This is my first daily GBOD update. I figure since I've been seeing this for a while ("Stand up" to man in wheelchair, McCain can't send email, etc.), I'd start posting them. One a day.
If someone wants to start a McCain/Palin equivalent, be my guest. It'll be fun to compare significance and veracity of the gaffs!
"You know that there's been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street. And it is, it's - people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong but these are very, very difficult times. And I promise you, we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall Street. We will reform government."
:roll:
He clarified, after Obama and various other outlets picked up on it, that he meant the small business structure, the American worker, were all sound. I guess he missed the unemployment/job creation numbers for the last few months.
"Today we are seeing tremendous upheaval on Wall Street. The American economy is in crisis. Unemployment is on the rise and our financial markets are in turmoil. People are concerned about our economic future. But let me say something: this economic crisis is not the fault of the American people. Our workers are the most innovative, the hardest working, the best skilled, most productive, most competitive in the world," .... "My opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals of America are strong. No one can match an American worker. Our workers sell more goods to more markets than any other on earth. Our workers have always been the strength of our economy, and they remain the strength of our economy today."
Unfortunately I can't pick on your heartthrob Sarah, since she's still not talking much.
This is my first daily GBOD update. I figure since I've been seeing this for a while ("Stand up" to man in wheelchair, McCain can't send email, etc.), I'd start posting them. One a day.
If someone wants to start a McCain/Palin equivalent, be my guest. It'll be fun to compare significance and veracity of the gaffs!
I don't know that I'd call this a gaffe. Don't you think that it makes sense for the Iraqi government to not make huge plans in regards to any agreement until after the election is over? Whoever becomes Prez is going to want it done their way and it seems to me that it's more sensible for everyone to wait until after elections to make any long term policy changes in regards to Iraq.
This is my first daily GBOD update. I figure since I've been seeing this for a while ("Stand up" to man in wheelchair, McCain can't send email, etc.), I'd start posting them. One a day.
If someone wants to start a McCain/Palin equivalent, be my guest. It'll be fun to compare significance and veracity of the gaffs!
"You know that there's been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street. And it is, it's - people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong but these are very, very difficult times. And I promise you, we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall Street. We will reform government."
:roll:
He clarified, after Obama and various other outlets picked up on it, that he meant the small business structure, the American worker, were all sound. I guess he missed the unemployment/job creation numbers for the last few months.
"Today we are seeing tremendous upheaval on Wall Street. The American economy is in crisis. Unemployment is on the rise and our financial markets are in turmoil. People are concerned about our economic future. But let me say something: this economic crisis is not the fault of the American people. Our workers are the most innovative, the hardest working, the best skilled, most productive, most competitive in the world," .... "My opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals of America are strong. No one can match an American worker. Our workers sell more goods to more markets than any other on earth. Our workers have always been the strength of our economy, and they remain the strength of our economy today."
Unfortunately I can't pick on your heartthrob Sarah, since she's still not talking much.
After all, as his campaign has said, don't listen to anything that actually comes out of his mouth. Just listen to what we say in our little press releases. Because after all, he doesn't always know what he's talking about.
No, I don't. I know a LOT of internet savvy youth and almost NONE of them take him seriously.
Look at any poll. This race is virtually tied overall. Washington is leaning Obama. King County especially so. Younger voters (age 18-30) lean more strongly Obama than the general population.
In other words, if you select 10 random (is that a LOT?) youths from the Seattle area it's highly likely that 6+ (probably 7-8) are leaning towards an Obama vote or have already decided they won't be voting for McCain. Yet you essentially know none who even take him seriously, let alone would consider voting for him?!?
Your statement lead me to two hypotheses either do not know a representative group of youths (or people in general), or people find it so grating to disagree with you that they just smile and nod when you share some new absurdism.
Here's a fun one for your girlfriend that broke today Roy. I thought that she lied to Gibson about whether or not her and her hubby pressured Monaghan, but I couldn't remember for sure:
Here's a fun one for your girlfriend that broke today Roy. I thought that she lied to Gibson about whether or not her and her hubby pressured Monaghan, but I couldn't remember for sure:
Here's a fun one for your girlfriend that broke today Roy. I thought that she lied to Gibson about whether or not her and her hubby pressured Monaghan, but I couldn't remember for sure:
What makes you think she lied?
Which side has the preponderence of evidence?
Based on the information in the stories we both posted, if you were on an impartial jury, which side would you come down on?
I don't know what world you're in, but among my friends (demographic: 20s/early 30s, ranging from students to deep 6 figure salaries, most of whom have spent more than half their life using the internet in some form), there's a lot of people on both sides, and most of them have pretty good reasons (better than how cute the VP nominees kids are acting on stage). If you don't know a single "internet savvy youth" that likes Obama, much less takes him seriously, it tells me you're living in a bubble, full of shit, or completely delusional.
I'm barely out of your demographic since I don't qualify for "early-30s" anymore, but I'm now finding that I'm the "old man" at work and get to make comments about the dark days of the internets back in 1989, so everyone I work with as peers is basically in your demographic.
Almost everyone I know is voting Obama. Only exception is one 25yo PM who is voting for Palin (which gives me an excuse to hang around in her office all day arguing politics with her since I've got major short timers disease).
I don't know what world you're in, but among my friends (demographic: 20s/early 30s, ranging from students to deep 6 figure salaries, most of whom have spent more than half their life using the internet in some form), there's a lot of people on both sides, and most of them have pretty good reasons (better than how cute the VP nominees kids are acting on stage). If you don't know a single "internet savvy youth" that likes Obama, much less takes him seriously, it tells me you're living in a bubble, full of shit, or completely delusional.
I'm barely out of your demographic since I don't qualify for "early-30s" anymore, but I'm now finding that I'm the "old man" at work and get to make comments about the dark days of the internets back in 1989, so everyone I work with as peers is basically in your demographic.
Almost everyone I know is voting Obama. Only exception is one 25yo PM who is voting for Palin (which gives me an excuse to hang around in her office all day arguing politics with her since I've got major short timers disease).
Several people where I work are voting for Obama. Funny thing is though that ALL of the political junkies are going for McCain.
That's why I say it's anecdotal. It depends on where you work/live. And in this state, you will definitely work with more Obama supporters than in Wyoming. :P
Dennis Pragger on the Gibson interview of Palin. It's worth simply posting here for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear:
Sarah Palin's reputation survived her interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson.
The same cannot be said for Charlie Gibson.
On my radio show last week, I twice defended Barack Obama. Once, against those conservatives who took a comment made by Obama in an interview with George Stephanopoulos out of context and suggested that Obama had inadvertently admitted he was a Muslim. And again, when I contended that Obama did not imply that Palin was a pig in his now famous "lipstick on a pig" reference.
I mention this only because I want to assume that people of good will on both sides can still be honest about what transpires politically. And in this instance what transpired was that Gibson intended to humiliate Palin.
It wasn't even subtle. Virtually everything Gibson did and virtually every question he posed was designed to trap, or trick, or demean Gov. Palin. There are views of his face that so reek of contempt that anyone shown photos of his look would immediately identify it as contemptuous.
But one series of questions, in particular, blew any cover of impartiality and revealed Gibson's aim to humiliate Palin.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His worldview?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
When he asked Palin whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine without defining it, he gave the game away. He lost any pretense of fairness. Asking the same unanswerable question three times had one purpose -- to humiliate the woman. That was not merely partisan. It was mean.
I couldn't answer it -- and I have been steeped in international affairs since I was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of International Affairs in the 1970s. I have since been to 82 countries, and have lectured in Russian in Russia and in Hebrew in Israel. Most Americans would consider a candidate for national office who had such a resume qualified as regards international relations. Yet I had no clue how to answer Gibson's question.
I had no clue because there is no right answer. There are at least four doctrines that are called "Bush Doctrine," which means that there is no "Bush Doctrine." It is a term bereft of meaning, as became abundantly clear when Gibson finally explained what he was referring to:
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that -- the right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?
That's the Bush Doctrine? "The right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?"
Isn't that just common sense? What country in history has thought it did not have the right to attack those planning to attack it? I learned the "Bush Doctrine" when I was a student at yeshiva in the fourth grade, when I was taught a famous Talmudic dictum from about 1,800 years ago: "If someone is coming to kill you, rise early and kill him."
And preemptive attack is exactly what happened in June 1967, when Israel attacked Egypt and Syria because those countries were planning to attack Israel. Would any American president before George W. Bush have acted differently than Israel did? Of course not. Did they all believe in the Bush Doctrine?
That is how Gibson added foolishness to his meanness.
All the interview did was reconfirm that Republicans running for office run against both their Democratic opponent and the mainstream news media.
This year it is more obvious than ever. The press's beatification of Obama is so obvious, so constant (how many covers of Newsweek and Time has Obama been on?) that media credibility even among many non-conservatives has been hurt.
Let me put this another way. Charlie Gibson showed far greater hostility toward the Republican vice-presidential candidate than Dan Rather did in his interview with Saddam Hussein or Mike Wallace did in his interview with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Which reminds me of another Talmudic dictum: "Those who are merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful."
We might call it the media's Gibson Doctrine: Confront Republicans, act obsequious toward tyrants.
I don't know that I'd call this a gaffe. Don't you think that it makes sense for the Iraqi government to not make huge plans in regards to any agreement until after the election is over? Whoever becomes Prez is going to want it done their way and it seems to me that it's more sensible for everyone to wait until after elections to make any long term policy changes in regards to Iraq.
I disagree with your statement on so many levels that I don't know where to start. I will let McCain spokesman Randy Scheunemann say it for me:
At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgment and it demands an explanation.
This is VERY serious stuff. It can be considered treasonous and could go beyond the campaign in importance.
Here's a fun one for your girlfriend that broke today Roy. I thought that she lied to Gibson about whether or not her and her hubby pressured Monaghan, but I couldn't remember for sure:
Todd Palin was ORDERED by the head of the Governor's security detail, Special Agent Bob Cockrell, to discuss Trooper Wooten with Walt Monegan, as Wooten presented a credible threat to the Governor's safety. Here's a direct quote from Special Agent Cockrell, who is now providing security for his sixth consecutive governor:
"When made aware of the security concerns regarding a state trooper, I instructed the First Gentleman to contact the commissioner of Public Safety. It is standard protocol to ask every governor about any threats they perceive or have realized. "I will not hesitate to set the record straight in answering these false allegations by former Commissioner Monegan."
Since we're just tackling the issue of her husband, then what this article shows is that he did talk to Moneghan about it. And in fact,
I have to say, does it make sense for him to have been ORDERED to talk to Moneghan in this instance? I mean, he is the governor's husband, but does he actually have any official power at all? It seems pretty suspect to me.
Here's a fun one for your girlfriend that broke today Roy. I thought that she lied to Gibson about whether or not her and her hubby pressured Monaghan, but I couldn't remember for sure:
Todd Palin was ORDERED by the head of the Governor's security detail, Special Agent Bob Cockrell, to discuss Trooper Wooten with Walt Monegan, as Wooten presented a credible threat to the Governor's safety. Here's a direct quote from Special Agent Cockrell, who is now providing security for his sixth consecutive governor:
"When made aware of the security concerns regarding a state trooper, I instructed the First Gentleman to contact the commissioner of Public Safety. It is standard protocol to ask every governor about any threats they perceive or have realized. "I will not hesitate to set the record straight in answering these false allegations by former Commissioner Monegan."
Since we're just tackling the issue of her husband, then what this article shows is that he did talk to Moneghan about it. And in fact,
I have to say, does it make sense for him to have been ORDERED to talk to Moneghan in this instance? I mean, he is the governor's husband, but does he actually have any official power at all? It seems pretty suspect to me.
The problem Charles, is that the ABC story is nothing more than an interview attempting to amplify the claims of one man. He uses the word "ordered" and a lot of people want to jump all over a single word. Cockrel said he "instructed". Yet you are questioning the authority of the first dude to talk to Moneghan. Let's be frank here, Are we not ignoring the whole body of events and parsing words at this point? From what I am hearing and have read (a lot) on this story, when I strip away the fluff, there is nothing here, unless someone simply wants to believe Palin screwed some helpless employee and that's that. In that case I go back to my "friend or foe" test.
When looking at the body of evidence for this, there is no THERE there. I have no doubt McCain's team discovered the same thing when they vetted this before asking her to be his running mate.
I have a friend that was accused by a disgruntled employee of all sorts of stuff that was utterly false, and eventually determined to be so. I know that CAN happen. To reiterate what I said earlier, when you strip away unverified claims, there is nothing left here. It is an empty story.
Middle and upper management in government and private industry get fired all the time for poor performance or not following the vision of their management. For us to sit here and pass judgment on such an event in the absence of any compelling evidence other than the fired employees claims is undignified, regardless of who did the firing.
[
The problem Charles, is that the ABC story is nothing more than an interview attempting to amplify the claims of one man. He uses the word "ordered" and a lot of people want to jump all over a single word. Cockrel said he "instructed". Yet you are questioning the authority of the first dude to talk to Moneghan. Let's be frank here, Are we not ignoring the whole body of events and parsing words at this point? From what I am hearing and have read (a lot) on this story, when I strip away the fluff, there is nothing here, unless someone simply wants to believe Palin screwed some helpless employee and that's that. In that case I go back to my "friend or foe" test.
When looking at the body of evidence for this, there is no THERE there. I have no doubt McCain's team discovered the same thing when they vetted this before asking her to be his running mate.
I have a friend that was accused by a disgruntled employee of all sorts of stuff that was utterly false, and eventually determined to be so. I know that CAN happen. To reiterate what I said earlier, when you strip away unverified claims, there is nothing left here. It is an empty story.
Middle and upper management in government and private industry get fired all the time for poor performance or not following the vision of their management. For us to sit here and pass judgment on such an event in the absence of any compelling evidence other than the fired employees claims is undignified, regardless of who did the firing.
Acutally, I quoted the "ordered" thing from your article. That was whatCockrel said according to what you sent.
My personal opinion on this one is that there probably isn't alot there. I think that there's probably lying on both sides. That being said, I don't think Palin is squeaky clean on this, which is why she's changed her "keep me accountable" tune.
As far as the McCain vetting process, I think we know that she wasn't really vetted all that well.
That's why I say it's anecdotal. It depends on where you work/live. And in this state, you will definitely work with more Obama supporters than in Wyoming. :P
You do know that's essentially the definition of non-anecdotal. That a higher percentage of people in WA vote democrat than in WY is statistical not anecdotal. That those with higher education tend to vote democrat is likewise statistical. Same with the internet savvy crowd tending younger and tending democrat.
The only anecdote is someone saying, yea or nay that who they know fits the statistics. Which frankly doesn't say anything at all.
So, why did lamont even point it out? Because you brought up your own anecdote to prove an invalid point. Kind of a "I'll see your anecdote and raise you one" kind of mentality. Either way, why do you even bring your own anecdotes if everyone elses will just be waved off as inconsequential?
[
The problem Charles, is that the ABC story is nothing more than an interview attempting to amplify the claims of one man. He uses the word "ordered" and a lot of people want to jump all over a single word. Cockrel said he "instructed". Yet you are questioning the authority of the first dude to talk to Moneghan. Let's be frank here, Are we not ignoring the whole body of events and parsing words at this point? From what I am hearing and have read (a lot) on this story, when I strip away the fluff, there is nothing here, unless someone simply wants to believe Palin screwed some helpless employee and that's that. In that case I go back to my "friend or foe" test.
When looking at the body of evidence for this, there is no THERE there. I have no doubt McCain's team discovered the same thing when they vetted this before asking her to be his running mate.
I have a friend that was accused by a disgruntled employee of all sorts of stuff that was utterly false, and eventually determined to be so. I know that CAN happen. To reiterate what I said earlier, when you strip away unverified claims, there is nothing left here. It is an empty story.
Middle and upper management in government and private industry get fired all the time for poor performance or not following the vision of their management. For us to sit here and pass judgment on such an event in the absence of any compelling evidence other than the fired employees claims is undignified, regardless of who did the firing.
Acutally, I quoted the "ordered" thing from your article. That was whatCockrel said according to what you sent.
My personal opinion on this one is that there probably isn't alot there. I think that there's probably lying on both sides. That being said, I don't think Palin is squeaky clean on this, which is why she's changed her "keep me accountable" tune.
As far as the McCain vetting process, I think we know that she wasn't really vetted all that well.
Three things:
1. The "ordered" quote was actually in both articles.
2. I suspect you are right in what you say in that second paragraph, since the only person I believe that ever lived that is squeeky clean was hung on a cross for my sins. All others have dirt, so the question is always "how much" and how stinky.
3. I think she was very well vetted and it is being demonstrated. Anybody who comes out of nowhere is gonna have all sorts of mud slung at them. So far, considering her position, it is amazing that the legion of people digging for dirt have only come up with a light dusting. I mean, who would have thought that one of the "skeletons" in a politicians closet was that they had a tanning bed that they paid for with their own money? That's news? :?
Some things are conspicuous in their absence. Those looking for a goldmine of scandal in Sarah are, so far, only coming up with fools gold and desperately trying to convince enough people that it is the real deal.
What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats?
Republicans prefer to lie about the fundamentals, and Democrats prefer to lie about the specifics.
What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats?
Republicans prefer to lie about the fundamentals, and Democrats prefer to lie about the specifics.
You sound like an independent.
I used to be a Republican but officially left the party after the last presidential election. They are nowhere NEAR conservative enough for me. We had a republican president AND congress and all we got was more tax and spend, entitlements and socialism.
`To be honest, I think whoever wins the next election will be seen by history as the next Woodrow Wilson. In fact, if I thought the country could survive an Obama presidencey, I'd vote for him for just that reason. But I don't think it would. I seriously do not think it would last the first two years, unless the republicans sweep the congress which I doubt very seriously will happen.
I think when McCain wins, the riots will be bad, but we'll get through it.
It is an obscure truth, but McCain and Algore used to be buddies and real high tech hobbyists. They would go over to each others house and work on various stuff in their bedroom while their parents were downstairs watching the 700 club.
Well, they both ended up inventing separate but very useful tools. Of course now they are both famous for these inventions - Gore for the internet and McCain for the Blackberry. The problem is that since both men are also politicians, their detractors refuse to believe they are the true inventors and consider their claims just a pack of lies.
It is an obscure truth, but McCain and Algore used to be buddies and real high tech hobbyists. They would go over to each others house and work on various stuff in their bedroom while their parents were downstairs watching the 700 club.
What's funny about this is that Al Gore's comments were actually accurate (if awkwardly stated).
Of course, we can't exactly blame McCain for this, since it was technically his staff who said it. There is one primary difference between a blackberry and the internet though. The internet was originally a DoD project. The government really did fund the entire thing until it got up and running. So, conceivably the internet might have taken longer to happen (I'm certain it or something like it would have happened eventually regardless) if Al Gore were not involved. RIMM is a private business...so other than approving spectrum use I don't quite see how this makes any sense.
Anyone care to explain why this claim isn't even more pathetic than Al Gore's?
I really don't ding either one of them for their, or their handlers misstatements on these issues. I just thought it was funny so I ran with it.
It is funny. I tire of people on BOTH sides that try to ding the other side for the slightest misstep. I'm with Larry Elders on that. I get serious about the MEAT. The fluff like this stuff is for fun.
1) If a police officer had tasered you 10 year old child....Would you want him fired?
2) If a police officer that had Tasered you 10 year old child...and previously been disciplined for Drinking on duty had Threatened to Kill your Father-in-law while involved in a messy divorce with you wife's sister Would you want him fired?
3) If you were governor and one of the people who serves at your will (can be replaced by you for any reason) Would you put up with that person undermining your Budget cuts and holding secret meetings to get orders to defy your instructions and that person was openly INSUBORDINATE ....WOULD YOU FIRE HIM?
SARAH PALIN was attempting to buck a corrupt state government (Republican at that) she had to take control and DID....Has you man OBAMA ever bucked the liberal establishment in any meaningfull way?
1) If a police officer had tasered you 10 year old child....Would you want him fired?
2) If a police officer that had Tasered you 10 year old child...and previously been disciplined for Drinking on duty had Threatened to Kill your Father-in-law while involved in a messy divorce with you wife's sister Would you want him fired?
3) If you were governor and one of the people who serves at your will (can be replaced by you for any reason) Would you put up with that person undermining your Budget cuts and holding secret meetings to get orders to defy your instructions and that person was openly INSUBORDINATE ....WOULD YOU FIRE HIM?
SARAH PALIN was attempting to buck a corrupt state government (Republican at that) she had to take control and DID....Has you man OBAMA ever bucked the liberal establishment in any meaningfull way?
Huh??? This is completely out of left field (I don't remember saying anything particularly strongly either way on this subject), and if I did it must have been over a week and a half ago...besides, I already said I wouldn't discuss this candidate until they did something worth discussing.
I thought I was going to see a smoking gun. Then I actually read what you posted.
Have you ever had kids? Have you ever had to make a major job decision and asked the kids about it? I have done both.
I can tell you that those two accounts are NOT contradictory as one unfamiliar with such a situation would believe them to be. But on this I will also quote Ann Coulter's response on another issue:
It is "...Olbmermannic in the sense that (a) if it were true, it's trivial, and (b) it's not true."
This sort of hack job against her is only hurting those that bring it up. As I have said in a previous post, the only person alive who has no skeletons in the closet was hanged on a cross for my sins. The rest of us have them. The question is only how many and how bad do they stink. Add that to the simple fact that when you are tallying and rating these skeletons, they only matter in relation to the other sides number and stinkyness.
Comments
Too easy.
:roll:
He clarified, after Obama and various other outlets picked up on it, that he meant the small business structure, the American worker, were all sound. I guess he missed the unemployment/job creation numbers for the last few months.
The ad hoc misstatement was fixed to say:
Unfortunately I can't pick on your heartthrob Sarah, since she's still not talking much.
I don't know that I'd call this a gaffe. Don't you think that it makes sense for the Iraqi government to not make huge plans in regards to any agreement until after the election is over? Whoever becomes Prez is going to want it done their way and it seems to me that it's more sensible for everyone to wait until after elections to make any long term policy changes in regards to Iraq.
After all, as his campaign has said, don't listen to anything that actually comes out of his mouth. Just listen to what we say in our little press releases. Because after all, he doesn't always know what he's talking about.
Look at any poll. This race is virtually tied overall. Washington is leaning Obama. King County especially so. Younger voters (age 18-30) lean more strongly Obama than the general population.
In other words, if you select 10 random (is that a LOT?) youths from the Seattle area it's highly likely that 6+ (probably 7-8) are leaning towards an Obama vote or have already decided they won't be voting for McCain. Yet you essentially know none who even take him seriously, let alone would consider voting for him?!?
Your statement lead me to two hypotheses either do not know a representative group of youths (or people in general), or people find it so grating to disagree with you that they just smile and nod when you share some new absurdism.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story ... 703&page=1
Thanks guys! That is what I was looking for. We can post our best examples here and let the chips fall where they may.
BTW, My acronym was bad. It should have been OGD, Obama Gaff of the Day. And the others can be the MGD.
This is fun!
Yikes!
On the other hand:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/29/ ... the-truth/
8)
Which side has the preponderence of evidence?
Based on the information in the stories we both posted, if you were on an impartial jury, which side would you come down on?
Obama's "camp" calls the Iraqi foreign minister a lier. That doesn't seem like particularly good diplomacy...
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/15 ... from-iraq/
I prolly shoulda saved this for tomorrows OGD but I'm pretty confident a good one will be forthcoming.
http://www.overstream.net/view.php?oid=n1ronxelmtin
I'm barely out of your demographic since I don't qualify for "early-30s" anymore, but I'm now finding that I'm the "old man" at work and get to make comments about the dark days of the internets back in 1989, so everyone I work with as peers is basically in your demographic.
Almost everyone I know is voting Obama. Only exception is one 25yo PM who is voting for Palin (which gives me an excuse to hang around in her office all day arguing politics with her since I've got major short timers disease).
That's why I say it's anecdotal. It depends on where you work/live. And in this state, you will definitely work with more Obama supporters than in Wyoming. :P
Sarah Palin's reputation survived her interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson.
The same cannot be said for Charlie Gibson.
On my radio show last week, I twice defended Barack Obama. Once, against those conservatives who took a comment made by Obama in an interview with George Stephanopoulos out of context and suggested that Obama had inadvertently admitted he was a Muslim. And again, when I contended that Obama did not imply that Palin was a pig in his now famous "lipstick on a pig" reference.
I mention this only because I want to assume that people of good will on both sides can still be honest about what transpires politically. And in this instance what transpired was that Gibson intended to humiliate Palin.
It wasn't even subtle. Virtually everything Gibson did and virtually every question he posed was designed to trap, or trick, or demean Gov. Palin. There are views of his face that so reek of contempt that anyone shown photos of his look would immediately identify it as contemptuous.
But one series of questions, in particular, blew any cover of impartiality and revealed Gibson's aim to humiliate Palin.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His worldview?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
When he asked Palin whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine without defining it, he gave the game away. He lost any pretense of fairness. Asking the same unanswerable question three times had one purpose -- to humiliate the woman. That was not merely partisan. It was mean.
I couldn't answer it -- and I have been steeped in international affairs since I was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of International Affairs in the 1970s. I have since been to 82 countries, and have lectured in Russian in Russia and in Hebrew in Israel. Most Americans would consider a candidate for national office who had such a resume qualified as regards international relations. Yet I had no clue how to answer Gibson's question.
I had no clue because there is no right answer. There are at least four doctrines that are called "Bush Doctrine," which means that there is no "Bush Doctrine." It is a term bereft of meaning, as became abundantly clear when Gibson finally explained what he was referring to:
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that -- the right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?
That's the Bush Doctrine? "The right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?"
Isn't that just common sense? What country in history has thought it did not have the right to attack those planning to attack it? I learned the "Bush Doctrine" when I was a student at yeshiva in the fourth grade, when I was taught a famous Talmudic dictum from about 1,800 years ago: "If someone is coming to kill you, rise early and kill him."
And preemptive attack is exactly what happened in June 1967, when Israel attacked Egypt and Syria because those countries were planning to attack Israel. Would any American president before George W. Bush have acted differently than Israel did? Of course not. Did they all believe in the Bush Doctrine?
That is how Gibson added foolishness to his meanness.
All the interview did was reconfirm that Republicans running for office run against both their Democratic opponent and the mainstream news media.
This year it is more obvious than ever. The press's beatification of Obama is so obvious, so constant (how many covers of Newsweek and Time has Obama been on?) that media credibility even among many non-conservatives has been hurt.
Let me put this another way. Charlie Gibson showed far greater hostility toward the Republican vice-presidential candidate than Dan Rather did in his interview with Saddam Hussein or Mike Wallace did in his interview with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Which reminds me of another Talmudic dictum: "Those who are merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful."
We might call it the media's Gibson Doctrine: Confront Republicans, act obsequious toward tyrants.
This is VERY serious stuff. It can be considered treasonous and could go beyond the campaign in importance.
Dead serious here.
Todd Palin was ORDERED by the head of the Governor's security detail, Special Agent Bob Cockrell, to discuss Trooper Wooten with Walt Monegan, as Wooten presented a credible threat to the Governor's safety. Here's a direct quote from Special Agent Cockrell, who is now providing security for his sixth consecutive governor:
"When made aware of the security concerns regarding a state trooper, I instructed the First Gentleman to contact the commissioner of Public Safety. It is standard protocol to ask every governor about any threats they perceive or have realized. "I will not hesitate to set the record straight in answering these false allegations by former Commissioner Monegan."
Since we're just tackling the issue of her husband, then what this article shows is that he did talk to Moneghan about it. And in fact,
I have to say, does it make sense for him to have been ORDERED to talk to Moneghan in this instance? I mean, he is the governor's husband, but does he actually have any official power at all? It seems pretty suspect to me.
The problem Charles, is that the ABC story is nothing more than an interview attempting to amplify the claims of one man. He uses the word "ordered" and a lot of people want to jump all over a single word. Cockrel said he "instructed". Yet you are questioning the authority of the first dude to talk to Moneghan. Let's be frank here, Are we not ignoring the whole body of events and parsing words at this point? From what I am hearing and have read (a lot) on this story, when I strip away the fluff, there is nothing here, unless someone simply wants to believe Palin screwed some helpless employee and that's that. In that case I go back to my "friend or foe" test.
When looking at the body of evidence for this, there is no THERE there. I have no doubt McCain's team discovered the same thing when they vetted this before asking her to be his running mate.
I have a friend that was accused by a disgruntled employee of all sorts of stuff that was utterly false, and eventually determined to be so. I know that CAN happen. To reiterate what I said earlier, when you strip away unverified claims, there is nothing left here. It is an empty story.
Middle and upper management in government and private industry get fired all the time for poor performance or not following the vision of their management. For us to sit here and pass judgment on such an event in the absence of any compelling evidence other than the fired employees claims is undignified, regardless of who did the firing.
Acutally, I quoted the "ordered" thing from your article. That was whatCockrel said according to what you sent.
My personal opinion on this one is that there probably isn't alot there. I think that there's probably lying on both sides. That being said, I don't think Palin is squeaky clean on this, which is why she's changed her "keep me accountable" tune.
As far as the McCain vetting process, I think we know that she wasn't really vetted all that well.
You do know that's essentially the definition of non-anecdotal. That a higher percentage of people in WA vote democrat than in WY is statistical not anecdotal. That those with higher education tend to vote democrat is likewise statistical. Same with the internet savvy crowd tending younger and tending democrat.
The only anecdote is someone saying, yea or nay that who they know fits the statistics. Which frankly doesn't say anything at all.
So, why did lamont even point it out? Because you brought up your own anecdote to prove an invalid point. Kind of a "I'll see your anecdote and raise you one" kind of mentality. Either way, why do you even bring your own anecdotes if everyone elses will just be waved off as inconsequential?
1. The "ordered" quote was actually in both articles.
2. I suspect you are right in what you say in that second paragraph, since the only person I believe that ever lived that is squeeky clean was hung on a cross for my sins. All others have dirt, so the question is always "how much" and how stinky.
3. I think she was very well vetted and it is being demonstrated. Anybody who comes out of nowhere is gonna have all sorts of mud slung at them. So far, considering her position, it is amazing that the legion of people digging for dirt have only come up with a light dusting. I mean, who would have thought that one of the "skeletons" in a politicians closet was that they had a tanning bed that they paid for with their own money? That's news? :?
Some things are conspicuous in their absence. Those looking for a goldmine of scandal in Sarah are, so far, only coming up with fools gold and desperately trying to convince enough people that it is the real deal.
I used to be a Republican but officially left the party after the last presidential election. They are nowhere NEAR conservative enough for me. We had a republican president AND congress and all we got was more tax and spend, entitlements and socialism.
`To be honest, I think whoever wins the next election will be seen by history as the next Woodrow Wilson. In fact, if I thought the country could survive an Obama presidencey, I'd vote for him for just that reason. But I don't think it would. I seriously do not think it would last the first two years, unless the republicans sweep the congress which I doubt very seriously will happen.
I think when McCain wins, the riots will be bad, but we'll get through it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 2227.story
It is an obscure truth, but McCain and Algore used to be buddies and real high tech hobbyists. They would go over to each others house and work on various stuff in their bedroom while their parents were downstairs watching the 700 club.
Well, they both ended up inventing separate but very useful tools. Of course now they are both famous for these inventions - Gore for the internet and McCain for the Blackberry. The problem is that since both men are also politicians, their detractors refuse to believe they are the true inventors and consider their claims just a pack of lies.
Politics stains everything it touches!
BTW, here is Algores bedroom where much of the true technical epiphany's took place. He was clearly a geek: http://www.rocketroberts.com/stereo/stereo.htm
Personally I think he lived with his parents too long. But that's just me.
What's funny about this is that Al Gore's comments were actually accurate (if awkwardly stated).
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Of course, we can't exactly blame McCain for this, since it was technically his staff who said it. There is one primary difference between a blackberry and the internet though. The internet was originally a DoD project. The government really did fund the entire thing until it got up and running. So, conceivably the internet might have taken longer to happen (I'm certain it or something like it would have happened eventually regardless) if Al Gore were not involved. RIMM is a private business...so other than approving spectrum use I don't quite see how this makes any sense.
Anyone care to explain why this claim isn't even more pathetic than Al Gore's?
It is funny. I tire of people on BOTH sides that try to ding the other side for the slightest misstep. I'm with Larry Elders on that. I get serious about the MEAT. The fluff like this stuff is for fun.
Speaking of fun, check this out: http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Main_Page
It roasts 'em all!
Even Santa Clause and "your mom" are not spared!
1) If a police officer had tasered you 10 year old child....Would you want him fired?
2) If a police officer that had Tasered you 10 year old child...and previously been disciplined for Drinking on duty had Threatened to Kill your Father-in-law while involved in a messy divorce with you wife's sister Would you want him fired?
3) If you were governor and one of the people who serves at your will (can be replaced by you for any reason) Would you put up with that person undermining your Budget cuts and holding secret meetings to get orders to defy your instructions and that person was openly INSUBORDINATE ....WOULD YOU FIRE HIM?
SARAH PALIN was attempting to buck a corrupt state government (Republican at that) she had to take control and DID....Has you man OBAMA ever bucked the liberal establishment in any meaningfull way?
Huh??? This is completely out of left field (I don't remember saying anything particularly strongly either way on this subject), and if I did it must have been over a week and a half ago...besides, I already said I wouldn't discuss this candidate until they did something worth discussing.
Now, for something worth discussing. Why are republicans so much worst for the economy than democrats? This type of analysis helps explain why McCain is avoiding the real issues.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/ ... /82/601976
I thought I was going to see a smoking gun. Then I actually read what you posted.
Have you ever had kids? Have you ever had to make a major job decision and asked the kids about it? I have done both.
I can tell you that those two accounts are NOT contradictory as one unfamiliar with such a situation would believe them to be. But on this I will also quote Ann Coulter's response on another issue:
It is "...Olbmermannic in the sense that (a) if it were true, it's trivial, and (b) it's not true."
This sort of hack job against her is only hurting those that bring it up. As I have said in a previous post, the only person alive who has no skeletons in the closet was hanged on a cross for my sins. The rest of us have them. The question is only how many and how bad do they stink. Add that to the simple fact that when you are tallying and rating these skeletons, they only matter in relation to the other sides number and stinkyness.
I go back to my quote from Ann.