Monday, September 08, 2008

Who's Running for President, McCain or Palin?

My one-week love affair with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP's vice presidential nominee, is officially over. She's no longer charming. Her relentless sarcasm is derogatory and mean-spirited. And, she's dangerous. The smart girl glasses are, like her, a sham, and that Fargo voice now sounds like nails on a chalkboard. To be honest, most of my previous adoration centered around my expectation that the appointment of this political lightweight would be a cancer to the ticket. Instead, I now believe she's Sen. John McCain's meal ticket. Incredibly, this election has become all about her, not him, and if Sen. Barack Obama and the Dems don't get their shit together fast and strip away the layers of this vacuous onion, Palin just might be the reason McCain wins in November.

Once again, Republicans are distracting voters away from the real issues--the war, Afghanistan, the economy, health care--and framing the entire campaign around the fact that Palin's a small town, socially conservative, diaper-juggling Walmart mom who doesn't scare them. Someone voters can feel comfortable and safe with, wink-wink. As MSNBC's Chris Matthews said Monday, "This is to me the cleverest move they've ever pulled....which is the switch from what do you want to who do you want." Matthews also believes that this tactic is rooted more in racial motivations than anything else. And he's right. The McCain camp would just love to reassure voters that their white ticket is the safer bet.

It's safe to say that Republicans are downright giddy over their Everymom. In fact, since her rousing speech last week at the RNC convention in Minneapolis, conservatives have been acting as if it's she, not McCain, who's running for president. The convention was The Sarah Palin Show. Not good for the top guy to be so embarrassingly upstaged by the former Mayor of Wasilla. It's unprecedented in modern American politics for a presidential candidiate to literally rest his campaign hopes on the shoulders of his vice presidential running mate, and to change his entire message to fit her narrow positions.

But nevertheless, Republicans have been smart to elevate Palin in stature knowing just how weak McCain's prospects would be without the charismatic hockey mom on the ticket. This little arctic spitfire has taken his anemic campaign and given it new life. Her convention performance outdrew both McCain and Obama, and she's been on fire since. As proof, a new USA/Gallup Poll released Monday showed a huge bounce for the ticket, putting Grandpa John and Grandma Sarah ten points ahead of Obama and Sen. Joe Biden among likely voters. But before Republicans could really get excited, other new polls, including CNN and ABC, still showed the race as a dead heat.

Just wait. Wait until the currently sequestered Palin has to go before the national news media to answer questions pertaining to a host of domestic and global issues. Despite the intense coaching from Sen. Joe Lieberman and others, Palin's gaping knowledge-abyss will be evident. Gone will be the American flags backdrop, the cheering throngs of kool-aid drunken right-wingers, and the writing skills of Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt. It won't be a Wasilla press conference. She may be able to memorize some sound bytes, but she cannot and will not become miraculously adept with and acutely aware of the nuances of our various national security and economic challenges. There's a reason the campaign has so far kept her from the press: she has no idea what to say.

Back to the polls. Bounce shmounce, I say. Remember, Obama also had a ten-point bounce after the DNC convention. Now it's McCain's turn. And a week from now it'll be different yet again. Voters typically do not focus on elections until after Labor Day. The real campaign is just starting. Not only will Palin have to face the media many times over--shows like "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation" are a must--she will also go head-to-head with Biden on Oct 2nd in the televised vice presidential debate. Can you imagine how woefully unprepared and inexperienced she's gonna look like against Biden and his 37 years of solid foreign policy and domestic legislating?

Additionally, the Obama/Biden ticket will be greatly aided by the Clintons. Hillary's been out stumping quite effectively already in places like Florida, and Obama and Bill Clinton will be lunching Thursday to map out the strategy for getting Bubba fully engaged. The right can mock Bill Clinton all it wants, but he's a master campaigner and still wildly popular among Democrats, moderate Republicans and Independents. His presence on the campaign trail these next seven weeks will prove invaluable.

Stumping in the swing state of Missouri Monday, we got a glimpse of the McCain/Palin strategy in action for the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-stem-cell research, gun-toting, carcass-skinning, evangelical creationist book-banning Palin. The Repubs know they're weak on the economy, so they had their spunky cheerleader tackle taxes, jobs, government spending, etc. But the speech was short on substance and chock full of catchy sound bytes. Just the sort of knowledge-gap that the media and Biden will shoot Dick Cheney-sized bullet holes through very soon...that is, once she's let out of the GOP safehouse.

"Our opponent, he still can't acknowledge the coming victory in Iraq," Grandma Sarah incredulously declared at the Missouri charade. Did she say victory? The coming victory? I can't wait until the press gets to ask her to (a) specifically define victory and (b) tell us just when that will occur...since she's so damned sure it's coming. Palin also engaged in revising history over her supposed "Bridge to Nowhere" opposition, which we now know was actually aggressive lobbying for the $400-million pork-barrel project. Thankfully, Obama hit back Monday, and hit hard: "I mean ya can't just make stuff up. Ya can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid."

Oh Barack, how we do hope you're right. But judging from the outcome of both the 2000 and 2004 elections, I'm not so sure.

HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's time now to help Obama fight the bigger fight and win the November election. He's gonna need money. Lots of money. Will you join me in making as large a contribution as you can to the campaign? I am personally commited to raising $25,000 for Sen. Obama and you can help me reach this goal. Click here to make a contribution. The White House is well within reach. Let's not let it slip away this time.

HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: John McCain and the GOP are going to spend tends of millions on vicious attack ads and aggressive ground teams. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizable war chest, Sen. Obama can successfully combat the GOP's attack and win these states. Click here to make a contribution. It's time to change America.


Anonymous said...

YOU IDIOT! Republicans are distracting voters from the real issues ? Look at your previous thread! Its got a picture of Bristol Palin, the 17 year old daughter of Governor Palin.

Democrats have been trying every smear they can possibly dig up against Palin. It's the liberals that are distracting voters away from the real issues.

Palin was announced last week and liberals have already unsuccessfully tried to smear her in any way their little pea brains can think up.

Here is just a small list of the unsuccessful smear attempts thrown at Palin from the left.

NOW you want to talk about the issues ? Get a grip!. The republicans are ready to talk about the issues, but first we need liberals like YOU to stop attacking Palin's children.

Anonymous said...

I find it humorous that after the Democrats silenced Florida voters during the Primary Season, they are now begging for Florida voters to vote for a Democrat that they wouldn't have voted for in the Primaries.

Florida's votes didn't matter to Obama a few months ago. He didn't even go there during the Primary season. Now he has to send Hillary to beg for votes.

Anonymous said...

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.
On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?

Would we?

Manuel Alvarez Jr. Sandy Hook.

Anonymous said...

Movie review for The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor starring John McCain

This is John McCain’s first movie appearance since his cameo in Wedding Crashers. McCain has once again played himself this time starring as the film’s protagonist, the Mummy. It was a clever casting move by the film’s directors, as no makeup was needed to portray McCain as an ancient, desiccated, withered cadaver.

The movie begins when McMummy falls out of his chariot and is captured by the Syrians. He spends five and a half years being tortured in a Syrian prison camp and being brainwashed into a secret Syrian supporter. When he returns to Egypt his wife who has faithfully waited for him, falls off a camel and is crippled. McMummy, becomes a politician in the Egyptian parliament and is then involved in a political scandal. He is known as one of the “Cairo Five,” a group of five Egyptian politicians who took bribes and kickbacks to reward lucrative government contracts to a wealthy businessman. McMummy is attracted to the businessman’s secretary who accidentally burns a pile of records that implicated him deeper in the scandal. He starts cheating with her, and it doesn’t hurt that she’s a wealthy meade heiress. McMummy applies for a marriage license with the beer heiress even though he is still married to the woman was crippled in the camel accident. McMummy uses his war record to help people forget about his corruption issues. He styles himself a “maverick” by doing maverick things like voting against a holiday for “Mummy Luther King,” an Egyptian holy man who was murdered for preaching for peace and equality between the Egyptian races. McMummy’s conservative followers aren’t to into things like peace and equality, they love war and so does the McMummy. He does other maverick things like voting against the minimum wage 19 times and against extending healthcare benefits to veterans of foreign wars like he is.

McMummy’s political ambitions burn for him to be Pharaoh someday but by the time he gets the opportunity he is snake bit by his political rival a former Pharaoh’s son “Bushotept.” Bushotept is a brain-damaged figurehead but his handlers maliciously slander McMummy spreading rumors of his having a Nubian baby and of being a homicidal maniac from his years in a Syrian prison. McMummy is defeated by Bushotept and he falls in line to serve the new Pharaoh. McMummy lusts for war after war with Egypt’s neighbors and he helps Bushotept gin up a war with Babylon so they can seize its rich resources. A million Babylonians are slaughtered in the war and thousands of young Egyptians are needlessly butchered in Bushotept's invasion and occupation of the fertile crescent. McMummy is in ecstasy from all of the destruction caused by the war with Babylon. He takes credit for the carnage and urges a war with Persia. After eight years of war and economic ruin from Bushotept and his cronies it’s McMummy turn to run for pharaoh. He is now older then the dead sea scrolls and he can’t even remember how many pyramids he owns.

When it comes time for McMummy to pick a running mate he picks Cleopatra’s religious fanatic sister Sarahpatra. Sarahpatra believes Osiris, God of the dead, wants to burn up the earth asap. She also believes Osiris is against healthcare for children and for tax cuts for the rich. The faithful are delighted with his choice even though she cant find Babylon on a map and is one McMummy heartbeat away from being Pharaoh.

Sidney Condorcet said...

12:32am, your formula seems to be:

Young, charismatic, seeking "change"=Fidel Castro?

Obama has been fairly specific, in his speeches and on his website, about what policies he'll change as President. Sure, many are progressive policies, but they can hardly be considered socialist. Seriously, you and many others could stand to benefit by actually reading up a bit or listening to a few of his interviews and debates.

By your logic, we should only elect people who promise not to change anything or much, people who are old, white, and unable to inspire anybody. Was John F. Kennedy comparable to Castro? He was young, charismatic and promised change? Was Teddy "Trust-Busting" Roosevelt a Castro-like figure? He was young, a romantic, a military hero, and had a charismatic personality. Was Bill Clinton, the DLC'er, a socialist revolutionary?

Please, spare us the scare tactics. Obama is no more revolutionary.

Anonymous said...

3:58 AM

I read about 3 sentences of your cabbage and pooped. I hope you are a child, I really feel a love for you i like cute childs.

If you think eating some sort of movie retinue helps the Demoncraps, I highly encourage you to continue posting on the OstroyReport. Palin is the one, i don't care how manty lies she tles demoncrats are so stoopid!!!

Palin rooles odonka drools!!!

Anonymous said...

want a cool rovian tactic?

take a true story (palin questions wasilla librarian on 3 occasions about removing objectional books from the library, tries to fire her, citizens support librarian, palin then says questions were "rhetorical") then create an email campain with a listing of books palin allegedly wanted banned, and make sure that some of those books were published post 1996, when the incident occured.

pure rovian genius

here are facts

to get elected, palin supported the "bridge to nowhere"

while she has not cut special needs programs, she made sure that the huge jump in funding would not occur until the first year of her hoped for 2nd term....this is an advocate for special needs kids? or a crass politician

the maverick reformer has made a hobby of using per diems unlike any gov before her...making sure the state pays her when she stays in her own home, and making sure the state pays for travel expenses for her entire family (the msm is just breaking this story)

the reformer can be seen in a news conference with ted stevens praising both him and his leadership...exactly when did she really "take him on"

there is a video of palin praising the aip, a fringe group whose main goal is the secession of the state of alaska....i dont care if they are a registered me one other pol who would get away with praising any other political groups with this policy...and i dont care if the leadership of the aip now says she was never a member and they mispoke...the original vid was never meant for public consumption...she is a mole for the aip, therefore a traitor to this country.

and to this day, her story regarding her pregnancy, labor and delivery make absolutely no just gets worse

i would love someone from the msm to poll obgyn's from across the united states and find one...just one who would allow a woman whose water has broke to board a plane and fly 8 hours from texas to seattle...get on another plain for the 2 hour trip to anchorage..and then drive another hour to get to a med center....thereby placing both the infant and mother in danger....oh, and now the story is, not even her family knew she was pregnant until the 7th month...and her children didnt know that trig had down's until he was born...this one is getting good

go ahead, say that im smearing her

but everything i have posted is the truth

right down to her praying that the iraq war is indeed gods will...gotta wonder how jesus, the prince of peace, answered that prayer

Anonymous said...

Andy, so glad to hear someone finally complain out loud about that voice - sandpaper across my soul. It's not the Fargo factor - that can be charming - it's the strident, nasal, prissy, self-righteous quality that makes it so soul searing.

Anonymous said...

Republicans are mean nasty bastards..that is all that can be said about them and the first few blogers on this site are prefect examples.. fearful, hatefilled ignorant people.. the kind that equate change with Castro,ignore the numerous lies of Palin and now their heads to the Republican slime machine. The mocked Senator Kerrys war injuries and morphed Max Cleland into Osama Bin Ladin and have never refrained from the most hateful and destructive tactics in their quest for power. They are true fascists without a shred of decency or concern for the damage they do to the system. They rush into war sending others while not even paying for it themselves and not even stopping to question when the reasons are proven false. And worst of all they are cowards and cry babies, always whining about some imagined slight or less than perfect thing the Democrats have done. Bottom line is that they hate the very system and the country they claim to defend. They have been against the gains of blacks and women and favor the very richest over the middle and lower income classes and disguise their contempt for these groups with fake appeals to patriotism and family values.
I will be sorry to see this country buy into this crap but the bottom line is that it doesnt take a genius to figure out where the US is heading and what is happening to us thanks to their ignorant criminal policies. But if the people want more of the same, at this point I can only say they will get what they deserve. . ewer jobs, more inflation, crippling debt, attacks on science,attacks on the Constitution, and more wars for senseless reasons and leaders who can lie and even lead them into war for false reasons and have no consequences.
A nation that votes according to looks and skin color and relies of platitudes and half truths to decide its leaders is a nation unfit to lead the world as the world already realizes.

Anonymous said...

I feel like it's the same old Repub crap we have been seeing in every election since 2000.

Will the voters fall for it again?

If they do, we really are doomed.

And yes, who is running for president is a good question. Most hard core Palin supporters would rather she be running. She is one of them and they want her religious views pushed on the rest of us.

Do voters care? Too many are just sleeping and not paying close attention.

So be it. If McCain wins, I give up.

Anonymous said...

By Juan Cole:

Sept. 9, 2008 | John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.

McCain pledged to work for peace based on "the transformative ideals on which we were founded." Tolerance and democracy require freedom of speech and the press, but while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin inquired of the local librarian how to go about banning books that some of her constituents thought contained inappropriate language. She tried to fire the librarian for defying her. Book banning is common to fundamentalisms around the world, and the mind-set Palin displayed did not differ from that of the Hamas minister of education in the Palestinian government who banned a book of Palestinian folk tales for its sexually explicit language. In contrast, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it."

Palin argued when running for governor that creationism should be taught in public schools, at taxpayers' expense, alongside real science. Antipathy to Darwin for providing an alternative to the creation stories of the Bible and the Quran has also become a feature of Muslim fundamentalism. Saudi Arabia prohibits the study, even in universities, of evolution, Freud and Marx. Malaysia has banned a translation of "The Origin of the Species." Likewise, fundamentalists in Turkey have pressured the government to teach creationism in the public schools. McCain has praised Turkey as an anchor of democracy in the region, but Turkey's secular traditions are under severe pressure from fundamentalists in that country. McCain does them no favors by choosing a running mate who wishes to destroy the First Amendment's establishment clause, which forbids the state to give official support to any particular theology. Turkish religious activists would thereby be enabled to cite an American precedent for their own quest to put religion back at the center of Ankara's public and foreign policies.

The GOP vice-presidential pick holds that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or severe birth defects, making an exception only if the life of the mother is in danger. She calls abortion an "atrocity" and pledges to reshape the judiciary to fight it. Ironically, Palin's views on the matter are to the right of those in the Muslim country of Tunisia, which allows abortion in the first trimester for a wide range of reasons. Classical Muslim jurisprudents differed among one another on the issue of abortion, but many permitted it before the "quickening" of the fetus, i.e. until the end of the fourth month. Contemporary Muslim fundamentalists, however, generally oppose abortion.

Palin's stance is even stricter than that of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In 2005, the legislature in Tehran attempted to amend the country's antiabortion statute to permit an abortion up to four months in case of a birth defect. The conservative clerical Guardianship Council, which functions as a sort of theocratic senate, however, rejected the change. Iran's law on abortion is therefore virtually identical to the one that Palin would like to see imposed on American women, and the rationale in both cases is the same, a literalist religious impulse that resists any compromise with the realities of biology and of women's lives. Saudi Arabia's restrictive law on abortion likewise disallows it in the case or rape or incest, or of fetal impairment, which is also Gov. Palin's position.

Theocrats confuse God's will with their own mortal policies. Just as Muslim fundamentalists believe that God has given them the vast oil and gas resources in their regions, so Palin asks church workers in Alaska to pray for a $30 billion pipeline in the state because "God's will has to get done." Likewise, Palin maintained that her task as governor would be impeded "if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God." Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei of Iran expresses much the same sentiment when he says "the only way to attain prosperity and progress is to rely on Islam."

Not only does Palin not believe global warming is "man-made," she favors massive new drilling to spew more carbon into the atmosphere. Both as a fatalist who has surrendered to God's inscrutable will and as a politician from an oil-rich region, she thereby echoes Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has been found to have exercised inappropriate influence in watering down a report in 2007 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...

Palin has a right to her religious beliefs, as do fundamentalist Muslims who agree with her on so many issues of social policy. None of them has a right, however, to impose their beliefs on others by capturing and deploying the executive power of the state. The most noxious belief that Palin shares with Muslim fundamentalists is her conviction that faith is not a private affair of individuals but rather a moral imperative that believers should import into statecraft wherever they have the opportunity to do so. That is the point of her pledge to shape the judiciary. Such a theocratic impulse is incompatible with the Founding Fathers' commitment to tolerance and democracy, which is why they forbade the government to "establish" or officially support any particular religion or denomination.

McCain once excoriated the Rev. Jerry Falwell and his ilk as "agents of intolerance." That he took such a position gave his opposition to similar intolerance in Islam credibility. In light of his more recent disgraceful kowtowing to the Christian right, McCain's animus against fundamentalist Muslims no longer looks consistent. It looks bigoted and invidious. You can't say you are waging a war on religious extremism if you are trying to put a religious extremist a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Athena Smith said...

I don't get the pessimism.
Everybody knows that numbers bounce around after conventions. (And personally I strongly believe that all polls, no matter what they show, when they are based on 2000 people samples represnting more than 50 million voters, are absolutely not scientific. (Just google "power analysis for minimum size sample" and see what I mean.)
As for Palin... why don't we wait until she faces the press? It seems to be that starting yesterday the whole of internet has been working against her with YouTube broadcasting that speech of hers in Alska in which God's will seemed to be behind a number of political decisions.
Just wait guys...
Come on...
Have a great day!

Anonymous said...

Ostroy wants to talk about the issues.

Lets start with: union elections.

More specifically, attempts to unionize workforces. I want you to stick with me here because after I do a bit of explaining I'm going to expose you to one of the most blatant examples of political hypocrisy I've ever come across.

Going in you need to recognize that union membership has been falling for decades. You only see growth in union membership in government employee unions. This, of course, is troubling to union leaders. It is also troubling to Democrats. Unions, you see, almost exclusively support Democrat candidates, both with money and time. Big money and lots of time.

Here's the way union organizing works under the current law. Union organizers circulate a petition among employees. Employees are asked to sign a card saying that they would like to be represented by a union in their workplace. If a majority of the workers sign the cards the employer has the option of immediately recognizing the union and allowing them to organize the workplace. More often the employer will call for an election – an election using secret ballots. Every employee will be given the opportunity to express their desire to join or not to join a union by secret ballot. Their co-workers will not know how they voted. They can prance around the workplace touting their support of unionization all they want in order to impress their fellow workers, especially those who are trying to organize the union, but then vote "no" on the secret ballot if that's how they truly feel.

How, you might ask, do Democrats feel about the secret ballot in union elections? For a clue let's go to a letter I have in my possession from 16 House Democrats dated August 29, 2001. The letter was written on the letterhead of California Congressman George Miller, a Democrat representing the 7th District of California. I'm going to replicate the letter here. By the end of the show I hope to have a PDF file of the letter posted for you to look at. After all ... I could be lying, right? Note, please, just how the 16 Democrats who signed this letter felt about secret ballots in union elections.


OK ... so there you go. These 16 Democrats are on the record as being solidly in favor of using secret ballots in union recognition elections. So far, so good ... because that, as they point out in their letter, is clearly the right stance.

That brings us to piece of legislation designated as H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. In case you haven't already heard me talking about this, would you care to guess just what H.R. 800 does? Well, that's simple. It will eliminate the secret ballot in union recognition elections. You got it! The Democrats (it's their bill) have decided to really do something nice for the union bosses that support them year after year, and they're going to do away with secret ballots. When H.R. 800 gets passed ... and trust me, with Barack Obama (he's a sponsor of the Senate version) in the White House, this thing will become law. Then the union organizers will visit all of the workers, perhaps even visiting some of them in their homes, and "urge" them to sign the card calling for a union. I can hear it now: "Mrs. Johnson, wouldn't you and your children want your husband to be represented by our union at his job?" Now put yourself in the worker's place! Are you going to say no? This organizer is sitting in your living room looking at you and your wife and saying "You do want to be represented by our union in your workplace, don't you?" And you're going to tell him no?

Are you getting the big picture here? This is nothing less than the Democrats legitimizing union intimidation in the workplace. If you don't see that, then there is virtually no hope for you when it comes to understanding basic politics. It's payback the unions time .. pay them back for all of that financial support and all of those volunteer hours. Besides ... the more union members there are the more union dues the union bosses have to spread to Democrats as campaign contributions.

But – we're saved, right? After all, we have those 16 Democrats who signed that letter to Mexico. What was it they said: Oh yeah: " ... we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose." So these 16 Democrats will certainly put up a spirited defense of secret ballots in union organizing elections, right?

Well ... um ... maybe not. You see, four of these congressmen (Dooley, Sabo, Evans and Coyne) are no longer in the Congress. One of the signers, Bernie Sanders, is now a Senator. That leaves 11 of the 16 signees in still in the house to defend the principal of the secret ballot.

I'm afraid we have a small problem though. It seems that every one of the 11 remaining signees is now a sponsor of H.R. 800. In fact, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act was actually introduced by none other than George Miller – the very California Democrat on whose letterhead that letter to Mexico was written. Bernie Sanders is a sponsor of the same legislation in the Senate. No surprise.

Pardon me ... but ... what the hell?

On the one hand we have these Democrats writing a letter extolling the virtues of a secret ballot in union organizing elections, and then they sponsor a bill eliminating those very secret ballots! So what changed between 2001 and 2007? What happened that made these 12 Democrats go from believing that a secret ballot in a union election was "absolutely necessary," to introducing a bill eliminating those "absolutely necessary" secret ballots? Control of congress; that's what changed.

In 2001 the Republicans ran the show. In 2007 it was the Democrats ... and it was time to return some favors to union bosses. Do you know what you're seeing here? You're seeing just how much power unions have over Democrats and the Democrat party. It doesn't matter what kind of letter you wrote, or what stance you took in the past --- when we say "frog" you had better jump.

Just another reason to vote for The Chosen One, right?

Anonymous said...

Headlines on November 5th:
GOP's Hat Trick

Anonymous said...

As governor Palin of one of the fifty states of America, Palin earned around sixty-thousand dollars. Yet, she's what the media call "lower class" because her income is "so low" and she's not rich. She's called a "Walmart mom", another term of derision becuase she's not super rich. Walmart shoppers are not among the rich, usually. It's time it became very clear that the average income in the US is around 55,000 and that means most Americans are, what the elite call "lower class." It's time the "class" disparity is recognized and remedied. Obama talked about the "poor waitress making minimum and tips" and his willinestt to help her. It seems about 95 percent of Americans are "poor lower-class" workers who need the magnaimous help of the government.

Things have got to be better in this country for the majority who do the work and keep the country functionings. There is class warfare and the elite "upper class" 2 percent are winning.

The Ostroy Report said...

Anon, that's quite a mental workout you're giving yourself there. You must be exhausted. May I make a suggestion? Try voting for someone who you think just might actually best represent your interests rather than toss your support around so whimsically. take this election very seriously, my friend. Between war and the economy, this country's in a sorry state right now. Perhaps you should support whichever candidate you believe can change all that...and stop making meaningless multiple protests with your vote.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Alverez,

Thank you so much for sharing the lesson we should all heed. We need to be warned about how freedom is lost.

Anonymous said...

I am who I am with the experience I've had as a woman. Something you and other men can never know without a highly developed ability to empathize. So what if the economy gets better. Will my salary equal the guy next to me? Will I get that promotion or will I train the guy next to me so he can advance? And so on -- you get the drift.

No one urged the black people who deserted their life-long membership in the Republican Party to consider issues.

Deeply personal hurts remain deeply personal hurts and usually take top priority when choices are presented.

Anonymous said...

Black people deserted Hillary (and Bill, "the first black President) when they had a chance to elect a black person. No one urged them to rethink the issues and the qualifications and mind-set of Hillary. Personal interests always trump "the greater good."

Anonymous said...

9:36 - if you are truly concerned with the oppression of women then I URGE YOU to read up on McCain/Palin's policies - they will fundamentally weaken the rights of women. McCain has opposed every women's issue that has come before him from: equal pay, to health initiatives to education to tax policies. Palin is even more extreme.

Obama wants to help women succeed.
Study their platforms. Then decide.

Anonymous said...

Blacks have been voted religiously for Democrats for 40 years. Where has that gotten them ?

H.R. 800, The Employee "Free" Choice Act pushed by the Democrats will destroy American businesses. Obama is one of the sponsors of the Senate version.

It is a wolf in sheep's clothing, which is the strategy of Democrats. Give it a nice name to squeak it through Congress and secret ballots for Unionization will be gone. The mafia running Unions will be forcing employees to sign petitions to unionize.

Expect what's left of American production to drop like a rock and expect prices to skyrocket.

Anyone that doubts the dire affects of Unionization should look to Detroit and American Automobile Manufacturing industry.

Anonymous said...

Besides abortion rights, how does Obama differ from McCain, 10:35? I truly have not heard Obama mention women in his platform.

And exactly what are women's rights? Equal pay? That's a right of every American; not a gender issue. Healthcare? That's not a gender issue either. There are no "women's rights" outside of abortion. Women are being denied the rights they are supposed to have as citizens, not because they're women.

And unforunately misogyny is not against the law. We can only fight that with our opposition and determination not to comply. The Republicans defended Palin against sexism the Democrats did not defend Hillary.

Anonymous said...

Democrats are disgusting, hate-filled people.

that is all.

8:51 AM

Sorry, Scooter Libby we are liberals not Democrats! What we hate is that the country we love is being destroyed. Republicans are ignorant sheep full of fear and prejudice. The corporate media has abdicated their responsibilities. It doesn't seem to matter to conservatives that Bush and his cronies let us be attacked lied us into an unrelated war. They are flushing the economy down the drain with all the borrowing for said war.

Anonymous said...


11:50 AM,
You've lost it! Clinton could have prevented 9/11 by accepting Osama Bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission Report documents MULTIPLE times that the Clinton Administration could have killed/captured Osama Bin Laden before 9/11 ever happened.

The Clinton Administration had years to kill/capture OBL. The Bush Administration had months.

The Bush Administration inherited the Clinton Recession.

Anonymous said...

So, you had a love affair, and you seem proud that it was short lived. Only a week long. And what was it based on? You found her charming; you talk about her voice that's now bothering you; her glasses that now seem fake; you loved her because you had hoped "this political lightweight would be a cancer to the ticket". To anyone who lost a loved one to cancer this attitude of yours must appear disgusting, cheap partisan and superficial blow that can only boomerang on your head and all others opinion exhibitionists who do not mind to publish their dumb stream of consciousness.

Anonymous said...

I'm a libertarian, but I'd rather Obama won because he's the less repressive candidate.

But are Democrats talking about the issues I care about -- the war and repression and corruption? No, they're talking about Sarah Palin's baby bump.

Obama thinks the surge works, gives a waiver to the telecoms for spying on us, and wouldn't do one damn thing different in the Fannie and Freddie bailouts. So he thinks voters will choose him because he's cuter?

Anonymous said...

What else does Obama have beyond his youth, looks, and teleprompted speeches ?

He backtracked on public financing.

He backtracked on off shore drilling.

He backtracked on pulling the troops out of Iraq.

This week he started his backtrack on the Bush tax cuts.

Anonymous said...

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock,
I’m a little McCain FlipFlop,
First I’m here, and next I’m there,
Don’t be confused by my vote getting cares.

On lobby money I have taken my share,
Keating 5 was my first foray there,
Then when outted I changed my stance,
Now I stand firmly against campaign finance.

Next on votes I may stand here or there,
I have a record of voting with Democrats cares,
In fact you find that I’m quite a rouge,
You never know where I’ll be when the wind blows.

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock,
I’m a little McCain FlipFlop,
First I’m here, and next I’m there,
Don’t be confused by my smoke screen smears.

And should we disagree, I’ll dig my feet in and put up a fuss,
I am an angry man with Machiavellian gloves,
I hit my opponents from the front, then slice them from the rear,
All the time saying, My Friend, its just politics, not to fear.

On the Bush Tax Cuts I was against them for years,
Only 2 republicans voted against them to be clear,
But now I need votes and I see the error of my ways,
I am for the Tax Cuts as long as it pays.

On immigration I stood firmly with the left,
Free pass to immigration for tax paying illegals seemed to me best,
But now that Republican votes are my aim,
I can see more clearly the politics of border control game.
It may not appear that I have changed my position to support the wall,
As long as a vote never occurs for my senate immigration proposal.

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock,
I’m a little McCain FlipFlop,
First I’m here, and next I’m there,
So don’t be disappointed when you find me courting democrat cares.

Anonymous said...

What else does McCain have beyond his decrepitude, hypocrisy, and teleprompted lies?

Oh yeah, his love for body bags and folded flags courtesy of his and Bush's war . His pride in the 1200 soldiers killed since his mythic "surge" began.
But hey, isn't McCain a war hero? The real heroes are those pawn sacrifices he gloats over from the surge.

How maverick of him not to know the difference between Sunni and Shia.

How maverick of him to hire corrupt lobbyist to run his campaign.

How maverick of him to pick someone from the Jerry Springer show to give the nuclear football to when he kicks it.

And how maverick of all the neo-con sheep to vote for him. It's like chickens lining up to vote for Colonel Sanders.

Anonymous said...

This thread is further proof that Ostroy is LYING when he said, "Republicans are distracting voters away from the real issues"

The only thing liberals on this blog want to do is write faux movie reviews and poor attempts at poetry.

Sidney Condorcet said...

1:29 PM,

Umm, The Republican candidates and their surrogates, 1:29pm, are distracting voters from the real issues. The Democratic candidates, Obama and Biden, are not distracting us. I'm fairly sure they are not writing "faux movie reviews" or poetry. I don't give a fuck what people on this blog do or say. What have conservatives on this blog done? They've been educating us about the actual issues? Riiiiiiiiggghhhttt. Pass whatever it is your smoking, 1:29pm.

Focus on the candidates and their campaigns, and not the people on a blog.

Anonymous said...

11:28 - McCain voted against requiring insurance companies that cover viagra also must cover birth control; McCain refused to endorse the Ledbetter Equal Pay act which would restore the more sensible statute of limitations trigger under Title VII; Mccain voted no on extending Title X to cover family planing, cervical cancer screening and birth control to low income indiv.; McCain opposes comprehensive sex ed; voted to gut Family Medical Leave Act - These are women's rights because they disproportionately impact women. women still make $.77 on the dollar; women are diproportionately effected by lack of education; rising health care costs; rising living expenses; lack of childcare ... etc. Yes in an ideal world these would be human issues - but it is women that still carry the burden.

Anonymous said...

You've lost it! Clinton could have prevented 9/11 by accepting Osama Bin Laden.

That is a total lie. Clinton tried to get Bin Laden multiple times. Every time he did the Republicowards screamed "wag the dog."

Bush never tried to get Bin Laden but let him escape to be a boogie man and i.

Watch the movie 911 Press For Truth

It's about the Jersey girls who fought against Bush for the 911 commission. Bush never wanted it and the republicans spent 10 times more investigating Monica then investigating 911.

The commission was a sham as documented in the movie. Bush first appointed Bin Laden family lawyer Kissinger to run it. It was run by a PNAC crony who help orchestrate the war in Iraq.

The Jersey girls were disgusted by the commission and call it a cover up.

The truth about 911 is that Bush let it happen. Had to stay on vacation and clear brush. He had 54 warnings it was coming and did nothing. On the night of September 10 Bush slept in a compound in Florida with SAM missiles on his roof. Government official were warned not to fly commercial thus Ashcroft charted a private jet.

At the state department pass the baton ceremony the Clinton administration gave their speech saying Bin Laden was the biggest threat to the USA. The C.Rice spoke for the Bushies. Iraq she said is the biggest threat facing the USA.

Michael Scheuer, the former CIA officer who headed the agency's Osama bin Laden unit,blames Bush not Clinton for 911. The same goes for Clarke and the CIA op at Tora Bora who also wrote books about Bush's failures to protect us and go after Bin Laden.

The truth is out there it's just that conservatives don't care. They are happy to admit that Bush Kicked out the weapons inspectors and lied us into Iraq. They don't care as long as someone else has to die for Republican lies and incompetence.

Anonymous said...

Bush never tried to get Bin Laden but let him escape to be a boogie man and i.

Bush never tried to get Bin Laden but let him escape to be a boogie man and invade Iraq.

Anonymous said...

Umm, I don't need YOU telling me what to focus on. I know that putting tax raising, union supporting shills that will let Russia and Iran walk all over the entire free world for 4 years in the absolute worst thing to do. That is why I'm supporting McCain/Palin.

I have been paying attention to all the candidates.

I paid attention to Obama when he pledged to use public financing, then backtracked on his promise.

I paid attention to Obama when he was against off shore drilling until he realized that John McCain was on the correct side of the argument.

I paid attention to Obama when he said he was going to pull the troops out of Iraq before he backtracked on the promise that got him more Democrat support than Hillary for the Primaries.

I paid attention to Obama after Russia invaded a sovereign Democratic country and Obama had to revise his statement three times before adopting McCain's position.

I paid attention to Obama when he stated that anyone making statements about Governor Palin's children would be fired until his long-time staff member Howard Gutman got a pass for doing it.

I paid attention to Obama earlier this week when he started to backtrack on his pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts, adopting yet another John McCain position.

I paid attention to Obama when the media ignored his ties to Rezko, the Weather Underground, his $100,000 gazebo, and his sponsorship of the Senate version of HR 800 which will allow Union mafia bosses to force employees into signing unionization petitions.

I'm paying attention and I support McCain/Palin.

Anonymous said...

The only thing liberals on this blog want to do is write faux movie reviews and poor attempts at poetry.

Satire moron read between the lines.

The "movie review" talks about health care, corruption, war mongering, character flaws, theocracy, Palin getting her fanatical corrupt hands on the button etc.

Whether the author thinks they are Voltaire or whatever is besides the point. The point is McCain is McBush, McGrover Nordquist, McAbramof, McCheney, McRalph Reed, McCharle Black, McPhil Graham, McEnron, McHaliburton, McNo McHealth Care for McChildren, McMore McBody Bags from the Mcmiddle East,in short the McDeath of every living thing on the McPlanet that is good and pure.

McCain is McEvil!!!!!!!!

ps. sorry if I didn't McSpell all the corrupt Mcrepublicans names right!

Anonymous said...

2:15 PM, are pretty nifty by putting "Mc" in front of names of people who aren't running for President.

Did you have to go to school to learn how to do that ? I noticed that is one of the things that Democrats are capable of doing.

Now, if we can only get them to find and retain jobs using their skill set, then maybe they can make their own money without socialist income redistribution tactics.

My post is NOT satire. There is no need to read between the lines. You only have to try to read the sentences.

Anonymous said...

McCain Flip Flops as of June 08

* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.

* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.

* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion,he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.

* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.

* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite. /

* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

* He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.

* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.

* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.

*McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a“‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded.Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”

* McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

* McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.

*In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

* McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.

* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.

* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.

* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office. /

* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona. /

* McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea. /

*McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting“irresponsibly.”His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.

* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it. /

* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it. /

* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.

*In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving“feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

*McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as“a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.”In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.” /

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite. /

* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

*In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation. /

* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol. /

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* McCain decided in2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York. /

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and acorrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist. /

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade. /

The dreaded “flip-flop” is, according to the GOP, the latest cardinal sin for someone seeking national office !!!

Sidney Condorcet said...

Umm, I don't need YOU telling me what to focus on. I know that putting tax raising, union supporting shills that will let Russia and Iran walk all over the entire free world for 4 years in the absolute worst thing to do. That is why I'm supporting McCain/Palin..."

2:06 PM

Ideologue alert!! Neocon alert!! Idiot alert!!

Iran's walking all over the free world? What does that even mean? I have no doubt that McCain and Obama would both bomb Iranian nuclear facilities if they were close to getting a nuke. However, I think McCain would also choose to invade (and further deplete our treasury and weaken our military).

What exactly is McCain going to do that Obama isn't going to do against Russia, pray tell? What? Go to war? Bomb them? Do you really think that's either probable or a good idea?

Tell me, oh wise one. What will McCain do to stop Russia? I know that McCain is a trigger-happy fuck, and people like you get off on that and makes you believe that we're a stronger nation with a "badass fucker" in charge. That's why people had faith in Bush. True story is, however, that those quick tempered, jingoist "cowboys" tend to be more likely fooled into making grievous, impetuous actions. (See: War in Iraq)

Open conflict with Russia is neither in our best interests or Russia's. However much Republicans need to have a "bad guy" (aka, a country that doesn't follow America's bidding), the world is large enough for America and Russia to coexist without military conflict. Russia has a right and economic interest, as we do, to assert itself and play a role in the world. There's nothing we can do to stop it. We have to win the battle of ideas. We will do that if we don't go around waging unnecessary wars, shirking our diplomatic obligations, violating treaties, etc. Obama is more likely to help us win the long term war of ideas, rather than "bomb bomb bomb" McCain.

Sidney Condorcet said...

I'm paying attention and I support McCain/Palin.

2:06 PM

Oh, I like how you say you're paying attention to Obama, but you don't say that you're paying attention to McCain/Palin.

Did you pay attention to McCain flip-flopping on the "immoral" Bush tax cuts?

Did you pay attention to McCain flip-flopping on amnesty for illegal immigrants?

Did you pay attention to McCain & Palin's repeated lies that she was against and with great risk killed the Bridge to Nowhere?

Did you pay attention to McCain & Palin saying that Palin was anti-earmarks, yet notice that Palin hired a lobbyist to get earmarks for her small-town and receiveed the most per capita earmarks of any state while she was governor?

Did you pay attention to how McCain/Palin talk about how she was a fiscal conservative but then notice that when she became Mayor Wasila had ZERO in long term debt and when she left office it had close to TWENTY MILLION in long term debt, about $3,000 per resident?

Did you pay attention to how Palin's husband was a member of a political party that advocates SECESSION?

Did you pay attention to how Palin abused her power and is under investigation in a little scandal called TrooperGate?

Did you pay attention to the fact that Palin wants CREATIONISM TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASS?

Did you pay attention to the fact that McCain flip-flopped on Roe v. Wade, and then chose Palin, who believes a RAPE OR INCEST VICTIM should be FORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT to keep the fetus?

Did you pay attention to the fact that at this moment, when the economy is in dire straights, McCain has repeatedly stated that he KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE ECONOMY and that at a time of this mortgage crisis, when the government was taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Sarah Palin did not even know the basics of their operation?

Did you pay attention to the fact that a would-be president, John McCain, was singing a song about bombing Iran? Would any statesman have ever done something so absurd?

Did you pay attention to the fact that John McCain confuses Shia and Sunni?

Did you pay attention to the fact that Obama was right (and the Bush Administration itself has followed his lead) as to troops in Afghanistan, taking the fight to Pakistan, and negotiating with Iran?

Did you pay attention to McCain flip-flopping an embracing people he once called "agents of intolerance" solely in order to pander for political reasons?

Did you pay attention to how McCain's campaign plays the POW card in order to avoid any serious questioning?

Did you notice how Palin has gone the longest of any Vice Presidential nominee to receive any questions from the press?

You, my sad countryman, are a pathetic fool.

Anonymous said...

"I have no doubt that ... Obama would both bomb Iranian nuclear facilities if they were close to getting a nuke."

Sidney, there you go again with your predictions of the future as if they are fact.

Obama won't say what he would do, so how do YOU have 'no doubt' ? I listed many things in the post that you are responding to where Obama promised one thing only to change his mind. That is NOT change we can believe in. You conveniently ignored those items in the post.

"I know that McCain is a trigger-happy ..."

Oh YOU know the man who spent a good portion of his life in war and in a POW camp is trigger happy ?!? You seem to think that you know a lot.

"Republicans need to have a 'bad guy'..."

Are you trying to claim that Russia's quest for the domination of the world's energy is the fault or creation of the Republicans?

This statement just shows that you know nothing about Russia and the invasion of Georgia. Throw in your ignorance of Iran and we have a hat-trick.

You don't see that Iran is walking all over the world by continuing their quest to develop nuclear weapons ? Are you serious or just playing ignorant ?

Unfortunately, there is not much that we can do against Russia at this point. Even if we were not in Iraq and Afghanistan we would not be able to confront Russia without the help of Europe and most of our other allies.

I do know that having a guy as green and gullible as Obama in the position of Commander-In-Chief while Vladimir Putin is on the march is that absolute worst thing we can do. Look what happened when we had Jimmy Carter in control of the military with a relatively weaker Iran.

Liberals are stuck in the 1990's 'peace' mindset. Russia used the 1990's to change tactics from military power to energy control. Al Qaeda used the 1990's to practice on American targets without fear of retribution from the United States.

We are not in an era of peace. We don't need Barack Obama protecting your ability to abort children. We need a real military man protecting America.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Obama won't say what he would do, so how do YOU have 'no doubt' ? I listed many things in the post that you are responding to where Obama promised one thing only to change his mind. That is NOT change we can believe in. You conveniently ignored those items in the post.

"I know that McCain is a trigger-happy ..."

Oh YOU know the man who spent a good portion of his life in war and in a POW camp is trigger happy ?!? You seem to think that you know a lot.

Dickhead alert! Dickhead alert!!

Obama has repeatedly said that the military option is on the table and that Iran will not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. Draw your own conclusion, idiot.

Look, shit-for-brains, this is politics. It aint bean bag. Your naivete is alarming. You seem so confident in trying to nail Obama for hedging or not following 100% what he said in the past. You even use the "change you can believe in" line against him. Real cute. Conveniently, you forget that McCain (as has been repeatedly shown on this blog, on cable, and in the papers) has also flip-flopped and changed course and many of the major issues of the day. Why don't you hold McCain to the same standard, you feral moron? Is it because you are completely GAY for McCain? Seriously, are you aroused by his visage?

McCain has flip-flopped more than a 12 year old chinese acrobat. Far more than Obama.

And you prove the point of my last post by bringing up the POW issue. McCain cannot possibly be trigger-happy because he was a POW right? Fucktard. Do you even believe what you write? What does POW have to do with being reckless? But now that you mention it, it's not purely a guess on my part. Many of Johnnny McCain's own colleages, even Republicans, have remarked about his violent temper, self-righteousness and risk-taking (hell, look at the unvetted Palin pick!).

Republican Senator Thad Cochran will do the honors:

The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

So I'm not just pulling this out of the ether, buddy.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Liberals are stuck in the 1990's 'peace' mindset. Russia used the 1990's to change tactics from military power to energy control. Al Qaeda used the 1990's to practice on American targets without fear of retribution from the United States.

We are not in an era of peace. We don't need Barack Obama protecting your ability to abort children. We need a real military man protecting America.

2:45 PM


Does anyone else find it sad that this Republican is quite reasonably worried about Russia's energy gambit but yet he supports McCain despite the fact that McCain's energy policies would keep us, in the long term, far more reliant on traditional sources of energy than Obama's? He has no problem with McCain's pandering on the Gas Tax Holiday, which would only promote more consumption. Seriously man. If you are so concerned with Russia and energy, you may want to dwell on which candidate, if elected, would make us more energy independent and less likely to be victimized by Russia.

Anonymous said...

McCain has Congressional accomplishments. What has Obama accomplished in his 8-10 years of Senate experience ? The answer is simple, NOTHING.

Obama is not ready to be President. So you know I'm not just pulling this out of the ether, I'll quote Obama's Vice Presidential selection,

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Reaffirmed That Obama Was Not Ready To Be Commander In Chief. ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "You were asked is he ready. You said 'I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'" Sen. Biden: "I think that I stand by the statement." (ABC's "This Week," 8/19/07)

Sidney Condorcet said...

Actually, the answer isn't simple. Obama has plenty of accomplishments in the Illinois Senate and in the US Congres. Look, I'm the first to admit that McCain has passed plenty of laws. I'm not about to argue that Obama has more national experience than McCain. But, you show how childish and ignorant you are, by saying Obama has never accomplished anything legislatively. Either you are lying or you don't read. I've linked time and time against to a great, comprehensive list done on the Obsidian Wings blog, showing Obama's many accomplishments. You want to be in the dark? Fine. You want to be a rank partisan? Go ahead. But don't expert to be credible at all.

also, I'll take your silence to mean that acknowledge that McCain has flip-flopped on many of the major issues of our time, and has flip-flopped more times than Obama, and that you admit that Republican Senator Cochran was correct to suggest that McCain lacks the temperment to be President.

Anonymous said...

I don't need YOUR links to blogs about Obama's 'accomplishments'. I know how to go to the Congressional Roll Call website and figure it out by myself.

Most of the accomplishments that he sponsored went absolutely nowhere. In fact, he has never been the sole sponsor of anything that has ever become law.

All these things he claims to care about, yet he never had the backbone to sponsor any of those causes when he had a chance.

Anonymous said...

From ABC News:

"US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may be struggling to nudge ahead of his Republican rival in polls at home, but people across the world want him in the White House, a BBC poll said.

All 22 countries covered in the poll would prefer to see Senator Obama elected US president ahead of Republican John McCain.

In 17 of the 22 nations, people expect relations between the US and the rest of the world to improve if Senator Obama wins.

More than 22,000 people were questioned by pollster GlobeScan in countries ranging from Australia to India and across Africa, Europe and South America.

The margin in favour of Senator Obama ranged from 9 per cent in India to 82 per cent in Kenya, while an average of 49 per cent across the 22 countries preferred Senator Obama compared with 12 per cent preferring Senator McCain. Some four in 10 did not take a view.

"Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents," GlobeScan chairman Doug Miller said.

"Given how negative America's international image is at present, it is quite striking that only one in five think a McCain presidency would improve on the Bush administration's relations with the world."

In the United States, three polls taken since the Republican party convention ended on Thursday (local time) show Senator McCain with a lead of 1 to 4 percentage points - within the margin of error - and two others show the two neck-and-neck.

The countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve relations were America's NATO allies, including Australia (62 per cent).

A similar BBC/Globescan poll conducted ahead of the 2004 U.S presidential election found that, of 35 countries polled, 30 would have preferred to see Democratic nominee John Kerry, rather than the incumbent George Bush, who was elected.

A total of 23,531 people in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE, Britain and the United States were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone in July and August 2008 for the poll."

But America's "Go F*ck Yourself, Earth" World Tour will continue on with a President McCain. Actually, just the fact that the world overwhelmingly prefers Obama pretty much GUARANTEES that McCain will win. There's nothing American voters hate more than the world. (Granted, 30% of Republican voters expect the Rapture to be coming any day now, so they have a vested interest in the end of the world.)

Anonymous said...

People across the world also want a weaker America, which is exactly what Obama would deliver. Of course they prefer Obama, I would too if I wanted to weaken America.

The BBC poll is just more reason to support McCain/Palin.

You really think we should do what Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, and the UAE want us to do? I know I don't.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Fine, man...don't vote for Obama...I'll have to get over it.

You're a Republican and you like a muscular, jingoistic, "shoot-first, ask questions later" foreign policy.

I only ask that you don't feed us the bullshit that someone shouldn't vote for Obama b/c he's flipped-flopped. Because McCain has reversed himself on core positions far more than Obama.

Look, though I don't agree, I understand why people would be given pause by Obama's lack of experience. It makes sense. It's a defensible position to make. In an ideal world, we would have two supremely qualified candidates, who are both wise and prudent, and who support policies that would make America stronger. That's not the case. These are not placid times. Our economy is in turmoil and American workers are hurting.

McCain on the economy just sucks balls, sorry. His economic agenda will only benefit those who are already well off whereas Obama's plan calls for 95% of the middle class to receive a tax cut. This nation is also in the throes of a serious health care crisis. McCain would put a bandaid on a gushing, open wound. Obama's plan would benefit tens of millions of Americans without health care. These people would have access to preventative medicine, which would help lower costs that the state absorbs any way by the uninsured presenting to emergency rooms, when the problem has grown so serious that it has become far more costly to treat. Also, think about all the lost productivity involved with uninsured workers.

On the foreign policy front, I know that Obama cares quite a bit about diplomacy and healing old alliances. But also, I know he's not a standard liberal. Early and often he noted that he would not hesitate to bomb areas of Pakistan (which prompted shrieks and howls from the press) in order to crush the regrouping Al Qaeda. He's not a gun shy lib.

But more to the point: i can't vote for McCain because he just doesn't have the temperment to be President. He's always looking for a war or a fight. We've lost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and tons of respect in the world by fighting a BIPARTISAN, but completely unnecessary, war in Iraq. So we cannot have a President in 2009 who is on the prowl for a fight, as Cheney and gang were, or is quick to overreact violently (as I believe McCain is).

The fact that McCain surrounds himself with NeoConservative advisors just makes me more concerned about his lack of a prudential, calm and assured temperament.

So, yes, Obama is inexperienced. But I believe that on a) the economy; b) health care; and c) most importantly, matters of war and peace, McCain presents far more risks than Obama.

Anonymous said...

Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception.

Vote McCain Palin

Sidney Condorcet said...

3:54 PM and his ilk will not be happy until America is more hated than Russia. They will not be happy until we are considered the enemy in the eyes of the entire world.

Funny thing though, he says that Obama would make us weaker and that the world wants a weaker America. Well, Obama was against the Iraq War and much of the global populace was against our actions in Iraq. And you know what?

The Iraq War made us weaker. Bush & McCain and a compliant Congress made us weaker. Also, the less respected we are in the world, as 3:54pm would have it, makes us weaker.

For someone so concerned about America remaining strong, you don't seem to care about policies designed to ensure that we stay strong.

Anonymous said...

Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

Vote McCain Palin

Anonymous said...

The atom bombs are piling up in the factories, the police are prowling through the cities, the lies are streaming from the loudspeakers, but the earth is still going round the sun.

Vote McCain Palin

Anonymous said...

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

Vote McCain Palin

Anonymous said...

1:20 I think we make a mistake by labeling healhcare, work equity, etc. as women's issues. They are issues all citizens of the US are entitled to have resolved fairly. Viagra was never called "men's issue". The demand should be made that we're all treated equally. You're right women are suffereing cruel discrimination and we don't have a "Jessica Jackon" or "Aline Sharpton" to fight for our equality. And it's time we stood up and demanded our rights. Maybe by voting Republican the Democratic Party will see how it has deserted us by dissing Hillary. We have got to become active. This election should have made that very very clear. We need a society for the advancement or women.

Sidney Condorcet said...

For Perpetual Warfare-Vote Republican

Iraq: check

Still to go:
North Korea

Anonymous said...

I saw a clip of the upcoming O'Reilly interview of Obama. When asked about Wright, Obama said he never heard him say the devisive things he said on the tapes we're all seen. Now Obama is either lying, or deaf; or, Wright has a multiple personality psychoses and sometimes appears as a different person, depending on which "self/pesonality? is manifesting at the moment.

Apparently Oprah only saw the "God Damn AMerica" personality which is why she left the church I guess Obama saw "love thy neighbor" because nWright was in that "mode." when Obama attended services. I wonder what Michelle heard and how often she attended chruch.

Anonymous said...

Snore...People still talking about Reverand Wright?...Snooze bar...

America has a lot of problems that need fixing. McCain doesn't want to fix most of those problems or he wants to make them worse (see: tax policy). Obama's policies are far superior and the polls back this up.

But yet 4:37pm wants us to vote for McCain because of Obama's former pastor? Please. We have serious problems that require serious people to give them some serious attention. It's time for the kids and idiots to take a nap and allow this campaign to be waged based on ISSUES.

Anonymous said...

Now comes a Washington Post investigative piece reporting that Palin billed state taxpayers “for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a ‘per diem’ allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.”

Maverick, my tuchus...

Just like how she says she's anti-earmark, but then we find out that she hired a lobbyist to get earmarks and pulled in ten times as much pork as Obama got for Illinois resisdents per capita...

Up is down, black is white, Palin is what Republicans say she is...

Anonymous said...

Please halp us jon carry, cuz we r stuck here in irak
Donny Rumsfeld is a genius, and dubya has got our back
The people here all love us, and there is no other place we would rather be
Everyone wants to be occupied, and there is no insurgency

Please halp us jon carry, cuz only you r to blame
You had no plan for the occupation, and your incompetence fanned the flames
The people here all love us, and deluge us with flowers and sweets
We will keep on pawn sacrificing, until your victory is complete

Please halp us jon carry, cuz you said “bring em on”
You weren’t too concerned about Osama, but at least you got Saddam
The people here all love us, for helping them build an Islamic theocracy
All of the bloodshed and chaos is their version of democracy

Please halp us jon carry, cuz we are having too much fun
Unlike you, Bush is a war hero, and he will never cut and run
The people here all love us they show how much with their bombs
You put us in this quagmire, and got (us) stuck in another Vietnam

Please halp us jon carry, cuz too many of our brave brothers and sisters have died
You said “mission accomplished, but as death toll keeps rising we know you lied
The people here all love us, as do our families who want us to come home
“Stay the course” you declare, and play your fiddle like Nero in burning Rome

Please halp us jon carry, cuz we all think the same
We watch Fox news, vote Republican and know the liberals are to blame.
The people here all love us, and giving our lives is a small price to pay
We don’t want be here, but have no choice other than to serve and obey

Please halp us jon carry, cuz we are disposable heroes and cannon fodder
Your lies and ignorance have led us, like patriotic lambs to the slaughter
The people here all love us, just like Halliburton and the war profiteers too
The right wing pundits would volunteer to fight, if they didn’t have better things to do

Please halp us jon carry, cuz John McCain and Karl Rove were right
You really should apologize; criticizing the messiah Bush is a blasphemous slight
The people here all hate us, because of your botched joke

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if this is a true story?

16 US troops commit suicide in Iraq
Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:48:50 GMT
Sixteen US troops from the a unit of the Airborne Division have committed suicide inside a military base in Iraq, security sources say.

Iraqi security sources have revealed that 21 US troops had committed suicide inside a former Iraqi air force base 27 days ago, Fars News Agency reported on Monday.

According to the sources, the 21 troops were treated in a hospital but only five soldiers have survived and they are in a critical condition. Security officials said they used potent narcotics to kill themselves.

The troops' motivations for suicide are not known but according to Iraqi sources the servicemen belonged to a unit of the US Airborne Division that was behind the massacre of several Iraqi families-- mostly women and children-- in northern Baghdad, said Ali al-Baghdadi an Iraqi security official.

The suicides took place in the soldiers' dormitory after the dinner time.
"The bodies of the US troops became misshapen such a way that they looked like 5000-year mummies," said a witness.

According to Iraqi officials' estimates, some 600 US troops, including senior officers, have committed suicide in Iraq since the invasion of the country in 2003. Half of the suicide attempts have been successful.


Anonymous said...

If the poorly written, poorly argued, and the childlike misconceptions represented by a good number of these posters reporesent the majortiy of the Democrats, we are all doomed if Obama is elected. They are off-the-wall. They sound like the protestestor at the Rebublican Convention, who , when interviewed, barely knew why or what they were protesting.

Among all the posts, there was one who tried to be the voice of reason: Anon 450

He brilliantly observed and shared his widsom that "there are problems that need fixing"; and, from what must be the depths of his psychiatric training he observes: "McCain doesn't want to fix those problems. He just wants to make them worse." He has studied the polls, mind you, and knows that
"Obama's policies are far superior."

Everybody can stop posting now because that brilliant 450 has stripped away all superfluity and shares with us all we need to know. He's undoubtedly a member of Mensa.

And the poet is undoubtedly a descendent of Ezra Pound, minus his talent.

Anonymous said...

haha, you Democrats, aka losers, are toast! You're scared and you know it. We've got a ticket that'll kill your little Messiah!

Haha, we're going to win! Dems will lose again!! Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory!!

Sweet! Now the proper policies will be in place: more tax cuts for the rich! Woohoo! A good society is one where the rich are made richer and the inequality gap is as wide as the Grand Canyon!!

We'll drill more!! Awww, yeah. Cuz we'll never know whether we can be energy independent unless we drill more. Why waste money on alternative energy when we can just throw more money at the problem (BigOil)?

Also, I'm sorry to say this: but why should I care about 48 million people without health insurance? There, I said it.

Look, Obama doesn't have the balls to start wars with Russia, China and Iran. But McCain sure does! It's a no brainer. McCain's an American kind of guy. Obama's talks like a "thinker", like a professor, talking down to us, like a European...
Obama's just about talking, McCain will bomb first, talk later. What's worked for us in the past, people?

Oh, and you've gotta start thinking, there's a chance Obama's a Muslim fundamentalist disguised as a squishy liberal...
Sure, our VP is a christian fundamentalist, but we're not at war with those people...

Also, before you start getting in a lather about Palin, just remember that McCain's at the top. And he's a man of honor. I mean, he was a POW, so who cares he sold his soul for the sake of the Presidency? A FREAKIN' POW, man!! And she's a Hockey Mom!!

This campaign ain't about issues. it's about who we identify with. Because government isn't about policies or agendas or making America stronger, safer or more respected. It's like a TV show. I know i'd rather watch the show with the crazy, grouchy war hero and his sideick, the creepy hot christian from Alaska who likes hockey and killing shit.

It's about entertainment. Obama might get shit done. But the Odd Couple of McCain/Palin will be even cooler than the tragicomedy we're about to finish with the lovable former drunk who cant speak good.

Anonymous said...

childlike misconceptions?

Like we shouldn't have gone to war for lies?

Republican are so deluded full of fear and hate.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Notice how 6:05pm spares all the Republican talking points posted here from his criticism.

Clearly the Republicans on this blog, in 6:05pm, write with such penetrating verve that they bring to mind Rilke.

6:05pm has contributed much to the debate by likening Democrats on this blog to protesters.

But again, that seems to be the major problem with Republicans today. They look at America in 2008 and they see nothing to protest. Nothing has transpired these last eight years (save, perhaps, for some gay marriages and illegal immagration) that would cause them to get concerned or agitated. Everything is fine here, please move along.

Elections are not only about the future, but it they are our only means for holding politicians and their parties accountable. The Republican Party has shown itself unable to govern competently, effectively, and with the long-term interests of all Americans in mind. On November 4, we must take our democratic obligation seriously and show them that we recognize that they fouled up real bad and that they will not be allowed back into the positions of national leadership until they get their house in order and have an agenda that will solve the various crises besetting our beleagured populace.

Anonymous said...

A song for 6:05

“Rambozo The Clown”

Got a deadly toy
To brainwash your boy

An egocentric muscle thug
Kicks butt on screen like a brat outa hell
Bullshitter in the Indochina shop
Pull the string in his back, we win the war

That we never should have started at all

A cabbage patch terrorist to call our own
Who rewrites history with a machine gun
Don’t think about it-KILL IT
That’s what we teach your child

RAMBOZO the Clown
To draft age kids
It sure looks like fun-
“Kill ‘em all
And let God sort ‘em out.”
Like video games-no mess
Just fuel for a mass lapse of common sense
You can be Don Quixote
We’ll dice you with our windmill blades

Brawn over brain
Means a happy ending
G.I. Joe in the cereal bowl
Grey shrapnel-flavored chewing gum
Mass murder ain’t just painless
Now we’ve made it cute

RAMBOZO the Clown
War is sexy
War is fun
Iron Ego
Red Dawn
Be a wolverine. You’ll rule the hills
Just get some guns and Cheerios
Any kid can conquer Libya
Just steal a fighter plane

Look who came home in a wheelchair
V.A. Hospital, they don’t care
“We’re the machine
You’re just a tool.”
Who fell for the myth of Rambozo the Clown

Anonymous said...

Deep down in Arizona close to Mexico
Way back up in the cactuses where it never snows
There stood an ancient mansion made of gold and wood
Where lived a a corrupt politician named Johnny B Goode
Who'd never learned the difference between Sunni or Shia so well
But he could pretend to chase Osama to the gates of Hell

Go! Go! Go! Johnny!
Go! Go! Go! Johnny!
Go! Go! Go! Johnny!
Go! Go! Go! Johnny!
Go! Go! Johnny B. Goode!

He used to carry his bribe money in a gunnysack
Go sit beneath a tree and count his Keating kickbacks
Old lobbyist on K street would see him sittin' in the shade
Laughing at the doubletalk and flip flops he made
The people passed him by they would stop and say
Oh my but that little old mummy really hates the gays

Go! Go! Go! Johnny!
Go! Go! Go! Johnny!
Go! Go! Go! Johnny!
Go! Go! Go! Johnny!
Go! Go! Johnny B. Goode!

His mother told him someday you will be an old man
And you will be the leader of a murderous criminal clan
Many people will be blown to bits from miles around
To see you launch the nukes and take us all down
Maybe some day you will make mushroom clouds so bright
Sayin' "Johnny B Goode pushed the button tonight"

Go! Go! Go! Johnny!
Go! Go! Go! Johnny!
Go! Go! Go! Johnny!
Go! Go! Go! Johnny!
Go! Go! Johnny B. Goode!

Anonymous said...

all the aggression and hatred going around on this one page is the first step to the destruction of our beloved conutry.

Anonymous said...

I'm with you 6;59. But I had to stop reading all this stuff long ago I now scan through Sidney's posts and the other posters who rave inanely. Unforunately, they clog this blog and discourage serious readers to even take the time to scan through it. In the old days Neal Bortz used to clog this blog on purpose. Finally Ostroy had to delete his long entries. I think some of these nut jobs may be cluttering Ostroy's blog on purpose. Or it could be only one person - you notice how he's on hand to answer every new entry by another person. I wish Ostroy would at least delete the dreary poet.

Anonymous said...

all the aggression and hatred going around on this one page is the first step to the destruction of our beloved conutry.

Truth can hurt some times but i have a suggestion to all of the neo cons read carefully what follows

so you say you gotta know why the world goes 'round
and you can't find the truth in the things you've found
and you're scared shitless 'cause evil abounds
come join us

well I heard you were looking for a place to fit in
full of adherent people with the same objective
a family to cling to and call brethren
come and join us

all we want to do is change your mind
all you need to do is close your eyes

come join us
come join us
come join us

don't you see all the trouble that most people are in
and that they just want you for their own advantage
but I swear to you we're different from all of them
come join us
I can tell you are lookin' for a way to live
where truth is determined by consensus
full of codified arbitrary directives
come join us

all we want to have is your small mind
turn it into one of our kind
you can go through life adrift and alone
desperate, desolate, on your own
but we're lookin' for a few more stalwart clones

come join us
come join us
come join us

we've got spite and dedication as a vehement brew
the world hates us, well we hate them too
but you're exempted of course if you
come join us

independent, self-contented, revolutionary
intellectual, brave, strong and scholarly
if you're not one of them, you're us already so

come join us
come join us
come join us
come join us
come join us

Sarah said...

If Democrats want to win this one they can not sing softie songs. There are millions of brainless and toothless folks out there ready to vote for the foulest smelling excrement. Salute their ignorance, build on their fears, agree to their pathetic stereotypes, give them speeches filled with hatred and indignation.... hold the Bible real tight while you are shooting wide-eyed rabbits, and they will vote for you not because they agree to policies but because they will identify with your wretched soul.
Rove was a master planner because he knew how to reach the scum.
High time you did the same.

Anonymous said...

The American people Republican or Democrat must ask the following questions? Do the policies matter or the candidates age, sex, or race? Have the last eight years been good or bad for you? Have you felt safe from attack from domestic criminals, or other nations? Have the school system improved the life of your children or degraded it? How do your children compete in a world where we (Americans)rank near bottom? Are you comfortable with big business stealing employees pensions and life savings and what party would most likely stop them? What party would most likely go against big oil and actually force car manufacturers to start mass production of electrical powered and hydrogen cars? Yes, the issues are what matters. This election has to be about the issues and what "we the people" need to make our lives better. Having an African American President does the people no good if he is on the wrong side of the issues. Having a war hero President does the people no good if he is on the wrong side of the issues. Having a woman President/Vice president does the people no good if she is on the wrong side of the issues.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe this video of John McCain's latest gaffe! Check it out!

Anonymous said...

The Democratic Party has the right platform but the wrong candidate. There is no indication and little hope that Obama will implement the platform he promises. He has already joined the Republicans on spying, drilling, chruch and state separation, as well as having lied about his personal life. He cannot be trusted so it would be foolish to turn the world over to him, despite the wonderful promises he has made on behalf of our Party. This election is about character; and, who is the more trustworthy. Argue that McCain has his character problems, too. But we only have two choices and McCain is the least frightening.

Anonymous said...

The Republican Party has the wrong platform and the wrong candidate. There is no indication and little hope that McCain will do anything other than implement the platform he promises. He is George Bush's sidekick, recruited Bush's ideological twin sister as his running mate and has lied and reinvented himself so many times no one can count them. He cannot be trusted so it would be foolish to turn the world over to him for any reason. This election is about character; and, who is more trustworthy? Argue that Obama has character problems but the true test of a man's character is how sacred he holds his vows to his wife. We have two choices and on character and the issues, Obama wins hands down.

Anonymous said...

McCain picked Palin to be his VP running mate not because she's the most qualified for position, but, for the sole purpose of being his CHEERLEADER in their campaign tour.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Ok, Obama, it's time to abandon the politics of hope or the idea of running a campaign on the issues.

Time to go negative. Time to lie just like McCain and his 527s have lied.

I expect "Daisy"-like adverts showing that McCain is a warmonger and will lead us into war again.

I expect ads showing that McCain-Palin will overturn Roe v. Wade and leading to back-alley abortions with coat hangers.

I expect ads demonstrating that Palin will teach creationism in science class and that she doesn't believe global warming is in any way caused by man.

I expect ads running in Florida stressing that McCain-Palin will privatize social security and cut Medicare.

Time to go negative, team obama.

Anonymous said...

by hilzoy

The McCain campaign has a new ad out that says (among other things):
"Obama's one accomplishment?
Legislation to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners.

Learning about sex before learning to read?

Barack Obama.

Wrong on education. Wrong for your family. "

John McCain: wrong on the facts. For starters, the bill is not a "legislative accomplishment": it never came up for a vote. If it had, and if it had passed, it would not have been Sen. Obama's "legislative accomplishment": he wasn't among its sponsors. It was passed out of his committee, and I believe he supported it, but as far as I can tell, that's the extent of his involvement with it.

More to the point, the bill in question requires that sex ed courses use medically accurate information. That is: any sex ed courses that are currently being taught have to be accurate. It requires that they be age-appropriate, which I think rules out explicit discussions of sex in kindergarten. It starts with an explicit opt-out clause:
"(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil's parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil."
So why, you might ask, did kindergarten even come up in the bill? Well:
"Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."
Helping kids protect themselves from sexual predators by teaching them the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching. Horrors. And totally the same as teaching kindergarteners about sex.

I hope McCain is enjoying himself. It would be a shame for him to give up what remains of his honor without getting anything at all in retur

Anonymous said...

John McCain has a 100% approval rating on pork-barrel spending for the 2007 legislative season, according to Citizens against government waste. His lifetime score is 88%.

What this basically means is that in 2007, John McCain voted with the taxpayers 100% of the time. This means that over his years in the Senate, John McCain voted with the taxpayers 88 out of every 100 votes. And when I say "with the taxpayers" I essentially mean he voted in a way that would allow taxpayers to keep their money, rather than spend it on frivolous government pork projects.

Just in case you weren't aware, Mr. Obama scored a 10% rating in 2007 and an 18% lifetime rating.

What about his running mate Joe Biden? He actually managed to score a 0% rating in 2007. These really seem like a pair of guys that are trying to create change in Washington. These really look like the people who are looking out for you, the taxpayers.

But then Obama claims it is John McCain and Sarah Palin who are lying.

When it comes to Sarah Palin, we've been through the specifics on this Bridge to Nowhere crap. In fact, the Democrat Party in Alaska acknowledges that it was Sarah Palin who finally scrapped the bridge.

Guess who DID vote for the Bridge to Nowhere. Barack Obama and Joe Biden

Anonymous said...

Before Sarah Palin's time as governor, the state of Alaska used to request over 100 earmarks each year to be secured by Alaska's congressional delegation.

When it came time for Sarah Palin to request her earmarks for the first time as governor ... she slashed that number by half, requesting 54 earmarks. The next year, Palin cut that number AGAIN down to just 31 earmarks. Of those 31 earmarks, 27 of these are continuous or were previously appropriated.

When Palin entered the governor's office, the total amount of quests averaged $550 million a year. That number has been reduced to less than $200 million now that Palin is in office. And it would only continue to decline.

One of Palin's stated goals as Governor is to ask Congress for no more than a dozen earmarks for her state. On top of all that, Palin insisted that each earmark requested by the state of Alaska demonstrate an important federal purpose and public support. Whenever possible, Palin wants to have earmarks only if they can be matched by state or local budgets. And her administration is currently re-examining previous decisions on transportation earmarks ... the Alaska Department of Transportation is conducting an audit to determine the status of every single one of its recent earmarks.

Let's go ahead and take a look at Barack Obama's earmarks in the Senate. In just three years, Barack Obama has requested over 300 earmark projects totaling $740 million.

For the 2008 fiscal year alone, Obama requested 112 earmarks. Sarah Palin? 31.

Obama heads the big spending, more the same ticket in this election. John McCain and Sarah Palin have the track record of reform. Obama and Biden have no such record.

Anonymous said...

An America that disdains Obama for his global support risks turning current anti-Bush feeling into something far worse

Jonathan Freedland The Guardian, Wednesday September 10 2008

The feeling is familiar. I had it four years ago and four years before that: a sinking feeling in the stomach. It's a kind of physical pessimism which says: "It's happening again. The Democrats are about to lose an election they should win - and it could not matter more."

In my head, I'm not as anxious for Barack Obama's chances as I was for John Kerry's in 2004 or Al Gore's in 2000. He is a better candidate than both put together, and all the empirical evidence says this year favours Democrats more than any since 1976. But still, I can't shake off the gloom.

Look at yesterday's opinion polls, which have John McCain either in a dead heat with Obama or narrowly ahead. Given the well-documented tendency of African-American candidates to perform better in polls than in elections - thanks to people who say they will vote for a black man but don't - this suggests Obama is now trailing badly. More troubling was the ABC News-Washington Post survey which found McCain ahead among white women by 53% to 41%. Two weeks ago, Obama had a 15% lead among women. There is only one explanation for that turnaround, and it was not McCain's tranquilliser of a convention speech: Obama's lead has been crushed by the Palin bounce.

So you can understand my pessimism. But it's now combined with a rising frustration. I watch as the Democrats stumble, uncertain how to take on Sarah Palin. Fight too hard, and the Republican machine, echoed by the ditto-heads in the conservative commentariat on talk radio and cable TV, will brand Democrats sexist, elitist snobs, patronising a small-town woman. Do nothing, and Palin's rise will continue unchecked, her novelty making even Obama look stale, her star power energising and motivating the Republican base.

So somehow Palin slips out of reach, no revelation - no matter how jaw-dropping or career-ending were it applied to a normal candidate - doing sufficient damage to slow her apparent march to power, dragging the charisma-deprived McCain behind her.

We know one of Palin's first acts as mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska was to ask the librarian the procedure for banning books. Oh, but that was a "rhetorical" question, says the McCain-Palin campaign. We know Palin is not telling the truth when she says she was against the notorious $400m "Bridge to Nowhere" project in Alaska - in fact, she campaigned for it - but she keeps repeating the claim anyway. She denounces the dipping of snouts in the Washington trough - but hired costly lobbyists to make sure Alaska got a bigger helping of federal dollars than any other state.

She claims to be a fiscal conservative, but left Wasilla saddled with debts it had never had before. She even seems to have claimed "per diem" allowances - taxpayers' money meant for out-of-town travel - when she was staying in her own house.

Yet somehow none of this is yet leaving a dent. The result is that a politician who conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan calls a "Christianist" - seeking to politicise Christianity the way Islamists politicise Islam - could soon be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Remember, this is a woman who once addressed a church congregation, saying of her work as governor - transport, policing and education - "really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God".

If Sarah Palin defies the conventional wisdom that says elections are determined by the top of the ticket, and somehow wins this for McCain, what will be the reaction? Yes, blue-state America will go into mourning once again, feeling estranged in its own country. A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all. And, most depressing, many African-Americans will decide that if even Barack Obama - with all his conspicuous gifts - could not win, then no black man can ever be elected president.

But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most. For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.

The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world's population, opposed the Iraq war. McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Non-Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US-friendly League of Democracies. McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was "Drill, baby, drill!", as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US's entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs.

If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.

Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for.

And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that "the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race".

Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."

Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the "candidate of Europe" and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it.

Anonymous said...

Whether Obama was in his sly, sarcastic way, calling Palin a pig or not, that he made a "lipstick/pig" remark shows his total lack of judgment. It's on the front page of newspapers and was the only subject on Morning Joe. There's now a McCain ad circulating with Obama's "pig" remarks. He just doesn't learn or get it. First the "clinging"and now the "Pig" remarks.

Remember Bill saying one aspect of Obama's campagn was a "fairy tale" and Bill was for ever after labeled a racist.

Anonymous said...

Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."

Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the "candidate of Europe" and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it.

Anonymous said...

"But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted?"

It says that Americans don't want non-Americans telling them who to vote for.

Anonymous said...

Every one in a race resents the top dog. The US is the world's big top dog and has been for a while. So the rest of the world has a large group that looks at the US the way Andy looks at ANY Republican.

They want us to be weaker and they wish us ill. Naturally they want the weak like them, so they gravitate to the weak on defense, high on socialism candidate.

Foreign support of a candidate should be a warning sign, not a positive indicator.

Anonymous said...

McCain-Palin and the Republican Party: Ensuring that America Grows Weaker and Becomes the Enemy of the World...

And news for 11:33am, we're not going to be "top dog" for very much longer if the Republicans keep up with their disastrous policies.

America is growing less competitive in the world every day. American children each year grow more poorly educated relative to our global competitors. The dollar is losing its primary role as the global currency. America's reputation in the world continues to become tarnished. We are becoming less innovative than Europe, India, Japan, South Korea, China, et al.

Americans (by which I meant Republican voters) only grow more arrogant, as the last two posts demonstrate, the weaker America becomes in the world. America cannot bully the world into submission. Despite what you guys suggest, the the majority of the world does not want America to be weak and fail. Many nations rely on American power and look for America's guidance. However, that tide is now ebbing as they see how reflexively bloodthirsty we can be or how anti-world, anti-cooperation, anti-science, anti-rule of law, we are fast becoming.

Remember that Pride Comes Before the Fall.

Anonymous said...

11:33am's dumbass thinking is totally endemic in the Republcian party.

It is why America is guaranteed to become a global pariah in the 21st Century.

Last Century was the American Century because we fought to win the war of ideas against Communism and we sought to include the other nations of the world in this fight. We established international laws in order to prevent conflicts and to promote liberty and freedom. We knew that if America was to remain strong, it had to be viewed (in comparison to the Soviet Union) as a force for good in the world.

But republicans today don't care about that. They view any and all American conduct as necessarily "good" b/c it is American. They don't give a damn about our standing in the world. They don't realize that our standing in the world, and ability to marshall global support for our endeavors, makes us MORE POWERFUL.

Republicans will not be happy until America as a brand has been reduced to Soviet Union-like proportions. And then we will not be able to get any nation to do what we'd like them to do. this republican mindset MAKES AMERICA WEAKER!!

Anonymous said...

Our children's education suffers for two major reasons -

The unionist teachers care less about educating children then maintaining their monopoly than ever before. Every time there is choice available between union dominated schools and charter and similar schools, the people who try to run away fastest are at the bottom of the economic rungs who could do best from improvements in education. Which is why Dems oppose them - to keep their union supporters happy and to keep the underclass enslaved.

The other reason is the dramatic increase in kids growing up in single parent households. A working sole parent can't provide proper support because (a) they are too wiped out from work and (b) they themselves are undereducated by the consequences of their choices.

All of this can be laid squarely at the feet of the left. They champion rights and whisper about responsibility. Their political philosophy is predicated upon enslavement of the underclass - the scariest thing to a Democrat is an educated, employed and intact black family.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous at 10:03 - Are you aware that both Obama and Clinton returned to Washington while campaigning to vote in favor of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Unfortunately, the act did not pass because all except six Republicans voted against it? McCain did not return to vote but is on record as saying that he did not support the bill. That's right, John McCain and 42 other Republicans do NOT support your salary equaling the guy next to you. In fact, the 42 Republicans specifically voted against any effort a woman might make to correct pay inequality based on her gender. And McCain agreed with them. But ALL the Democrats supported the bill. So, why is it that you think McCain is better for women's pay equality than Obama?

Anonymous said...

anon 12:22 PM

please show me anywhere in the repug plank where they support charter schools (which are still public) or support programs which would pay for higher education for all

the repug plank is all about vouchers...which on a federal level will not work...its not about choice, its about sending tax payer dollars to religious private schools...

and damn, you are a truly incredible fucktwat....who did the dems nominate for president? an educated black man

who do the repugs want as president and vp...a man who finished at the bottom of his class, and a woman who went to 4-6 colleges to attain a ba in journalism

so who really hates the educated?
hs state colleges

so fuck off and die...we are sick of your lies

Anonymous said...

"Vacuous onion"

Well put Ostroy. Also aptly describes anyone who thinks Palin is worthy of the Presidency.

If choosing the incompetent empty (pant)suit fraud Palin for VP is how McCain shows his concern for the welfare of the country, then it's obvious that he too is completely unfit for command.

"The scariest thing to a Democrat is an educated, employed and intact black family." Anon12:22

Uh huh. That must be why the Democratic Presidential nominee is Barack Obama - an educated, employed black man whose family is still intact from the day he began it nearly 20 years ago.

Multi-Marriage McCain and eloping Sarah Palin with her first son conceived out of wedlock and 17 year old daughter following suit..... they really mean it when they talk about solid, Christian "family values", eh?

Such flagrant stupidity and hypocrisy is mind-numbing.

Anonymous said...

Here is a link to how McCain picked Palin it is very chilling.

Anonymous said...

not sure if that linked worked the article is at the nation

Secretive Right-Wing Group Vetted Palin

Anonymous said...

As long as we are discussing conspiracy theories, why did Obama have to meet with Bill Ayers the terrorist before announcing that he was running for President ?

Anonymous said...

Why did Obama make Rev. Wright stay in the basement when he announced he was running for President ?

If he knew that Wright was bad enough to be publicly seen, why was he mingling with him ?

Anonymous said...

My first reaction upon hearing Barack Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark was that it was deliberate. Not a deliberate attempt to smear Sarah Palin per se, but a deliberate attempt to provoke exactly the sort of fanatical reaction that they have gotten from the Republicans. The McCain campaign has spent a week campaigning on big themes and big personalities, and gotten a fair amount of mileage out of it. This takes everyone back down a notch, back down to the tedium and banality of partisan politics. It would be wishful thinking to call it a momentum-changer, but it may by default be a momentum-stopper. The convention/Palinmania phase of the news cycle -- a phase the Republicans clearly thought they were winning -- is now over.

This is not to call this some sort of brilliant strategy; I have no idea how any of this is going to play out. But it may, in conjunction with the Obama campaign's pushback on the Bridge To Nowhere, be part of a developing Obama counter-narrative. That narrative might go something like this; imagine these words in Obama's voice:

My opponent's chief strategest just said, "this campaign isn't about the issues." Well, I've got news for you, America. The Republican Party is desperate. They are going to do anything to try and hold onto their power, because they know the damage they've done to our country, and they don't know how to fix it. They know that people are out of work, and they don't know how to help them. They know that people are dying because they don't have health insurance, and they don't know to save them. They know that families are struggling to put food on the table, and they know don't know how to provide for them.

So they're going to try and distract you, America, because that's the only thing they know how to do. They're going to try and scare you. They're going to try and tell you stories, instead of offering solutions. And yes, folks -- these are the same people that have been lying to you for the last eight years -- and they're going to lie to you again.
Okay, so I'm not Jon Favreau. But I think something along these lines would be toward the more effective end of Obama's potential post-convention messaging. And the "distractions, not solutions" meme is something Obama is going to have to trot out anyway once the 527's (including very probably the reincarnation of Jeremiah Wright) really begin to hit.

Anonymous said...

Obama should keep provoking the Republicans. So far, it seems to have had a nice result in the polls.

Anonymous said...

Palin would be a heartbeat away from the top job - if that happened would she bring her alleged lesbian lover to live in the white house with her?

Anonymous said...

What about the hypocrisy of her having 3 abortions in the 80's ?

Anonymous said...

6:24 PM,
Is that the level you want to take this ? If so, I have a question for you:

If Obama becomes President is he going to grow watermelons on the front lawn ?

Anonymous said...

The concern is the Berg vs Obama, Soetoro, DNC, FEC lawsuit that is proceeding in the PA federal courts regarding Obama's citizenship. It was brought forth by a DEMOCRAT by the way in an attempt to "save" the Democratic Party. Oh yeah, Obama's been served.

Will Obama be compelled to cough up by Sept. 30, 2008 in deposition? Will the DNC comply? Will the FEC admit that Obama wasn't vetted?

Will this mean that all the name calling and brushing off of shoulder and 99 problems but a bitch ain't one of them posturing could all be for nothing?

See the loose tire bouncing and rolling down the freeway on it's own? That's off the Obama clown wagon. Oops!! Here comes the next one.

Anonymous said...

This electoral map shows Obama is not really in such a bad situation.

Sidney Condorcet said...

On this 7th anniversary of 9/11, please remember (as you consider this election) that the Republican Administration has not brought Osama Bin Laden and many of his top associates to justice.

Anonymous said...

Does Obama get his talking points from cartoons??

It appears the answer is yes - for the third time in four days, Obama borrowed a lengthy bubble quote from Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles.

No wonder he selected Biden as his Vice Plagiarist. Biden is now teaching Obama where to find talking points that will get liberal attention.

Maybe Obama can use a cartoon against Putin to resolve the Russian invasion of Georgia.

Anonymous said...

at 10:31 - Apparently you don't understand the significance of the "alleged lesbian lover" - I could care less about lesbian or not - my point is the hypocrisy.... does that help you ?

Anonymous said...

10:47 What hypocrisy might that be? That she wanted to marry the alleged lesibian? Maybe she and the alleged lesbian abstained. Obama is against gay marriage too. Is he hypocritical for his alleged gay lover relationship?

And I think you meant to say you could NOT care less . . .
If you meant you could care less, what might cause you more concern. Surely not Obama's switching from no spying to spying and the other flip flops. That of course isn't hypocrisy -- it's lying.

Anonymous said...

8:40 am -

The Real Clear Politics Electoral Map IS NOT in such great shape for Obama.

Obama/Biden 217

McCain/Palin 216

Toss up 104

Obama is officially in deep deep shyt on all fronts:







Were some missed?

Sarah said...

So we might have to go to another war?
With a nuclear power this time?
Over Georgia?

Good luck America!

Sidney Condorcet said...

How scary is it that, at a time when America is fighting two wars, the potential VP to a man who would be the oldest elected President has absolutely no clue what the Bush Doctrine is?

I have no pretension w/r/t being VP ever, but I freakin know what the Bush Doctrine is. This is basic foreign policy stuff, people. Palin is a neophyte during dangerous times. Obama may not be as experienced as we'd like, but he knows his stuff. Palin is out of her element. She's a more exciting Dan Quayle.

Anonymous said...

Earlier this week, in Columbia, Missouri, Obama's VP candidate Joe Biden urged a paraplegic state official to stand up to be recognized.

What kind of idiot is he ? He is less exciting and less prepared to be VP than Dan Quayle.

Anonymous said...

The LATEST of examples of Obama's total lack of judgment was his selection of Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential candidate.

Everybody knows that the best choice for America that Obama should have made was Hillary Clinton. There is no debate about that.

Instead, Obama made the decision based on his pride. It is living proof that Obama's ego is one of his biggest problems. Obama would make a horrible President because his ego would be the deciding factor in all his decisions.

His next biggest problem is his track record highlighting his inability to take a stance on issues. When you are President of the United States, you have to make decisions and Obama's track record shows this is a major weakness of his.

McCain and Palin have a track record that shows they are decision makers. They can and will make decisions that go against their own party for the good of the country.

Obama and Biden have a track record of pandering and indecision.

Sidney can play the "Gotcha Politics" game, but he has too play that game - if my candidates had the track records of Obama/Biden, I'd be playing gotcha politics too.

Sidney Condorcet said...

haha, Bush fancied himself a "decider" too and also had an astounding lack of knowledge about the world...Look how that turned out...

8:50am wants America to give McCain (what's the difference between shia and sunni? I don't know much about economics) and Palin (I was a small-town mayor, woohoo! I am under a bipartisan investigation for abuse of power! I don't know what the Bush Doctrine is) a free pass just as 8:50am no doubt gave Bush a free pass...

Can America really go with "gut-based thinkers" for a third straight time? Can we afford to go with McCain, a reckless, war-first, flip-flopper on nearly every major issue, and Palin, woefully ill-prepared and ignorant about the world?

I hardly think so. But because "real Americans" hate intellectuals and people with actual knowledge and critical thinking skills and they embrace the "shoot-first", fuck the world, arrogance and ignorance of Bush, McCain, Palin, etc., I have little doubt that "real Americans" will choose the Republicans again. Only a depression or simultaneous wars with Russia, Iran, China, and a continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan may possibly open their minds to the reality that Republicans simply cannot govern well.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, is America as powerful and is the economy as strong as it was 8 years ago?

That's the most important question this year.

Anonymous said...

Is anyone who claims Palin knows nothing and was coached, stupid enough to think she was not "coached" on the "Bush Doctrine"? Ther "accusers" of "Coaching" can't have it both ways.

Being asked about the "Bush Doctrine" has the potentail of being an "entrapment" by the questionioner if it is not differentiated from his entire record as President. She did not fall into the trap.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Actually, you feral moron, it is possible to have it both ways. I've studied for many exams in my life, and many times there have been a few things that I've missed. There you go again, losing your grip on reality, 9:13am. She's been coached for about a week. Clearly, they didn't cover the Bush Doctrine, as she had no early clue what Charles Gibson meant. And if you honestly believe she wasn't coached, why was McCain's chief strategist, Steve Schmidt, travelling with her the last few days and not with McCain?

It wasn't a trap, you swine. She was asked a basic foreign policy question. I bet she has no clue what the Monroe Doctrine as well, even though we all learned that in high school American history. You are a partisan hack who has lost any measure of credibility.

Why don't you just return to making out with your George Bush inflatable doll? Swine!

Anonymous said...

HUBRIS: EXAGGERATED pride or self-confidence. (Merriman-Webster)

Gibson asked Palen if she had the hubris to be President.

That is a sexist equivalent of asking a black person if he is being "uppity",

No one has asked Obama if he were being "uppity" or "hubristic" by running for the Presidency.

Gibson shoul have respectively asked Palen if she felt qualified to do the job.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Illogic alert on 10:08am!!

Asking a woman if she's overconfident is the equivalent of asking a black person if he's "uppity"? Wow, how was that lobotomy McMurphy? Sheesh...

Going back to an earlier point, Marc Fisher yesterday in the Washington Post, after attending a McCain-Palin rally in VA, hit upon the concern I expressed:

"In this hyperdemocratized society, the national conviction that anyone can succeed is morphing into a belief that experience and knowledge may almost be disqualifying credentials."

Athena Smith said...

Guys, take it from someone who has a graduate degree in International relations.
It is impossible to be coached.
International Relations requires knowledge that is being built slowly through study over the years. And I don't mean university study. Just reading international affairs magazines or history books. But for years, that's the catch. It is a whole chain of events, not just the latest. You may be coached in the latest developments in Russia, but if you don't know the history of the Soviet Union, what grievances and what psychology has been created in people of the former republics by the policies of Lenin and Stalin,let alone later events, then you don't understand Russia, you don't understand Ukraine and Georgia and you reach immediately the most simplistic conclusion.If you could see upclose the huge hate Russians harbor against the US because of their lost status as superpower, one can only imagine how insulted and humiliated they must have felt last night by listening to a woman making threats (Knowing that the status of a woman in Russia leaves a lot to be desired, I can only imagine what kind of anger the average Rusiian must have felt and what kind of basis for increasing nationalism she offered).
Because the most underestimated factor in international affairs is that of humiliation.

On the other hand, if one studied the horrors that the citizens of the former republics withstood under Soviet control, with the exception of the classes that shared power, then one would realize that war is not what they desire, but investments in their countries. For they all say... "enough with poverty and misery... we want progress now."

The result of ignorance is what we saw last night. Without blinking an eye she acually implied a war with a major nuclear power.

Nobody told her that international conventions and agreements are violated all the time? Especially by the most prominenet members?

As I said... the web of events and forces is too complicated. Let's see if people notice who keeps a cool head, who is intellectually capable of listening, learning and absorbing new information. Who is intellectually capable of changing his mind.

For there is nothing funny, nothing remotely funny, about a war with a country that can strike back in the most devastating way.

Anonymous said...

10:08 Thank you so much for pointing out that sexism on Gibson's part. I presume many on cable and the press don't know the meaning of the word humbris or they, we hope, would have pointed out the sexism.

Sidney Condorcet said...

10:35am is clearly 10:08am complimenting himself as part of an effort to drum up support for the view that asking a woman about hubris is sexist...

Oh, and James Fallows hits the nail on the head when he remarks that it isn't Palin's lack of a definition for the Bush Doctrine but her lack of familiarity with the expression itself which is most haunting:

"What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years."

Bobby Baird echoes:
"The problem was not that Palin stressed one person’s version of the Bush Doctrine over the other, it’s that she appeared to have never heard the phrase in her life...

No one who has heard the phrase in context before–or who wasn’t sure which iteration of it was meant–would ever respond with “His world view.” And even someone who didn’t know there was a Bush doctrine but who was aware of the Monroe or Truman doctrines would know enough not to say “His world view.” He or she would also probably know that it had something specific to do with the using force to achieve geopolitical strategic objectives, and might even be quick-witted enough to ask which version of the Bush doctrine Gibson was talking about, to draw out some help. But “His world view?” That part just sounded ridiculous."

Anonymous said...

Oh, Oh, Oh, Paliin was coached. "She knows nothing about foreign affairs." THe Republicans coached her for one week. Yet, THERE ARE DUMB FOOLS WHO THINK THEY FORGOT TO TEACH/COACH HER ON THE BUSH DOCTRINE

They've outsmarted the Dems by picking her; they're not going to be stupid enough to FORGET to mention the Bush Doctrine to her.

Anonymous said...

You wanna hear dumb. Obama using the pig/lipstick saying after Palin's speech about lipstick and a soccer mom/pitbull. If he didn't "mean" it about her, he should have had sense enough not to take the chance of being accused.

Anonymous said...

I,was and do say was a democratic supporter. But when the dems shoved hillary to the back of the bus,made bill clinton into a racist and made Obama the empty suit,the new massiah,that was enough. I was going to stay home and not vote. But then john mccain the maverick did the greatest thing there is.He named sarah palin his vp pick. she's getting my vote no matter what. Any woman that can kill a caribou and be able to field dress it and lite the fire to cook it in the wilderness gets my vote. And to top it all off this broad also cleans and guts fish.NOW THATS A WOMAN ANY REAL MAN CAN VOTE FOR

Anonymous said...

Sidney, you idiot.......

You are uncommonly thick headed and slow.....

Osama lives because of Bill Clinton. Americans died because of Bill Clinton refused Sudan's tender of him. Clinton foolishly thought that the only way to deal with him was through the courts instead of having a CIA team take custody of Osama and lose him in a plane over the Atlantic. Oops.

Do that and thousands of Americans remain alive today.

I am sorry and disappointed that Bush hasn't caught Osama. But you know, while a dirt bag like you won't admit it, no one would have ever believed that Bush would have gone 7 and 0 in the years after 9/11. We were all SURE that we'd be attacked again.

After all, we were attacked, time and again in the past and that was all the experience we had to draw from. That past was the 8 years of the Clinton administration.

Bill Clinton and his willing accomplices in the Democrat party have blood on their hands. While I certainly believe that it took Bush too long to reach the right strategy. He and he alone, as Commander in Chief deserves the credit for choosing the man and the strategy that produced a win in Iraq.

Clinton killed American boys. TAKE THAT TO THE BANK.

And always remember 7 and 0. No one would have believed it. Certainly not a moron like you.

Anonymous said...

Charles Krauthammer is the man who first coined the term "the Bush Doctrine" in the cover essay of the June 4, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism"

According to Charles Krauthammer, both Charlie Gibson and Sidney are WRONG in their definitions of the Bush Doctrine.

Here is a link to Krauthammer's take on Charlie Gibson's incorrect definition of the Bush Doctrine.