads don''t exactly tell the whole story. I guess some people want to blame one particular party for the state of the nation, whereas I feel that it was a combined failure of all parties in the government. Democrats controlled the House & Senate but didn''t do much with their power.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/13/2008 1:46:22 PM
Author: goobear78


My point is the McCain campaign picked ABC. They picked Charlie Gibson. So they obviously didn’t think that ABC or Disney would make Palin out to look bad or be liberal. They hand picked that interview and the interviewer. The McCain campagin wouldn’t have done so if they thought the big bad liberal media at ABC was out to get them.

Wouldn''t be the first time an interview''s been chopped up & spun a certain way after the fact & the interviewee has no power to stop it. Not saying that''s what happened here, but it happens all the time...

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Ahhh...a wonderful Huffington Post link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/the-definition-of-sexism_b_126072.html That post spawned from this one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/sarah-palin-naked_b_125861.html

Looks like I am "mentally ill, mentally disabled, or mentally disturbed." And I am "NOT" "responsible, informed, curious, thoughtful, mature, educated, empathetic, or remotely serious." I get so tired of people calling other people names (especially uneducated) because we disagree. And whether or not y''all agree with me..he is one of the worst sexist bloggers I''ve seen thus far.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 9/13/2008 2:40:07 PM
Author: SarahLovesJS
Ahhh...a wonderful Huffington Post link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/the-definition-of-sexism_b_126072.html That post spawned from this one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/sarah-palin-naked_b_125861.html


Looks like I am ''mentally ill, mentally disabled, or mentally disturbed.'' And I am ''NOT'' ''responsible, informed, curious, thoughtful, mature, educated, empathetic, or remotely serious.'' I get so tired of people calling other people names (especially uneducated) because we disagree. And whether or not y''all agree with me..he is one of the worst sexist bloggers I''ve seen thus far.

Agreed. Either we''re elitist snobs or uneducated rednecks. Instead of learning what makes the other side appealing to half the country and learn to somehow be accommodating, its easier to just put down the other side and force your view on them. Its rather annoying and maybe someday we can have 2 true centrists run for office.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 9/13/2008 1:50:05 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/13/2008 1:44:04 PM

Author: ladypirate


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.

Because instead of saying McCain votes with his entire PARTY 90% of the time, Obama says that McCain votes with BUSH 90% of the time. The same can be said of Obama voting with Democrats 97% of the time (when he does vote & hardly bipartisan), so the ads don''t exactly tell the whole story. I guess some people want to blame one particular party for the state of the nation, whereas I feel that it was a combined failure of all parties in the government. Democrats controlled the House & Senate but didn''t do much with their power.

The democrats have only had control of the house and senate for the last two years, not the last eight. While I wish Nancy Pelosi & the rest of the dems would have done more in those two years, they were handed a pretty big mess.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 9/13/2008 4:30:55 PM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 9/13/2008 2:40:07 PM

Author: SarahLovesJS

Ahhh...a wonderful Huffington Post link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/the-definition-of-sexism_b_126072.html That post spawned from this one:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/sarah-palin-naked_b_125861.html



Looks like I am ''mentally ill, mentally disabled, or mentally disturbed.'' And I am ''NOT'' ''responsible, informed, curious, thoughtful, mature, educated, empathetic, or remotely serious.'' I get so tired of people calling other people names (especially uneducated) because we disagree. And whether or not y''all agree with me..he is one of the worst sexist bloggers I''ve seen thus far.

Agreed. Either we''re elitist snobs or uneducated rednecks. Instead of learning what makes the other side appealing to half the country and learn to somehow be accommodating, its easier to just put down the other side and force your view on them. Its rather annoying and maybe someday we can have 2 true centrists run for office.

Just out of curiosity, how would you like the democrats to accommodate you, as a republican? As a democrat, I''m kind of offended that you seem to think that I''d be that narrow-minded. I will certainly listen to opposing viewpoints, whether I agree with them or not. I think that the bolded part of your reply applies to both parties, since I have certainly had that happen to me.

Also out of curiosity, what does appeal to you about the republican party? I can understand the appeal of fiscal conservativism, although that has not been a hallmark of that party for a while. The rest of it I really don''t understand. I''m open to listening, though.

 

[MoonWater]

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

FI read that earlier today and laughed. He said that sure there are multiple things under the Bush Doctrine but the most important and most commonly referenced over the years was preventive war. Which was what Gibson was referring to, and it's a shame that the Governor of a state did not know that...or more importantly, had absolutely no idea what the Bush Doctrine was.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/13/2008 1:44:04 PM
Author: 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.

People always want to dismiss his experience with the state Senate but I''m suppose the count the experience of a small town mayor that saw it fit to get her city an expensive hockey ring they didn''t need but not fit to ensure that rape victims didn''t have to pay for their own exams.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/13/2008 5:43:31 PM
Author: ladypirate

Date: 9/13/2008 1:50:05 PM

Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/13/2008 1:44:04 PM


Author: ladypirate



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.

Because instead of saying McCain votes with his entire PARTY 90% of the time, Obama says that McCain votes with BUSH 90% of the time. The same can be said of Obama voting with Democrats 97% of the time (when he does vote & hardly bipartisan), so the ads don''t exactly tell the whole story. I guess some people want to blame one particular party for the state of the nation, whereas I feel that it was a combined failure of all parties in the government. Democrats controlled the House & Senate but didn''t do much with their power.

The democrats have only had control of the house and senate for the last two years, not the last eight. While I wish Nancy Pelosi & the rest of the dems would have done more in those two years, they were handed a pretty big mess.

This needs repeating since I saw this "Democrats control Congress" line before as if they did during the entire course of this failed Administration.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/13/2008 5:58:23 PM
Author: ladypirate

Just out of curiosity, how would you like the democrats to accommodate you, as a republican? As a democrat, I''m kind of offended that you seem to think that I''d be that narrow-minded. I will certainly listen to opposing viewpoints, whether I agree with them or not. I think that the bolded part of your reply applies to both parties, since I have certainly had that happen to me.

Also out of curiosity, what does appeal to you about the republican party? I can understand the appeal of fiscal conservativism, although that has not been a hallmark of that party for a while. The rest of it I really don''t understand. I''m open to listening, though.

I''m not SS but I wanted to say that what attracts me, and many Republicans I know from living in a Republican-voting state, is fiscal AND social conservatism combined with a desire for a small government.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/13/2008 6:35:22 PM
Author: MoonWater

This needs repeating since I saw this 'Democrats control Congress' line before as if they did during the entire course of this failed Administration.

The whole point of my post was that it is illogical to blame an entire party for the actions presumably ONE man. Congress/Senate majority has had little meaning for quite awhile now, with seats running within 2-3 of each other on either side in the 107th, 108th, and 110th Congresses and flipflopping back and forth when Bush first took office, and it shows in the little that has been accomplished. It has been a failure of BOTH parties IMHO.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 9/13/2008 5:58:23 PM
Author: ladypirate

Date: 9/13/2008 4:30:55 PM

Author: stone_seeker

Date: 9/13/2008 2:40:07 PM


Author: SarahLovesJS


Ahhh...a wonderful Huffington Post link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/the-definition-of-sexism_b_126072.html That post spawned from this one:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/sarah-palin-naked_b_125861.html




Looks like I am 'mentally ill, mentally disabled, or mentally disturbed.' And I am 'NOT' 'responsible, informed, curious, thoughtful, mature, educated, empathetic, or remotely serious.' I get so tired of people calling other people names (especially uneducated) because we disagree. And whether or not y'all agree with me..he is one of the worst sexist bloggers I've seen thus far.

Agreed. Either we're elitist snobs or uneducated rednecks. Instead of learning what makes the other side appealing to half the country and learn to somehow be accommodating, its easier to just put down the other side and force your view on them. Its rather annoying and maybe someday we can have 2 true centrists run for office.

Just out of curiosity, how would you like the democrats to accommodate you, as a republican? As a democrat, I'm kind of offended that you seem to think that I'd be that narrow-minded. I will certainly listen to opposing viewpoints, whether I agree with them or not. I think that the bolded part of your reply applies to both parties, since I have certainly had that happen to me.


Also out of curiosity, what does appeal to you about the republican party? I can understand the appeal of fiscal conservativism, although that has not been a hallmark of that party for a while. The rest of it I really don't understand. I'm open to listening, though.

ladypirate- not sure why you are offended. I wasnt speaking to democrats directly - i was referencing an article that seems to be the way many political writers and commentators in the MSM think. My post was critical of both parties and if you cant see that then I dont know what to say.

I have said in prior posts on this thread that I dont agree with the current direction of the republican party - but if there is someone I think who can change that its John McCain. Obama has given me not one sign that he would move to the center on any issue whatsoever. That worries me because I am not interested in living in a socialist society where I pay 60% of my income and capital gains in taxes and the gov't tells me what to do and how to do it. I agree the way things are now isn't working for a lot of people but the pendulum doesnt have to swing so far in the other direction either. Obama thinks he can run against George Bush and win and he is learning now that wont work and he is being exposed for being the most liberal person in the Senate and John McCain is appealing to more and more centrists. Bill Clinton ran as a centrist, and he won.

But I digress. To answer your question, one way Democrats can be accommodating is to not assume every Republican is like George Bush. That would be a start. And Republicans should attempt to pass some of the social programs important to democrats (healthcare, immigration, etc.) in some form that is appealing to both sides. There is a middle road that no one can ever run a campaign on as it alienates the base but, as I said, the only person who has ever been on that road before (IMO) is John McCain. Obama hasnt shown me that he knows where that road is.

ETA - And I second Indy's comments about small government and fiscal and social conservatism.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/13/2008 6:59:53 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/13/2008 6:35:22 PM

Author: MoonWater


This needs repeating since I saw this 'Democrats control Congress' line before as if they did during the entire course of this failed Administration.

The whole point of my post was that it is illogical to blame an entire party for the actions presumably ONE man. Congress/Senate majority has had little meaning for quite awhile now, with seats running within 2-3 of each other on either side in the 107th, 108th, and 110th Congresses and flipflopping back and forth when Bush first took office, and it shows in the little that has been accomplished. It has been a failure of BOTH parties IMHO.

It's not ONE man, it's HIS ADMINISTRATION and the portion of the Republican Party that Bush appealed to which is the same exact group that did not like McCain but are now excited due to Palin, (who to me is Bush in lipstick, yes, I just had to get a lipstick joke in there).

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/13/2008 7:42:30 PM
Author: MoonWater

It''s not ONE man, it''s HIS ADMINISTRATION and the portion of the Republican Party that Bush appealed to which is the same exact group that did not like McCain but are now excited due to Palin, (who to me is Bush in lipstick, yes, I just had to get a lipstick joke in there).

Okay, so the Bush Administration...whom would you tie into that definition? That still doesn''t mean the ENTIRE Republican party is to blame. Ordinary citizens make up the Republican party as well, and I highly doubt every single one of them is to blame for the current state of things. You can''t do anything if you lose the election, so McCain needs support from all sorts of people, not just "Bush supporters" or staunch conservatives. If the blame game is to be played I would put more blame on the people who voted for John Kerry in the primaries...it wouldn''t have taken a very strong candidate to win in 2004...

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/13/2008 8:33:03 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/13/2008 7:42:30 PM

Author: MoonWater


It''s not ONE man, it''s HIS ADMINISTRATION and the portion of the Republican Party that Bush appealed to which is the same exact group that did not like McCain but are now excited due to Palin, (who to me is Bush in lipstick, yes, I just had to get a lipstick joke in there).

Okay, so the Bush Administration...whom would you tie into that definition? That still doesn''t mean the ENTIRE Republican party is to blame. Ordinary citizens make up the Republican party as well, and I highly doubt every single one of them is to blame for the current state of things. You can''t do anything if you lose the election, so McCain needs support from all sorts of people, not just ''Bush supporters'' or staunch conservatives. If the blame game is to be played I would put more blame on the people who voted for John Kerry in the primaries...it wouldn''t have taken a very strong candidate to win in 2004...

Where did I say the "ENTIRE Republican party is the blame."????????????? I thought I just told you who *I* thought was to blame. Maybe you want to start over and read a few posts back.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/13/2008 7:12:14 PM
Author: stone_seeker
I have said in prior posts on this thread that I dont agree with the current direction of the republican party - but if there is someone I think who can change that its John McCain. Obama has given me not one sign that he would move to the center on any issue whatsoever. That worries me because I am not interested in living in a socialist society where I pay 60% of my income and capital gains in taxes and the gov''t tells me what to do and how to do it. I agree the way things are now isn''t working for a lot of people but the pendulum doesnt have to swing so far in the other direction either. Obama thinks he can run against George Bush and win and he is learning now that wont work and he is being exposed for being the most liberal person in the Senate and John McCain is appealing to more and more centrists. Bill Clinton ran as a centrist, and he won.


But I digress. To answer your question, one way Democrats can be accommodating is to not assume every Republican is like George Bush. That would be a start. And Republicans should attempt to pass some of the social programs important to democrats (healthcare, immigration, etc.) in some form that is appealing to both sides. There is a middle road that no one can ever run a campaign on as it alienates the base but, as I said, the only person who has ever been on that road before (IMO) is John McCain. Obama hasnt shown me that he knows where that road is.


ETA - And I second Indy''s comments about small government and fiscal and social conservatism.

I love the socialist society comment. The U.S. is so far from being a socialist society that it''s just hilarious to read that.

And if Republicans are all for small government, why do they support allowing the government to spy on their own citizens? Or outlaw abortion? Or dictate who can and can''t get married? I don''t get that.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 9/13/2008 10:10:07 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 9/13/2008 7:12:14 PM

Author: stone_seeker

I have said in prior posts on this thread that I dont agree with the current direction of the republican party - but if there is someone I think who can change that its John McCain. Obama has given me not one sign that he would move to the center on any issue whatsoever. That worries me because I am not interested in living in a socialist society where I pay 60% of my income and capital gains in taxes and the gov''t tells me what to do and how to do it. I agree the way things are now isn''t working for a lot of people but the pendulum doesnt have to swing so far in the other direction either. Obama thinks he can run against George Bush and win and he is learning now that wont work and he is being exposed for being the most liberal person in the Senate and John McCain is appealing to more and more centrists. Bill Clinton ran as a centrist, and he won.



But I digress. To answer your question, one way Democrats can be accommodating is to not assume every Republican is like George Bush. That would be a start. And Republicans should attempt to pass some of the social programs important to democrats (healthcare, immigration, etc.) in some form that is appealing to both sides. There is a middle road that no one can ever run a campaign on as it alienates the base but, as I said, the only person who has ever been on that road before (IMO) is John McCain. Obama hasnt shown me that he knows where that road is.



ETA - And I second Indy''s comments about small government and fiscal and social conservatism.

I love the socialist society comment. The U.S. is so far from being a socialist society that it''s just hilarious to read that.


And if Republicans are all for small government, why do they support allowing the government to spy on their own citizens? Or outlaw abortion? Or dictate who can and can''t get married? I don''t get that.

Most conservatives are against these at the federal level and believe the decisions belong to the states.

 

[goobear78]

To tie this thread back to Gov. Palin,

here''s a link to a new article that The New York Times published about Gov. Palin about her during her time as Mayor in Wasilla and as the Gov. of Alaska.

I found it very interesting; it gave an unique, non-partisan and objective insight into the leadership of Gov. Palin.


NY Times LINK

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 9/13/2008 10:21:02 PM
Author: goobear78

To tie this thread back to Gov. Palin,

here''s a link to a new article that The New York Times published about Gov. Palin about her during her time as Mayor in Wasilla and as the Gov. of Alaska.

I found it very interesting; it gave an unique, non-partisan and objective insight into the leadership of Gov. Palin.



NY Times LINK

First, Jo Becker is hardly non-partisan. Having said that, I dont think the article reads good or bad to be honest. Just more of the same that left wing blogs try to have a field day with. It portrays her as a politician who had to kick some butt to get what she wanted. The same can be said about most politicians including the Clintons. I never thought she was an angel which is what the article is kind of trying to refute. I guess soccer moms can be ruthless in the workplace???

Again, this is a woman with an over 80% approval rating in her state - that is unheard of in any political arena.

 

[goobear78]

Date: 9/13/2008 10:55:08 PM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 9/13/2008 10:21:02 PM
Author: goobear78

To tie this thread back to Gov. Palin,

here's a link to a new article that The New York Times published about Gov. Palin about her during her time as Mayor in Wasilla and as the Gov. of Alaska.

I found it very interesting; it gave an unique, non-partisan and objective insight into the leadership of Gov. Palin.



NY Times LINK

First, Jo Becker is hardly non-partisan. Having said that, I dont think the article reads good or bad to be honest. Just more of the same that left wing blogs try to have a field day with. It portrays her as a politician who had to kick some butt to get what she wanted. The same can be said about most politicians including the Clintons. I never thought she was an angel which is what the article is kind of trying to refute. I guess soccer moms can be ruthless in the workplace???

Again, this is a woman with an over 80% approval rating in her state - that is unheard of in any political arena.

The NYT is a non-partisian paper. I don't know about Jo Becker but I liked that article because it wasn't good or bad, it just told the facts.

As to the 80% approval rating, The most recent independent survey available is a July 30 Rasmussen poll which found that 64% Alaskans rate the job Palin is doing as excellent or good. That's not shabby by any means, but it's not 80%.

ETA: There was a rather large Anti-Sarah Palin rally today in Wasilla. If you are interested, the Washington Post had a small article about it. I am surprised because overall, I thought everyone was pretty pro-Palin in Alaska. They said there were about 1,000 people there, but I'm not sure if that's the exact number.

Washington Post Link

 

[stone_seeker]

Off to watch Saturday Night Live....

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/13/2008 11:30:33 PM
Author: stone_seeker
Off to watch Saturday Night Live....

The beginning was kinda funny, although it just made fun of Palin & not Hillary (big surprise)...would''ve been nice to see it go both ways, but I enjoy satire overall and like Tina Fey & Amy Poehler so

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/13/2008 10:20:48 PM
Author: stone_seeker

Most conservatives are against these at the federal level and believe the decisions belong to the states.

^^^^^ YUP! Small FEDERAL government as the Constitution intended...guess we need to specify...

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/13/2008 8:54:05 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/13/2008 8:33:03 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/13/2008 7:42:30 PM

Author: MoonWater


It's not ONE man, it's HIS ADMINISTRATION and the portion of the Republican Party that Bush appealed to which is the same exact group that did not like McCain but are now excited due to Palin, (who to me is Bush in lipstick, yes, I just had to get a lipstick joke in there).

Okay, so the Bush Administration...whom would you tie into that definition? That still doesn't mean the ENTIRE Republican party is to blame. Ordinary citizens make up the Republican party as well, and I highly doubt every single one of them is to blame for the current state of things. You can't do anything if you lose the election, so McCain needs support from all sorts of people, not just 'Bush supporters' or staunch conservatives. If the blame game is to be played I would put more blame on the people who voted for John Kerry in the primaries...it wouldn't have taken a very strong candidate to win in 2004...

Where did I say the 'ENTIRE Republican party is the blame.'????????????? I thought I just told you who *I* thought was to blame. Maybe you want to start over and read a few posts back.

Where did I say that YOU said the entire Republican party is to blame? I took a lot of care not to say *you* in my portions of posts to reduce the defensiveness; guess it didn't work. I've read a lot of blaming "the Republicans" and the party in general & in your post you singled out portions of the party so I quoted it above to get some clarification in answers to my questions actually directed to you; I would like to know more about why people blame a particular party (or members thereof) instead of the government as a whole.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 9/13/2008 11:38:34 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/13/2008 11:30:33 PM

Author: stone_seeker

Off to watch Saturday Night Live....

The beginning was kinda funny, although it just made fun of Palin & not Hillary (big surprise)...would''ve been nice to see it go both ways, but I enjoy satire overall and like Tina Fey & Amy Poehler so

Yeah, no surprise....so far that was the only thing funny on the show. Tina Fey is great.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/13/2008 11:56:52 PM
Author: stone_seeker

Yeah, no surprise....so far that was the only thing funny on the show. Tina Fey is great.

Yeah, I guess they got enough jabs in on Hillary when she was running against Obama.

Tina looked so much like Palin with the glasses and hair, it was great.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/13/2008 11:44:51 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/13/2008 8:54:05 PM

Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/13/2008 8:33:03 PM

Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/13/2008 7:42:30 PM


Author: MoonWater



It's not ONE man, it's HIS ADMINISTRATION and the portion of the Republican Party that Bush appealed to which is the same exact group that did not like McCain but are now excited due to Palin, (who to me is Bush in lipstick, yes, I just had to get a lipstick joke in there).

Okay, so the Bush Administration...whom would you tie into that definition? That still doesn't mean the ENTIRE Republican party is to blame. Ordinary citizens make up the Republican party as well, and I highly doubt every single one of them is to blame for the current state of things. You can't do anything if you lose the election, so McCain needs support from all sorts of people, not just 'Bush supporters' or staunch conservatives. If the blame game is to be played I would put more blame on the people who voted for John Kerry in the primaries...it wouldn't have taken a very strong candidate to win in 2004...

Where did I say the 'ENTIRE Republican party is the blame.'????????????? I thought I just told you who *I* thought was to blame. Maybe you want to start over and read a few posts back.

Where did I say that YOU said the entire Republican party is to blame? I took a lot of care not to say *you* in my portions of posts to reduce the defensiveness; guess it didn't work. I've read a lot of blaming 'the Republicans' and the party in general & in your post you singled out portions of the party so I quoted it above to get some clarification in answers to my questions actually directed to you; I would like to know more about why people blame a particular party (or members thereof) instead of the government as a whole.

Like I said, go back and read the posts. I addressed one point to ladypirate about the fact that Dems were not the majority during this entire failed administration. You decided to respond to me about people blaming the entire Republican party. Since I never said that, I have no idea why you quoted me. Since you did, I pointed out what *I* saw as the problem and again you quoted me and said "not the entire Republican party." Er ok. Never said it, why are you quoting me and telling me this?

And for the record, I put more blame on those that voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 primaries. The party had a stronger candidate in John McCain, but I guess an "illegitimate black child" is scary to some folks.

 

[iheartscience]

Great Op-Ed in the NY Times about the energy policy of the McCain/Palin ticket:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin