Thursday, September 11, 2008

Time to Put Up or Shut Up











Tonight, two weeks after she was revealed as Sen. John McCain’s GOP running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will sit down for her first media interview with ABC.

It’s about time. It’s well past time.

When not drawing massive crowds (it remains to be seen how large these crowds will be now that the two have gone their separate ways; I imagine McCain’s numbers will fall while Palin’s remain steady), Palin has been cloistered away, submerged in a maelstrom of GOP advisors and staffers desperate to bring Palin up to speed on current issues and foreign affairs. Of course, that’s not what the Republicans are saying, but anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see what’s going on.

While Palin’s minders intone about keeping her away from the media until it can treat her with the “level of respect and deference” she deserves (deference being an interesting choice of words seeing as how it connotes going beyond respect to acceptance and surrender to another’s opinions), it is obvious that they are desperate, in these few short weeks, to fill in her woeful lack of understanding. If this were not true, she would have begun taking questions from the press weeks ago, rather than continuing to barnstorm the country with the same exact speech day after day and then immediate be hidden from view.

There are definite signs the press are tired of the stonewalling. Each day, more details about Palin’s past are being revealed. Did she put that jet up on Ebay? Yes. But it didn’t sell. She got rid of it elseware, at a hundred thousand dollar loss and not the significant gain McCain insisted on. Did she kill the “Bridge to Nowhere”? Yes, but only after Congress abandoned it and it became politically untenable to support. Before that she was a proud supporter. And afterwards, she continued to pile on $223 million in the kind of federal pork she so vehemently opposes now. Is she fiscally responsible with Alaska’s money? While her office drastically cut spending when compared to her predecessor, she billed Alaska taxpayers for more than 300 nights of travel per diem — when she was at home, sleeping in her own bed. It can be argued there were mitigating circumstances. So let her argue. Palin, who said her children are not political tools and called for privacy when it comes to her family, will be turning her son’s deployment to Iraq into a political event. This is the same woman who derided the press after they began publishing stories about her pregnant daughter — never mind the fact that she had just issued a press release about the situation.

Sarah Palin is tough, the GOP says. Because she can give a speech filled with zingers? Prove it. Sarah Palin can take the heat, the GOP says. Because she feigns offense and cries sexism every time someone stands up to her? Prove it. Sarah Palin is smart, the GOP says. Because she can recite facts written down for her by Bush speechwriters? Prove it. Sarah Palin is transparent, the GOP says. Because she’s been telling lies and half-truths about the very maverick, reform-minded ideals she touts day in and day out? Prove it.

Tonight is Sarah Palin’s chance to prove to the nation that she is all of those things. And she may well be. But she has to prove it. McCain and Co. have to cut the apron strings and let her wade into the fray on her own. She has to face and answer the sort of blistering, complicated, shockingly complex questions with which the potential leader of the free world must wrestle.

It’s high time Gov. Palin speaks for herself. It’s high time she answer her own hard questions. We know she can give a good speech. We know she has become the sort of glittering celebrity the GOP once loathed in their opponent. But it’s time to sit down and prove that she is more than a frontierswoman folk hero. If she can indeed hold her own, so be it. Tonight’s interview must be the first of many.

Are you qualified, governor? Prove it. It’s time to put up or shut up.

21 Comments:

Anonymous Chris said...

Brandon,

You have got to stop using the same arguments against Palin that we have been using against Obama for the past 19 months. It only highlights the inadequacies of Obama. This is one of the main reasons she was picked.

1:03 PM  
Anonymous POD said...

"It’s time to put up or shut up."

Ironic, I was kind of thinking the same thing about Obama earlier...

Don't be surprised if the governor starts to win you over Brandon:) I have a feeling that she will be "putting" up... but are you willing to accept that?

There is another blog on this website (http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/) that documents her history as a Governor. I know that since you watch Colbert, you are familiar with it...

1:51 PM  
Anonymous Chris said...

Brandon,

When Carl Rove talks about how to win a campaign, you better listen.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/rove_obama_cant_win_against_pa.html

2:02 PM  
Blogger Grinth said...

What arguments would that be? That Obama only speaks in vague promises but doesn't actually answer any hard questions or elaborate his plans and stances on key issues?

You might want to go back and revisit that one. At this point McCain is more guilty of that than Obama, not to say that Obama is innocent himself.

These days, as with every election year of recent times, the Republican campaign spends little time actually talking about the issues because its obsessed with trying to completely destroy the democratic nominee on a personal level. But hey, its worked extremely well for the Republicans so why stop now.

Basically, Republicans completely subscribe to the adage "The best defense is a good offense".

It happened to Dukakis. It happened to Kerry and these days I grow increasingly sure it will happen to Obama.

And really I don't blame them for trying. Bush followed through on a vast majority of what he promised. It just happens that his plans and promises didn't work out so well for the good old US of A. Of course they wouldn't want people to start realizing McCain is closely in line with Bush administration.
(Looking at the McCain of 2000 and the McCain of today is in someways mind boggling to me.)

But at this point, my attitude is basically "oh well". If people are too blind to realize they are voting for same thing that has run our country into the ground simply because McCain has appropriated Obama's talk of change and selected a VP who happens to be female, or if people do realize how closely inline with the current administration McCain is, yet choose to vote him into office any way-then we deserve whatever we get.

As far as the Palin interview goes. Count me in as someone who is very skeptical as to whether there will actually be any "hard" questions asked. This is the American mainstream media we are talking about. I've long given up on hoping they would ask hard questions of any politician. Unless, of course, it involves sexual indiscretion because Americans are obsessed with sex, Republicans doubly so.

2:21 PM  
Blogger Brandon said...

Gee, Chris, and I thought she was picked because she was the absolute best person for the job, the penultimate leader, a woman of extraordinary mind and spirit — so that placing her a heartbeat away from the Oval Office was an act of supreme confidence.

And here I find out she’s an inexperience blowhard chosen just to make blind liberals like me see a reflection of our own candidate. Thanks McCain, for showing me the error of my ways. Thank too for using the second most important position on the planet as a means by which to say a great big “I told ya so!”

3:13 PM  
Anonymous POD said...

I for one, look forward to the governor being asked all the tough questions... the earmarks, the bridge, troopergate, etc. She stands only to benefit from the scrutiny of her history of governorning because most (if not all) of the accusations against her have been rebuked. Newsweek has posted an article to this effect with a littany of sources as their foundation.

Furthermore, I have found an abundance of history on Palin, third party articles and whatnot... and if she proves herself in the arena of ideas (which I suspect there is a good chance that she will, because she is an EXPERIENCED governor with a proven track record) then I see her stock only going up with the American people.

And why are we comparing her to Obama anyway? Shouldn't we be comparing Obama to McCain? Shouldn't he be the one "putting up or shutting up?"

Do not underestimate this woman! Liberals beware!

5:23 PM  
Blogger Grinth said...

So Chris points to Karl Rove for sage advise. The quotes from Rove in the article provided suggest that the reason previous democratic candidates lost the election was because they attacked the republican vice-president. Punctuated with 'leave Palin alone if you want a shot a winning the election.'

POD suggests that once Palin discusses her ideas and plans for the issues facing our country she'll just become more popular with the American people. If Palin actually really talks about the issues facing our country I'll be shocked.

It's a funny thing. Go back and look at all the political discussion that have gone on here at Brandon's sight. You're not gonna find much, if any, people discussing the issues i.e why they like McCain's plans for bolstering our education better than Obama's etc etc. Because at the end of the day Republican's are not concerned with issues (with the exception of abortion and perhaps these days gay marriage).

Any way, in conjunction with the concept of priority of issues and Chris so graciously sharing Rove's campaign for Obama, here is a link to an article that I feel is one of the more insightful article on the campaign than I've read in a long while.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/11-11

9:47 PM  
Blogger Reacher said...

For what it's worth, I think we saw in the Charlie Gibson interview a foreign policy novice who has no idea what's going on. Didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, contradicted McCain's positions (guess that makes her a maverick, huh? Yeehaawww!), put us in a position where we would be obligated to attack Russia. Excellent. Great choice, John.

6:49 AM  
Blogger Brandon said...

I have a lot to say but I am reserving judgement until I see the second part of the interview tonight...

8:57 AM  
Blogger Brandon said...

You do realize that when you say, "most (if not all) of the accusations against her have been rebuked" you are using the same half-truths Palin uses, right?

This isn't some liberal opinion. It is the facts.

I notice neither POD nor Chris are confronting me on those specifics. Probably because I haven't attacked her for the obviously ridiculous partisan stuff and stuck to those things which are actually true. And now McCain is wading in with equally abhorrent lies.

2:16 PM  
Blogger Rhonda said...

There are so many things to be said about the selection of this woman . . . but right now I'm haunted by the sign someone was waving in the "Today" show background this morning:
"God, guns and lipstick." Gag.
And God help us if those two get elected.

4:18 PM  
Anonymous POD said...

Too many readers on this blog suffer from PDS. Good luck finding a cure...

10:17 PM  
Blogger Brandon said...

PDS? Dare I ask?

10:49 PM  
Anonymous POD said...

The good thing about the Palin interview is now we have knowledge about her policy positions. We can take a look at her views and vote accordingly.

I think that no amount of attacks on Palin - partisan or otherwise - can destroy her current standing. She is the only one who has the power to destroy herself.

I suspect that a great deal of people expect her to stumble during the debate with Senator Biden, but she has proven herself to be extremely composed under pressure. I look forward to the debates.

I know that things are pretty heated during this election... a few weeks ago, I was teetering on edge for potentially pulling the lever for Obama, but ultimately I decided on supporting McCain based upon his history of standing for what's right in the face of political opposition (the surge), and I don't want to vote for anyone who basically wants the US military to come home in defeat from Iraq - and Senator McCain understands what it means to come home with honor.

Even when decided on McCain, I wasn't extremely excited; however, with the selection of Sarah Palin - a true conservative, who has lives the life of conservatism - it just electrified me as a voter and American citizen... and I am not the only one that feels this way.

I know that some people write on this blog stating that to take sides on an issue, or political party, is a sign of weakness; however, that could not be further from the truth. But I have to take sides on this one issue... the apparent and overt attempt to destory this Governor Palin's credibility has been so great, that I have to look accusations towards her from two, three, four different vantage points before coming to a decision on it. Governor Palin and her so-called "baggage" in comparison to the three other camdidates is so small in comparison. The more I read between the lines in regards to most of these accusations - the per diem issue (despite spending less than her predessesor), the earmark issue (still a downward trend in dollars when taking into account her predessor's expenditures), the bridge issue (who the fuck cares if she kept the money for the state, wouldn't you if you were governor), the troopergate issue (police officer in question admitted that he DID TASER HIS STEPSON AND IN MY OPINION SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED) where she inquired "why is this person still representing the state of Alaska?" These accusations are so small, so miniscule. And the question on the "Bush Doctrine," don't get me started on that one. She answered that question appropriately. There was no "definitive" answer to the "Bush Doctrine" in September 2002, and it is a term that has evolved since then. I agree with her views on Israel, AND Georgia - they are a bit hawkish for my tastes, but not too much - but I basically agree with her position. As far as Afghanistan/Pakistan, her views and Obama's are one and the same. Energy policy, global warming, abortion, all sound answers from a CONSERVATIVE'S point-of-view. And like I mentioned before, shouldn't we be comparing the policies of McCain and Obama? Comparing Obama to Palin is only going to make Obama weaker and Palin stronger to the American people.

Now that we now know more about the positions of the McCain ticket, I - as an American citizen - encourage everyone to take part in the democratic process and vote accordingly.

(My only regret is that I wish I could change my residency to New Mexico now, so that my vote could cast a bit more weight, since it will be a closer match there than in my native Texas. But I'll be damned if I don't vote in my home state, because I want to ensure that all those electoral votes go firmly into the McCain/Palin block:)

Whew!

10:59 PM  
Anonymous POD said...

PDS - tongue-in-cheeck remark based upon this article:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1118511

11:00 PM  
Blogger Grinth said...

"The good thing about the Palin interview is now we have knowledge about her policy positions."

And that would be she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about?...

"She is the only one who has the power to destroy herself."

I completely agree and would say she's well on her way to destroying herself, but again I would reference the previous article I linked to as countering that view.

"I suspect that a great deal of people expect her to stumble during the debate with Senator Biden, but she has proven herself to be extremely composed under pressure."

First off I'm not keen on Biden and don't really expect that to be the case, but really? If by composed you mean mince words and dodge questions than yes, I concur.

"I decided on supporting McCain based upon his history of standing for what's right in the face of political opposition (the surge), and I don't want to vote for anyone who basically wants the US military to come home in defeat from Iraq - and Senator McCain understands what it means to come home with honor."

There are so many things to say about this statement that its hard to choose where to begin. I'll focus on the history of standing for what is right. I'm completely with you...if we were talking about the McCain of 2000. Unfortunately that didn't work out well and lost for many reasons, one being he was submarined by republicans who spread erroneous rumors that he had fathered two black children out of wedlock. Now those same people who orchestrated those rumors are key members of his campaign team.

"Even when decided on McCain, I wasn't extremely excited; however, with the selection of Sarah Palin - a true conservative, who has lives the life of conservatism - it just electrified me as a voter and American citizen... and I am not the only one that feels this way."

Of course not. It's widely accepted fact that McCain doesn't play that well to the 'true conservative' voter base. Palin does. She's everything conservatives love: Anti-Abortion (praise the lord, her daughter is amazing since she she chose to keep the baby. Key word in the last sentence, choice. Nevermind the fact that if abortion was currently illegal she would just be stuck with a daughter who had premarital sex).

"There was no "definitive" answer to the "Bush Doctrine" in September 2002, and it is a term that has evolved since then. I agree with her views on Israel, AND Georgia - they are a bit hawkish for my tastes, but not too much - but I basically agree with her position."

Ok, fair enough. It is your choice to agree with her position. But what in the world do you mean there was no 'definitive' answer to the 'Bush Doctrine'? There is no escaping the fact that she was not familiar with her own party's stances on foreign policy. There is also no escaping the fact that she refused to say whether she agreed with it or not (once it was explained to her). The end result being, what position of her's are you actually agreeing with?

"And like I mentioned before, shouldn't we be comparing the policies of McCain and Obama?"

We should, but the same polls that you and others have been quick to refer to when they show Obama and McCain are now in a dead heat show that people are voting for Palin not McCain. In that sense Palin was a great choice because McCain was dead in the water. He is a non-entity. Palin has breathed new life into an otherwise doomed ticket. It is no wonder that Palin, rather than McCain, is being discussed with Obama, rather than Biden(because lets be honest, whoever Obama selected as VP, was still going to play second fiddle).

"Now that we now know more about the positions of the McCain ticket"

Really? Palin and McCain are, at times, diametrically opposed. How you can you say from two interviews that we know the positions of the McCain ticket?

And even beyond that, your statement infers that we didn't know the positions of McCain before Palin. Furthermore, it just highlights the lack of enthusiasm conservatives had for McCain (well at least he's not the democratic candidate) before Palin was selected as VP.

2:48 AM  
Blogger Grinth said...

And beyond that I should state that I think that Obama is by far not the perfect candidate, but when push comes to shove he at least has greater potential to be more different from the the current status quo of our incumbent administration-no matter how hard McCain and the republican party tries to label him as a 'Maverick' and agent of change.

And this is where I see the major difference between the parties these days: abortion and gay marriage.

Republicans couldn't get too excited about McCain because lets face it, he's gone from 'agents of intolerance' to 'I agree with conservatives completely'.

He says this now, but he didn't say that in the past, but whatever you want to say about Palin she's been conservative through and through....and that is something we can get behind.

3:12 AM  
Anonymous POD said...

"And that would be she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about?..."

On the basis of what? Her views in contrast to Obama? Biden? McCain?

Let's assume for a moment that she isn't the most versed person in the world on foreign policy... does that make her wrong?

Remember, Biden is someone who "has a clue" on foreign policy, but was wrong on Iraq. Wrong on the pullout timetable, wrong on the Surge.

Does Obama "have a clue?" Does that mean that he should surround himself with foreign policy experts? Of course it does. Would it be any different in a McCain-Palin administration?

"First off I'm not keen on Biden and don't really expect that to be the case, but really? If by composed you mean mince words and dodge questions than yes, I concur."

Governor Palin only appeared to dodge questions to those who wished that Charles Gibson paint her in a corner on her views of the "Bush Doctrine" and Israel. I recommend to everyone to listen to the interview without viewing the television - her answers come across more succinctly and fluidly, as well as reveal how Mr. Gibson was trying to turn her words around and against her... just imagine if she would have been less solid and agreed to Charlie Gibson's framing of that question (that we would be categorically behind any attack on Iran by Israel.) Today's headline in the states would read, "Palin supports Israel nuking Iran." Not to mention the propaganda that would be spreading around on the state-run Iranian press today. She was very smart to answer that question in the context that we should not question the action of Israel in regards to their own security - a viewpoint I steadfastly agree with...

Oh if only Obama had chosen Hillary, the Dems wouldn't be in such a mess. Even though an Obama-Clinton teaming would be a dream ticket, I would have been curious on who would have been truly governing in a Obama-Clinton administration. And truth be told, that wouldn't have been a bad thing...

"he was submarined by republicans who spread erroneous rumors that he had fathered two black children out of wedlock."

You're asking me to remember something from eight years ago during the Republican primary season? (I was too busy flirting with Italian women at the time of my life.) That observation is totally off my radar. I don't have the knowledge to answer to that except to realize that it definitely was cruel, not much unlike the smear treatment that Governor Palin has received over her family life, and it only endears me closer to both McCain AND Palin.

The great thing about the defamation of Palin (or McCain for that matter) is that it forces people to focus what the the candidates are actually saying during interviews, because the media has been discredited over the reporting of Governor Palin over the last two weeks. I assume that the American people are going to be better versed on the issues than in previous elections... 37 million people watched the first Charlie Gibson interview. You can't buy that type of audience, except maybe during the Super Bowl.

"But what in the world do you mean there was no 'definitive' answer to the 'Bush Doctrine'? There is no escaping the fact that she was not familiar with her own party's stances on foreign policy. There is also no escaping the fact that she refused to say whether she agreed with it or not (once it was explained to her). The end result being, what position of her's are you actually agreeing with?"

Ask yourself, how would YOU answer that question about the "Bush Doctrine?" It was such a general question. The "Bush Doctrine" is a concept that was not coined by the Bush administration - it was a concept that was coined by Charles Krauthammer in 2002. And it doesn't address the fact that it was Charles Gibson that framed the question incorrectly in the first place, because the "Bush Doctrine" isn't a concept that only deals with the idea of preemptive strikes. The "Bush Doctrine" has evolved into a a multitude of talking points, from the countries that harbor terrorists, to the stance of preemptive attack when security of the United States is threatened, and to the concept of "spreading democracy" - a concept which I don't exactly agree with, except in dealing with countries that we have beaten in war, i.e. Germany, Korea, Japan, Italy, and Iraq. So back to the question, of "what do you think of the Bush Doctrine?" Governor Palin was exactly correct in her response, because the question was too generalized, and it is not an officially recognized doctrine, like the Marshall Plan was back at the close of WWII; however, I will caveat that history books will be teaching the concept of the "Bush Doctrine" for generations to come, much as in the same way as the concepts of "Manifest Destiny" are taught now. It will be up to historians, not us in the present to determine its importance and context with current world events.

"Palin has breathed new life into an otherwise doomed ticket."

You are absolutely right - even longtime McCain critic Rush Limbaugh is now calling him, "John McBrilliant."

Senator McCain's choice of Governor Palin was based upon three things: 1. shoring up the conservative base (check), 2. bringing in a fresh face with a documented history of reform, which is in tandem to his own views (check), and 3. bringing onboard disaffected Hillary supporters - can't really check that one, but it has definitely brought about a turnaround in white women support of Obama and has put them firmly in the McCain camp, at least for now.

Plus, there was an unintended consequence of her being but on the ticket. The fact that she is a woman, a tough woman for that matter, a woman of principle, and someone that people can relate to on a personal level. Unfortunately for liberals, she has shattered the concept of modern feminism and whether or not McCain wins this election... she probably not going away anytime soon.

"Really? Palin and McCain are, at times, diametrically opposed."

There is nothing wrong about that as long as the train is going in the right direction:) But I will concur that she needs to do more interviews, and Oprah should allow her on her show, as well as "The View." But they won't (at least Oprah won't) because they are hard core Obama supporters. She will get her word out in time... and as of yesterday 37 million people know more about her views than the day before that.

"And even beyond that, your statement infers that we didn't know the positions of McCain before Palin. Furthermore, it just highlights the lack of enthusiasm conservatives had for McCain (well at least he's not the democratic candidate) before Palin was selected as VP."

Agreed. My enthusiasm for McCain did not build until after the appearance of him and Obama at Saddleback. I certainly noticed a much larger contrast to the candidates views after their appearance at that forum. I just simply prefer Senator McCain's straight talk over the "above my paygrade" comments than the "nuanced" Senator Obama made. Like I mentioned before, it is basically Senator McCain's viewpoint on Iraq that sold me on him. I realized (to the chagrin of his critics) he has changed his mind on several issues; however, the observation that I have made is that his viewpoints have changed in the face of potential political disaster. I couldn't help than admire that - Senator Obama's adjustment on the issues such as the Surge, taxes, offshore drilling could not have been done at a worse time... if he would have had these stances a year ago, I might have though differently about him.

Plus, why didn't Obama agree to the town hall meetings with McCain? We would have a much better picture of where Obama stands on the issues, as well as know how he reacts in unscripted environments. Lately Obama's reactions to his opposition has been very unpresidential (the idiotic "lipstick on a pig" comment definitely spotlights my observations of him) and I basically I think that Obama is now in above his head, forced to react to a VP candidate (Biden hasn't done so well Obama by saying that Hillary, "is a better candidate for the Vice-Presidency") when he should be focusing on McCain, and ACTING PRESIDENTIAL.

And the article that you referenced - I couldn't agree with it more, especially in regards to the inability of the Dems to grasp a hold of the primarily conservative psyche of most ordinary Americans. Obama should take note that Bill Clinton did not win his elections by running as a liberal. And Obama, according to his voting record, is as liberal as they come, and with that there is some baggage, because a lot of people (myself included) find the extremely left liberal mindset to lack to a sense of humor, good nature, and rarely if ever (IMHO) to inspire us to be something greater than what we are. That is why I support the McCain-Palin ticket.

Thanks for keeping me honest, Grinth...

5:11 AM  
Anonymous POD said...

I need to make a correction... I got mixed up with the audience numbers... 37 million was the amount of people that watched her convention speech, not the amount of people that watched the interview on ABC News.

7:15 AM  
Blogger Grinth said...

I'll respond in full later. When I get the chance. But one thing caught my eye:

"I just simply prefer Senator McCain's straight talk over the "above my paygrade" comments than the "nuanced" Senator Obama made."

Please. Get over yourself and the whole liberal elitist crap. I have a masters degree, one that guarantees I'm in debt to the US government for the rest of my life. I make $20,000.00 a year and the rent for my apartment is double to triple what most Americans pay on their mortgage payments each month(and my apartment is cheap where I live).

This whole concept that liberals are elitist and wealthy is utter &*$@. And the attitude taken by conservatives like you is not unlike the attitude taken by many students in grade school. I'm going to attack you if your smart, because it's not 'cool' to be educated. It's an attitude that republicans love and its an attitude that goes a long way to ensuring our kids are not educated and that our education system will continue to go further and further down the toilet.

After all, why bother being educated when you can push everyone around with force and threaten them with nukes?

11:54 AM  
Blogger Grinth said...

Ok:

"Governor Palin only appeared to dodge questions to those who wished that Charles Gibson paint her in a corner on her views of the "Bush Doctrine" and Israel."

That's another way of saying she only appeared to dodge questions when she didn't want to elaborate that her views are exactly the same as the ones 70% of America is fed up with.

"Let's assume for a moment that she isn't the most versed person in the world on foreign policy... does that make her wrong?"

Of course not. Experience never equates to automatic correctness. However, what little Palin actually did say about foreign policy makes her wrong. Unless of course you loved Bush's foreign policy, then you would think Palin is a wunderkind. But don't ask her to say whether she agrees with Bush, that's just "painting her into a corner".

"Oh if only Obama had chosen Hillary, the Dems wouldn't be in such a mess. Even though an Obama-Clinton teaming would be a dream ticket, I would have been curious on who would have been truly governing in a Obama-Clinton administration. And truth be told, that wouldn't have been a bad thing..."

Thanks for the laughs on that one. Didn't like Bill, don't like Hillary, but as usual she's the republicans favorite democrat.

"I don't have the knowledge to answer to that except to realize that it definitely was cruel, not much unlike the smear treatment that Governor Palin has received over her family life"

I'm speechless...just speechless.

"Ask yourself, how would YOU answer that question about the "Bush Doctrine?""

You also go on to say it was "such a general question". If you want me to provide a link the transcript of the interview I will, but Gibson pointedly asks her if she believes the United States has the right to preemptively attack another country if we believe they may attack us. There is nothing general about that, and without question my answer would have been definitively no.

Despite her best efforts to avoid saying it, Palin's answer is yes.
The great thing about that policy is it only applies to us, no other country, with the exception of Israel, is allowed to follow it (see Russia with Georgia...wait,no I'm sorry Georgia had actually attacked Russia. Never mind, our 'moral' outrage should be even higher. I apologize).

You reference the surge constantly. That's gotta be one of the Republican parties crowning achievements of spin and propaganda. The surge was a shiny term for "send more troops". Which is what everyone with a half a brain, myself included although I think I'm down to 1/3 of a brain, were saying and then shouting while Bush was busy taking photographs and declaring the war was over, back when it was just starting.

The surge was a success. Hmm, well sure depending on your definition. Did it temporarily bring increased stability? Yep and what a shocker that is. Did it do anything permanent to help the situation in Iraq? I say nope.

But never mind all that, lets praise Bush for his brilliant 'strategy'.

Again I'm getting sidetracked on issues so I'll stop.

I would love if you would elaborate on how Palin has redefined modern feminism.

"And Obama, according to his voting record, is as liberal as they come, and with that there is some baggage, because a lot of people (myself included) find the extremely left liberal mindset to lack to a sense of humor, good nature, and rarely if ever (IMHO) to inspire us to be something greater than what we are."

Now here I have to hand it to you. First the republicans are now the agents of change and there going to go in and change err Repulican Washington. Now its liberals who are stiff, uninspiring, and (best of all in my opinion) have no sense of humor.

Two months ago I could have sworn it was the exact opposite. Thanks for pointing that though, I need to make sure to return my humor card lest I be mistaken for a conservative.

Now there's a word: conservative.
"tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions"

So don't you worry conservatives, McCain is going to win. He's a maverick and he's going to change things.

Which brings me back to my original point: As long as the ticket is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage it doesn't matter what their stances on the issues are, even if those stances are detrimental to you personally.

Palin's pro-life: check. She's against gay marriage: check. She's a christian: check. It's done. No matter what she says from here on out you'll find some way to spin or interpret, or flat out ignore, because she meets the only things that really matter. As a by product this also now applies to McCain.

One last thing: It's interesting how people's perceptions can alter things so drastically. You thought Palin was brilliant in her response to the Bush doctrine question, my friend's, who happens to be a hardcore Republican, response to the interview was "It was like watching that kid in class who gets called on to answer some questions and its obvious she didn't read the chapter".

2:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus