President Palin

[Boz]

Sept 11, 2008 16:47:09 GMT -5 hoyamac22 said:

I think that the Republicans should send a note to all their hypocritical supporters to Shut up:

www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

Also this isnt about a he said she said election -- there are some SERIOUS issues that need to be ersolved in this country, and there is no question that McCain holds nearly the same views and policies as Bush...No question. Therefore, if you believe that the past 8 years improved our country than vote for McCain, if not then Obama. It is that simple.

Ooooh, where to start, where to start?

OK, first of all, Karl Rove? Seriously? Hey, I'll stipulate that Karl Rove, like most if not all political strategists, routinely contradicts himself and is guilty of hypocrisy. Would you like me to pull out the umpteen thousand clips of David Axelrod being a hypocrite? They're out there. We can start with Barack Obama "never saying that the surge wouldn't work" and go from there. (whether you think Obama was right or wrong, there's no question that Axelrod was hypocritical as to his position).

My point was not about hypocrisy. That happens in political campaigns and -- much as you might like to deny it -- it happens on both sides.

My point was that Obama supporters are out there embarrassing themselves and their chosen candidate with ridiculous and wild epithets that are suitable for not much outside of the Internet. I hope you can see the difference, but maybe not.

As for the issues of this election, I'm having a hard time seeing where you stand on that. On one hand, you say there are serious issues we need to resolve. On the other hand, George Bush = bad, not George Bush = good, so really, according to you, what is there to discuss? It sure seems like you're trying to make the case that this IS, in fact, a he said-she said election.

Finally, George Bush may be bad, but according to most of the country, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are worse. So, maybe they're not ready to vote for a candidate who follows THAT leadership 95-97% of the time. I know for a fact that I can bring up more issues on which John McCain has disagreed with George Bush and other Republicans than you can bring up examples of Barack Obama disagreeing with his leadership.

But hey, I'm more than happy to have Obama supporters keep it up. They might as well be laying down a red carpet in front of 1600 Penn. for John McCain.

[hoyamac22]

Everyone always takls about the leftist media and how tehy are always portraying the republicans in this poor light, but the fact of the matter is, the republicans are the ones that are ****ing up all the time with poor choices and decisions. So, yea, when a senator tries to solicit sex in a bathroom, yea the news media is gonig to pick up on it. Or if you tell the country that there are WMDs in a country so that you can invade and it turns out there are none, yea the media is going to report on that too and say that you are wrong. Or when you fire US Attorney's because they aren't associated with your party, yea that is going to be put in the news as well DEMOCRAT or Republican. So I apologize for the media doing their job and REPORTING the news of the day.

I agree that the comments the past couple days were completely inane for Obama and Biden to partake in, but IT shouldn't determin an election.

I am not into percentages of people's voting records. I love how people are bringing up the fact that Obama voted 97% of the time with his party. I wouldn' mind if McCain voted 97% of the time with his party IF the policies he was voting for were policies that helped our nation. By voting 97% of the time with Pelosi and Reid, he was ni turn voting against Bush, and in most Americans minds that was a good thing. However, people hear 97% and they think dear God he is partisan.

And to say that this IS a he said she siad election I was talking about this gossipy news cycle that is pervading our politics. If you have a problem with the he said she said meaning showing discrepancies in their policies and view points, well that is politics.

Also another problem that I have is this argument that Obama should declare victory in Iraq. This to me is mind boggling. We, as a country are being pressured by the Republicans to admit that John McCain is the stategical war genius that pushed for the surge in a war that has killed nearly 5000 americans, but we should ignore the fact that he supported us going into said war for NO reason and putting the nation into HUGE debt. However, we are not able to question his decision to go into this war, that we are supposed to be praising him for. And also, what is VICTORY in this war. There is nothing victorious about making the U.S. and Americans a greater target worldwide, increasing our national debt, and making an already unstable region of the world a tinder box ready to go up in flames. How do we declare victory??

[Jack]

Who here knows what the Bush Doctrine is?

If you just raised your hand, you know more about foreign policy that Sarah Palin. Elitist eggheads, the lot of you.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/sarah-palins-charlie-gibs_n_125772.html

[Boz]

Actually, I think her answer on that issue was very smart.

But, to be fair, not every answer was that great. Her take on Israel is going to be legitimate fodder, not because she was necessarily wrong on the issue, but she was extremely rote in her response (three times, no less) and wouldn't give a detailed explanation. (critics will say she couldn't give a detailed explanation, which will be a fair criticism, unless she can expand on it better....and soon).

The answer on pre-emptive war though, I think, will work for her.

I am just reading online versions, I didn't get to see it live, so I'll have to watch it later, but that's my initial take.

[GIGAFAN99]

Sept 11, 2008 20:02:43 GMT -5 Boz said:

Actually, I think her answer on that issue was very smart.

But, to be fair, not every answer was that great. Her take on Israel is going to be legitimate fodder, not because she was necessarily wrong on the issue, but she was extremely rote in her response (three times, no less) and wouldn't give a detailed explanation. (critics will say she couldn't give a detailed explanation, which will be a fair criticism, unless she can expand on it better....and soon).

The answer on pre-emptive war though, I think, will work for her.

I am just reading online versions, I didn't get to see it live, so I'll have to watch it later, but that's my initial take.

Yeah, I agree.

Obama expanded our policy on Jerusalem ("It must not be divided") two days after accepting the nomination. I'm sure many supporters believe he did that as part of some smart plan of intelligentness as opposed to political expediency and inexperience.

She sounded rehearsed, probably because she was. Honestly, I don't care much about her views on foreign policy. Are we officially living in the Dick Cheney world where foreign policy is run by #2? As our I believe our forefathers asked "Who does #2 work for?"

[EasyEd]

My take on the Palin "interview".

Her demeanor - uncomfortable.

Her responses - pretty good overall.
Best response - her answer on Israel and Iran which she repeated three times because Gibson repeated the question three times. Implied from her response: "Charlie, read my lips, I've already said we cannot second guess what Israel does".
Worst response - her saying flatly that Georgia should be in NATO and we are then bound to assist if they are attacked. Because of the consequences of admitting Georgia, this must be approached very carefully.

Gibson's demeanor - came across as questioning a criminal against the wall, as an interrogator.

His questions - mostly good questions.
Best question - asked Palin if she really considered herself ready to VP or President role.
Worst questions - (1) do you support the Bush doctrine, a term created by the press, not a Bush administration term. (2) have you ever been out of the country, implying visiting foreign countries has any significant bearing on foreign policy? (I have toured the pubs of Ireland, visited the ruins of Rome, gone into Harrods of London, spent several day in the Azores, toured the casbah in Algiers, etc. and that says nothing about my qualifications on foreign policy).

Impact on the "interview"?
1. Press will say she's not ready for prime time.
2. Most in public will see it as another attack on Palin because of the "interrogation" method and the fact that a similar "interrogation" of Obama is still to take place.

Similar items of the past:
1. Gore debate with George W. where press unanimously declared Gore the "winner" but public reacted negatively to Gore's sighs, eye movements, etc.
2. Lazio's reasonably good debate with Hillary but the public perception he had "invaded her space".

[kchoya]

Anyone else thing the Republicans may catch a break with this one with Ike looming? In other words, McCain can now say she gave a major interview to a major network, but all the post-game breakdown will be preempted by what looks to be a possibly catastrophic storm.

[Boz]

Possible, kc. Let's just hope some moron of a Congressman doesn't come out and say that Ike shows that "God likes Republicans."

(besides, we already know that God likes Republicans)

;D ;D


But seriously, I have a couple of friends down in that area and, even though they're liberals, I hope that everyone gets through this OK. I hope neither campaign uses it for a political edge, and I hope both campaigns treat it like last night's forum -- no sniping, just "what can we do to help?"

[strummer8526]

Wow Ed--This board does not mention Rick Lazio enough. I liked him in 2000. Would have preferred the Rudy/Hillary match, and back then, I would have loved Senator Rudy...2000 Rudy. Sort of like how I long for 2000 McCain.

[EasyEd]

I failed to mention in my earlier post on my take of the Palin "interview" last night that I only watched what was covered in the 6:30 PM ABC news. Us elders don't watch anything that comes on after 8:00.

[kchoya]

Jeez, when did the major networks become US Weekly:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/12/earlyshow/main4444080.shtml

Save that crap for the next Brangelina issue.

[Bando]

Sept 12, 2008 13:29:49 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Jeez, when did the major networks become US Weekly:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/12/earlyshow/main4444080.shtml

Save that crap for the next Brangelina issue.

They did the same thing with the convention speeches. As far as I know, there's no such thing as a "body language expert", only a "pseudoscientific Edited".

[Boz]

Sept 12, 2008 13:29:49 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Jeez, when did the major networks become US Weekly:

You don't really need an answer to that question, do you?

When's the last time the major netowrks -- or their morning shows at the very least -- were NOT just like US Weekly?

[hoyatables]

Sept 12, 2008 15:30:25 GMT -5 Boz said:

Sept 12, 2008 13:29:49 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Jeez, when did the major networks become US Weekly:

You don't really need an answer to that question, do you?

When's the last time the major netowrks -- or their morning shows at the very least -- were NOT just like US Weekly?

I think for the first 48 hours after Katrina immediately hit. before that, the first 48 hours after 9/11. And the first 24 hours after 2000 election day were mostly real news.

Damn, I miss Jennings. At least Brokaw is still around. But jennings, man, he made you sit up and pay attention when something serious was happening.

[HoyaNyr320]

Sept 12, 2008 10:31:48 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Anyone else thing the Republicans may catch a break with this one with Ike looming? In other words, McCain can now say she gave a major interview to a major network, but all the post-game breakdown will be preempted by what looks to be a possibly catastrophic storm.

It's sad to think that the Republican Presidential team needs the occurrence of a hurricane to hide their inadequacies but ironic considering that in 2005 it was a hurricane that put the inadequacies of another Republican Presidential team front and center.

[PushyGuyFanClub]

Who here knows what the Bush Doctrine is? If you just raised your hand, you know more about foreign policy that Sarah Palin.
---
I worked at the Bush White House for a time. When he asked this question, I thought he was referring to the line idea that (paraphrasing) if you harbor a terrorist, you will be treated like a terrorist.

So, I guess that rules me out as a VP candidate. Shucks.

[strummer8526]

Sept 13, 2008 10:03:34 GMT -5 PushyGuyFanClub said:

Who here knows what the Bush Doctrine is? If you just raised your hand, you know more about foreign policy that Sarah Palin.
---
I worked at the Bush White House for a time. When he asked this question, I thought he was referring to the line idea that (paraphrasing) if you harbor a terrorist, you will be treated like a terrorist.

So, I guess that rules me out as a VP candidate. Shucks.

I think the fact that you're posting on HoyaTalk rules you out as VP. But I actually agree with your ultimate point. I'm convinced that Palin knows ABSOLUTELY ZERO about foreign affairs/international relations (other than the stock lines/ideas she's fed by the McCain people).

BUT that being said, "The Bush Doctrine" is a sort of nebulous, undefined phrase. It's not like we're hundreds out years out, and we're looking back on the "Doctrine." I'm sure if you asked someone in 1825 to very clearly discuss the Monroe Doctrine, there would be some confusion about exactly what its applicability meant.

Still, just because it wasn't her FAULT that she bungled a question does not mean that she's MORE qualified. It's just not something to hold against her.

[EasyEd]

Washington Post says there is no one definition of the "Bush Doctrine".

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091203324.html?hpid=topnews

[TC]

Sept 13, 2008 10:39:45 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Washington Post says there is no one definition of the "Bush Doctrine".

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091203324.html?hpid=topnews

But to be fair, she didn't give ANY of the definitions of what the "Bush Doctrine" was, she sat there trying to bluff her way through because she didn't know what Gibson was talking about.

Embarrassing, but the people voting because of Sarah Palin don't know what the Bush Doctrine is either, so it's not exactly a "potatoe" moment.

[hifigator]

Sept 12, 2008 20:12:56 GMT -5 HoyaNyr320 said:

Sept 12, 2008 10:31:48 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Anyone else thing the Republicans may catch a break with this one with Ike looming? In other words, McCain can now say she gave a major interview to a major network, but all the post-game breakdown will be preempted by what looks to be a possibly catastrophic storm.

It's sad to think that the Republican Presidential team needs the occurrence of a hurricane to hide their inadequacies but ironic considering that in 2005 it was a hurricane that put the inadequacies of another Republican Presidential team front and center.

I am somewhat sick and tired of that crap. Certainly there is plenty of blame to go around, but the typical liberal -- "blame Bush for everytiing " mentality is both incredilbly tired and simplistic as well. Certainly help and relief could have been more effective and efficient, but prior to Katrina, GWB was in contact with the Governor of La. (Bianco?) and was constantly assured that they had everything under control. As we now know, that was quite far from the truth. Still, there were planty of measures that could have aided the victims and minimized damages and/or deaths. It was certainly a tragedy and one from which we can all certainly learn. Still, the history revisionists started almost immediately -- before the extent of the damages were even known -- playing politics and, as usual, blaming Bush. Without taking this too far, that is certainly a very biased view. The bottom line is that there were plenty of mistakes made and plenty of fingers to point. Right off the bat, the formula which starts with building a rather large city below sea level is flawed to begin with. But even after that, there are dozens of pitfalls along the way.