LITTWIN: Palin as phenom: It's a mystery

By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 16, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More News Columns & Blogs

Comments

September 16, 2008

6:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

DakotaPlainsman writes:

Here's another mystery:
I find it amazing that the polls are as close as they are, considering the fact that the dominant, liberal, left wing media (including Littwin, a very unapologetic Obama supporter) has provided so much favor to Obama. And with the celebrity crowd in his corner, he should be leading by a wide margin. Lindsay Lohan is for Obama. Doesn’t that count for something? With Littwin and Lohan on his side, how can he lose?
September 16, 2008

7:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

BuffDriver writes:

Ya gotta feel for libs like Nitwit...they KNOW Gov. Palin is qualified to lead this country...Biden and Nobama have never even run a lemonade stand.
September 16, 2008

7:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

raysmom writes:

Oh Boy, Oh Boy- when Littwin is THIS snarky, I know his hide is chapped! What's wrong- don't like it that your Messiah has been eclipsed by a WOMAN, and one that you feel so SUPERIOR to? Your rhetoric about the financials (those guys are best buds with Joe Biden(D-MBNA Bank and his MBNA Lobbyist son) and gas prices (thank our do-nothing Congress for that, as well as dropping the ball on regulation of public entities) is so angry and ignorant- the coffee tastes GOOD this morning, Mike. A Palin Lovefest? You bet. Still better than an Obama ME-Fest, any day of the week.
September 16, 2008

7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

quichelorraine writes:

Given what i've seen of the journalistic coverage of this presidential campaign so far, I predict that, after this election is over, there will be a lot more job openings for objective journalists.
September 16, 2008

7:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

crescen7 writes:

Mystery ? Here's some help . . .

Sarah Palin was not an unknown to activist Republicans. She and Bobby Jindal have been identified as strong young conservatives for the past two years. Both exemplify political success stories that have relied on a conservative message, rather than political connections to win their elections. Both have made significant improvements to the Governments in their respective States. Both are widely respected by their constiuents.

When McCain was considering VP's, the names Jindal and Palin were mere whispers. Conservatives didn't dare allow themselves to dream that McCain might pick a true governing conservative. Instead, Conservatives hoped he'd at least go for a modest conservative like Romney, or Pawlenty; while they feared he'd go for a dud like Ridge or completely abandon conservatives by naming Lieberman.

When McCain named Palin, conservatives were stunned. Conservatives don't see the air headed ex-beauty queen turned moose hunter that the media has portrayes; but the sincere, successful, and competent Governor of the America's largest and most resource rich state. A principled person who is not beholden to any political party, or machinery - but only to her own guiding philosophy.

A political philosohy of limited Government, individual liberties, and strong defense.

A philosophy that is largely shared by most of America.

Now, is that really such a mystery ?
September 16, 2008

8:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

soccermom writes:

So let's get this straight.
2001 umemployment was 4.2% and now it's 6.1%
We went from a 281 billion dollar surplus to a 357 billion dollar deficit.
National debt went from 5.7 trillion to 9.7 trillion
Gas went from 1.50 to 4.00+ per gallon
There is a Wall Street meltdown that Alan Greenspan calls a once in a lifetime event.
This has happened under Republican leadership.

And McCain says the fundamentals of our economy are strong.
He's out of touch and we need to stop this train wreck.
September 16, 2008

8:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

catdaddio42 writes:

This egalitarian writer Mr. Littwin seems to have forgotten the largely uninformed, off-the-cuff and, at times, stupid answers that Senator Obama made in the early Democratic primary debates. He's just had more time to polish up his answers after about 4 years of campaigning for the presidency. It should be clear to everyone that both BO and Governor Palin have abilities beyond their respective resumes. But SP is not running for the presidency. What we're all left with is to cut out the hyperbole and contrast the character. When confronted with evil, what did each do? McCain and Palin have records of saying "No" to the corrupt system, Obama and Biden have records of saying "Can you actually get away with that?" Check out the history and learn something about your new leaders.
September 16, 2008

8:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

redmike writes:

Complete unknowns simply do not become known overnight, except in bad movies - ("bad movies" signals the upcoming bias in the article) .. but just to help Mike Littwin who may have been around a long time but has not learned much about political history.

The early lives of Calvin Coolidge and Harry Truman, and the latter in particular are a clue.

If the writer reads about the above and then wipes the egg off of his face he may check out his next article more carefully before hitting the 'save' button.

Mike
September 16, 2008

8:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

bapple writes:

I think that you people above are out of your minds. This woman is clueless. 20 months ago she was Mayor of a VILLAGE, not a city, not a town, a VILLAGE with as many people as a single A minor league baseball team fits in their stands. She wants to go to war with Russia over the country of Georgia? She wants to fight "God's War?" C'mon people, do you really want to sacrifice your children for a renewed holy war? Let's examine the facts:
She lied about the bridge to nowhere, she lied about selling the jet on e-bay, she lied about firing her chef, she lied about "trooper gate", she lied when she said she's experienced. Wake up people, this "hackey maaam" could be a heartbeat away from being President. That is the scariest thing I have ever heard in my life !!! And the press? There is no such thing as a liberal press, all of the major press outlets are owned by conservative big corporations. Fox News is nothing more than a Republican talking points propaganda network.

The bottom line is that McCain is a liar, Palin is a liar and they won't have any problems continuing their lies if the sky falls and they somehow get elected.

Also, do you think John McCain is an advocate for the troops? Check out the Senate website and his votes on anything to do with veterans. He has voted NAY on almost anything to help vets and their families.
September 16, 2008

8:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

RobertL writes:

The MSM is a joke now. A parody of itself. Does anyone think Obama would be where he is today without a compliant media?

Let's defeat Obama. Let me recommend that everyone who wants to defeat The One (and by extension, the media) send something hilarious to thei confused friends, liberals, college students, or neighbors and support wounded warriors at the same time.

Go to http://www.obamaresearch.com. Watch the video, too. The "book" on Obama will make you laugh until you cry.

They are cheap, and I picked up many. I gave mine away and just orded more!

-- Rob
September 16, 2008

8:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

wendy027 writes:

This article is your typical liberal media hatchet job. To balance the scales lets review some Obama's ideals.

If your ideal is a guy who had his first political fundraiser at the home of self-acknowledged bomber Bill Ayers; who bought his home at a discount from a convict named Rezko and then lied about their relationship; who dedicates his book to his father who deserted him then disses his mother and grandmother as typical prejudiced white people after they stayed and raised him; who sat in church for 20 years listening to his mentor and spiritual guide Wright preach hate of America, hate of white people, promulgate black power and racism then claim he never heard the sermons and never protests the church giving a lifetime achievement award to anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan; who chose as his wife a woman who dislikes her country which is mean and nasty and was never proud of it until now; who belittles small town residents, for clinging to guns and religion, when he thinks they're out of earshot; who believes the morality of abortion is “above my pay grade”; who has been in the State and US senate but can't seem to make decisions on whether to vote yes or no; who has never in his life run anything; who says one thing then does another - campaign financing, NAFTA, voting for the troops, voting for the Bridge to Nowhere; who criticizes America while he is roaming the globe as the Citizen of the World; who advocates big government, big spending and expanded entitlement programs all paid for by huge tax increases. If that's your ideal, then you certainly should vote for Barack Obama.
September 16, 2008

8:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

indystacey writes:

All of you defending Palin are liars. You KNOW she is not qualified to run this country. She is smart and savvy and maybe one day she would be a great president. But not now! McCain did not pick the most qualified person. He didn't pick based on what was best for the country. He picked based on what was best for HIM. That is inexcusable. He put himself before country. He has lost all of the intergrity and honor that we used to admire in him.
September 16, 2008

8:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

kc02 writes:

If she's unqualified, Littwin, then so is Barack Obama. You can't poo-poo her experience without saying Obama doesn't have it either. While he was serving on committees, she ran a state. I'd put her experience against his any day.
September 16, 2008

8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

dakar writes:

Littwin and his ilk seem to think Obama is qualified to be President because he's spent the past couple years talking to the media on news talk shows. Their used to seeing Obama on TV, thus he must be qualified. That is their gauge. And these liberals who've been fawning over Obama this last year can't understand how so many moderates and conservatives would be so "smitten" by their candidate. Aren't only the Dems allowed to do that? For them, the media is supposed to determine who it's darlings are, not the people right? Palin has turned the media on its ear and they can't stand it.
September 16, 2008

8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

nachosleaze, you're comment is an insult to all pigs.
September 16, 2008

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Fred1 writes:

The libs keep forgetting who has the majority in Congress and what the approval rating is there (what 16%?). Shame on them as they are really who has set up this mess!
September 16, 2008

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

suffernofools writes:

Soccermom: we (the USA) doesn't operate in a vacuum in the world. As I recall, some pretty major stuff has happened in the world since President Bush was elected president. You can't blame everything that's happened on the President or the GOP. E.g., I don't think he was the one that made all those subprime mortgage loans...

Bapple: so what "village" has Obama ever governed? Also, if the Democrats have to stoop to comparing Obama's credentials with the vice presidential nominee of the other party, that's pretty scary. I guess it's b/c they can't even begin to compare his qualifications with his presidential nominee counterpart.

As I've said here before, I don't think Obama could even get hired as the CEO of a major corporation with his 'credentials' and experience, yet he's 'more qualified' than either McCain or Palin to be president? Yeah, right.
September 16, 2008

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

ArvadaMiner writes:

I don't have a problem with people calling Palin "clueless" or unqualified as long as you say the same about Obama. He comes across to me as someone who does not understand what is going on except that he wants to be president.
If you want to call one a political hack, then you have to put them both in that category.
September 16, 2008

8:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

tedneb writes:

Love it.

The liberal posters here consistently, deliberately and grossly misstate important numbers like the unemployment rate, federal deficit and national debt.

They don't understand basic governmental concepts (like the fact that villages are larger and more governmentally intensive than towns).

They seriously maintain that there's no such thing as a left-leaning media in the US even though that can be objectively quantified.

They generate faux scandals (Sarah Palin actually fired her cook? Say it isn't so!).

And they conveniently ignore the obvious fact that most of the bad things that have happened to the economy under Bush's two terms didn't occur until the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

And they call McCain and Palin liars? Now THAT's being out of touch.
September 16, 2008

8:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

bapple writes:

John McCain claims to be a big supporter of military personnel and their families.The information below tells another story.It is John McCain's voting record on legislation to help veterans and their families.All of this information can be verified simply by going to the U.S. Senate website. Obama / Biden voted FOR ALL BUT 1 of these bills.

MAY 2008:McCain was a no show for the vote on the GI Bill.The Republican race had already been decided but he said he was too busy campaigning.In the midst of the most competitive Democratic primary race in history, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made it back to Washington to vote on this important bill that provides educational benefits for our military heroes.

SEPTEMBER 2007:McCain voted a gainst the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.S.Amdt. 2012 to S.Amdt.2011toH.R. 1585

MAY 2006:McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.S.Amdt.3704 to H.R. 4939

APRIL 2006:McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. S.Amdt. 3642 to H.R.4939.

MARCH 2006:McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes. S.Amdt.3007 to S.Con.Res. 83

NOVEMBER 2005:McCain Opposed $500 Million for Counseling Services for Veterans coming home from Iraq with Mental Disorders. McCain voted against an amendment to appropriate $500 million annually from 2006-2010 for counseling, mental health and rehabilitation services for veterans diagnosed with mental illness, posttraumatic stress disorder or substance abuse.(S.2020,S.Amdt. 2634,Vote 343, 11/17/05)

MARCH 2004:McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes.S.Amdt.2745 to S.Con.Res. 95

OCTOBER 2003:McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000. S.Amdt. 1817 to S. 1689/
APRIL 2003:McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets,tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests. S.Amdt. 452 to S. 762

AUGUST 2001:McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. S.Amdt. 1218 to S.Amdt. 1214 to H.R. 2620
September 16, 2008

8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

kabookey writes:

It seems like the Sainted One has been knocked off his perch and doesn't know what to do now. Maybe if he had been actually doing some work in the Senate he would have a record to fall back on to prop him up but all he has done since arriving there is run for President.That and hang with American terrorists, dem bag men, crazy preachers. Of course he had watched as gas has gone from about $1.50 since coming in to about $4 now. He did nothing about the banking issue or mortgages. His sole job since he has arrived was to try and undermine the war. Thank goodness he failed at surrender and it looks like we are winning and taking those tactics to Afghanistan now.
September 16, 2008

8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

RufusTFirefly writes:

hey nachosleaze....wipe the cheese off of your lips. Wake up, we need McCain and Palin in the White House.
September 16, 2008

8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

cindy50ham writes:

I was one of the Palin supporters Littwin interviewed yesterday, I wonder why he bothered. He clearly had an agenda when he spoke with me. Once upon a time reporters gathered facts, all of them. Yesterday Littwin tried to persuade me that my thinking was faulty, I thought he wanted to know what I thought, well, not really, he is after all Littwin. Though he is very clever with words he is not a reporter.
September 16, 2008

8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

666 writes:

It's no mystery that Palin is regarded as some kind of demigod now...the Republicans are desperate for any distraction from the fact that their party has run the economy into the ground at top speed. The novelty of a female conservative dashing toward Cheney's VP bunker (or wherever he goes to hide from reality) has them all in a tizzy, so that they can forget that their chosen president and VP have done worse things to our economy than any "tax and spend Democrat".
September 16, 2008

8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

kabookey writes:

Suggest removal

Charles_B writes:

Palin forced raped victims to pay for their rape kits because emergency contraception is offered as part of the procedure.

She thinks if a woman or girl is raped, they should be raped again by her requirement that they carry the child of their rapist? Next she'll be telling women and girls that they should marry their rapist so the kid has a daddy.

She left her tiny town with 20 million in debt.

She hired lobbyists to beg congress for earmarks, making her state the biggest social welfare case in our nation.

She lies repeatedly about things big and small.

She is stonewalling an ethics investigation against her.

She's Bush in a dress--a dissaster waiting to happen.

No wonder pseudo-cons everywhere are cheering her on. Nothing gets them energized like a lying, cheating, incompetent loser

*********************

That all you got buddy? Just call her a liar and that would make someone want to vote for the liar Obama? Of course he has a been a real teller or truths. Now as far as earmarks go, the ones she got in Wasilla were for sewer and infrastructure repairs but don't let those facts hit ya in the noodle. Secondly, if the feds were not controlling much of the state Alaska would be able to use their own resources to build up the state and thereby fund everything themselves. The people that seem to be doing most of the lying are the ones posting on sites like this. You are taking the dem talking points that if you repeat something enough it becomes true even if it isn't. If she were bad there buddy then why is her approval ratings in Alaska around 80%?
September 16, 2008

9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

ArvadaMiner writes:

What exactly is a "pseudo-con"? Are you talking about false conservatives, people that aren't really conservatives?
September 16, 2008

9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

bapple writes:

After reading all of this it is clear to me that the characterization of people from Colorado in the Borat movie was pretty accurate. I hope your kids are ready to fight in the newest "Great Crusade." WE NEED TO KEEP RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT !!!!
September 16, 2008

9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Willy writes:

It's fair if Litwin wants to say she is unqualified, but if he doesn't understand her appeal, he is completely out of touch with the real world.
September 16, 2008

9:08 a.m.

bapple writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 16, 2008

9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

He says "encourages people to shoot wolves out of airplanes" like it's a good thing.

It's only one of the many little things about her that disgust me. I've been writing letters, and fighting along side the Humane Society for years to stop inhumane practices against animals like that one. I'm all for hunting from talented hunters who know how to quickly kill their prey AND take it home and eat it. Hunting wolves and watching them bleed to death just for a picture of it? Disgusting.

And so is she. How can her supporters keep ignoring her lies? And how can they keep touting one-sided statistics? Keep it up folks, use only the data you want, while ignoring the other side of the story. Everyone here is showing their true colors.. and the true color is ignorance.
September 16, 2008

9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

Not to be uncharitable, but after reading just a few lines of this editorial, I couldn't help but sense that old deja vu feeling coming over me again, to loosely quote Yogi Berra.

How many times does the same insipid and fundamentally false "story" have to be re-written by the media before it is shelved as been-there, done-that? And isn't it the job of a real reporter or writer to think of a novel angle or invigorating take on an issue?

Reporters, in a Liberal universe, are purported truth-bearers. Think of Prometheus, who stole fire for humanity & then was punished for his audacity. Contra, Mike Littwin proves to us that he really ought not be a reporter at all, since he is not "reporting" facts, but simply acting as a telegraph operator -- just passing the canned talking points notes down the line to the next stop.

Example: "All I know is that I've never seen anything quite like the Palin phenomenon. And it's not just me. I consulted my sources. I delved into the ancient texts. I even did the Google. It was unanimous."

Here, Mike engages not in audacious truth-telling, but in blubbering regurgitation of the liberal pap "storyline" that is now the cornerstone of this week's "Liberal Truth" -- that Sarah Palin is an unqualified Conservative bimbo whose appeal is to others just like her, the right-side rednecked rubes. In other words, she is a talentless shill for a party without virtues. Right, Mike?

Instead, it is Obama as a phenomenon the likes of which have never been seen, according to ancient history & the electronic deity google. Obama is the talentless actor, who appears as if on cue from some Hollywood casting agency, with no leadership experience except his vague, socialist connections. He appears not to understand history, economics, logic, war, fighting corruption or Washington, or even how to avoid seeming a pompous egomaniac. You know, the guy who promises to heal planets, and gather the peoples of the world under the mantle of his robe -- like some deranged wannabe super hero?!!

So, let's look at the REAL story here, Mikey: The top of the Democrat ticket gets almost NO scrutiny, despite connections with con artists, convicts, Marxists, anarchists and racists. But it is Sarah Palin, the reformer of accomplishments & plucky determination, whom needs to be sacrificed to the tin gods of Marxism, like Billy Budd, to return order to the contrived Manichean universe of Liberalism?

Give me a break, Mikey. If you can't do a better job than acting as a blind Liberal parrot, then PLEASE consider finding another profession that better suits your talents -- like selling insurance (please cite Arthur Miller for the details on that one...).
September 16, 2008

9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

RufusTFirefly writes:

Dear Nacho,
The first year I had to pay taxes was under the Clinton Administration. I've been basically screwed ever since. No, I don't own 7 houses, and I don't care that McCain does, good for him and Cindy. But I tell you what I do have money and I earned every penny of that money. I invested some of it, got lucky and was able to invest more. I don't have anythng invested now. I have a personal savings account and a 401k. Thats it. I beleive that all democrats want something for nothing, blamming the other guy for their woes. Yes my children will have college paid for and so on. But you know something else Nacho for many years I took care of numerous WWII veterans and Vietnam veterans. Have you ever talked to those men and women?? I don't think so, because your attitude would be totally changed about WAR. I support the troops, I support President Bush. So don't tell me I am looking at the world through rose colored glasses don't blame me and my GOP because you can't make any money!!
September 16, 2008

9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Randman writes:

The problem here isn't Palin because she has EXECUTIVE branch experience and has run a local and state government (much smaller version of the federal government).

The problem here is how someone who has absolutely NO executive branch experience, comes with a background that shows no real accomplishment except talk, strongly believes in the institution of socialism, is being funded by questionable off shore donations, railroaded many individuals to accomplish his objectives in his political life, is portrayed as some sort of messiah by the press and is being shoved down everyones throats as the best man for the job !

OBAMA is the problem !!

Just look at some of the lame decisions he's made already...it's just a sample of what lays ahead.

You want change? How does living in a socialist America sound to you???
September 16, 2008

9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spidey1 writes:

Well, thankfully we have "bapple" to explain all this to all of us dumb conservatives. I mean, without "bapple" I know I was blinded by the overwhelming sense of optimism, drive, and determination for change offered by the McCain/Palin ticket. But thankfully, "bapple" reeled us back in. Kind of reminds me of my ex-wife: "I said it therefore it IS, and you may NOT argue with it." Oh wait, that almost sounds like the LIBERAL media that would have us ALL annointing the false Messiah Osama bin Laden, err, ooops, I mean Obama/Biden. Yet, some of us "dumb conservatives" DON'T CARE what the media, Hollywood or "bapple" - read "bad apple" think.
September 16, 2008

9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

kabookey writes:

nachosleaze writes:

kabookey:

have you seen alaskans? they're just a bit smarter than the moose they hunt. an 80 percent approval rating isn't much of an accomplishment in a place where people think living in a place that goes months without the sun setting.

more importantly, why would you suggest removal for another poster posting the truth about mclipstick? i know all the things he posted are deplorable and offensive, but they're not his record/beliefs, they're the lying moose pig palin's.

****************

More of the typical left. They must all be so stupid to support a republican. The left has played that card for election after election and have lost time and again. I know that is the best you got so you stick with it and see who wins in November. Don't cry in your cheese there buddy. Keep up the insults buddy. I am sure they work well on your wife and kids. Heck maybe if you insult enough people here today we can spare your wife and kids the abuse later.
September 16, 2008

9:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

coarizona writes:

I find myself listening to the people who support certain candidates. Littwin, you make a sorry case for Obama. Perhaps, you should hush up for a little while. You are not helping Obama.
September 16, 2008

9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

JYP3500 writes:

Way to go Mike, every time you open your mouth and trash Palin, 10 thousand more people will vote for her!

No need for McCain to open anymore offices in Colorado, the goofy Denver newspapers are doing the campaigning for him.

You liberals just can't help yourselves.
September 16, 2008

9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

primafacie writes:

"I was prepared to say that when the stock market drops 500 points and your 401(k) plan is disappearing faster than a San Diego Chargers' lead at Mile High ... "

Of course, 401(k) plans fluctuate. Every day. It depends on what funds it owns. And when the market recovers from Monday's dump, it'll be worth more than it was last week. The only value that matters is its value the day you withdraw the money.

Couldn't read past that little bit of inanity in this column from the typically inane Mike Littwin.
September 16, 2008

9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spidey1 writes:

As per "Charles_B" - No wonder pseudo-cons everywhere are cheering her on. Nothing gets them energized like a lying, cheating, incompetent loser.

Well, there you have it. An educated statement, of course NOT an opinion, but a FACT - as Mr. B would have you believe. Oh, and wait a second, I guess Mr. B is a devout Republican! I get it! The "lying, cheating, imcompetent loser" comment was about Obama! Thanks for your staunch support Mr. B! And next time, try not to make up so many of your own facts - it obviously confuses your mind, or what's left of it, after attending Osama's speech at Invesco Field.
September 16, 2008

9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

bapple writes: "Also, do you think John McCain is an advocate for the troops? Check out the Senate website and his votes on anything to do with veterans. He has voted NAY on almost anything to help vets and their families."

McCain supports the troops by advocating what he feels will give them the best chance of fighting effectively and winning. Liberals' idea of 'supporting the troops' is to vote for a war, but then when the going gets too tough they claim they were deceived, change their minds and advocate withdrawal and defeat, and then salve their consciences by voting for more benefits.

Anyone can vote for more veteran's benefits, but what happened to the Democrats' famous "pay as you go" pledge of 2006? Out the window, just like any principle that becomes too inconvenient.
September 16, 2008

9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

I don't know WHY you think Palin is pulling liberal women to vote republican. I don't know very many democratic women who want a PRO-LIFE, RELIGIOUS lunatic in the white house.

We already have an amendment up for a vote here in Colorado that not only will make abortions illegal again (sending women back to alleys with coat hangers instead of going to a medical facility) but it may also make many forms of birth control illegal.

I don't want her in my White House. She's going to pose all sorts of laws on MY BODY that only a doctor should be discussing with me. I don't want a pro-life, abstinence-only education person in my White House, bringing her "God" with her.

So I don't know how anyone can say she's "scaring" the democratic party because she is taking Hilary's votes with her. She will never have mine. She scares me more than Bush does. I see a Totalitarian Regime following right behind her.
September 16, 2008

9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies,

You make a great point!!!!
September 16, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

bolderdem08 writes:

i think mccain is going to have a stroke when he realizes that if he wins this election, Sarah Palin ACTUALLY has to be his VP....ouch.
September 16, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

libertygrace writes:

This is an opinion piece, for media consumers out there who have never been taught the difference between the op-ed pages and reported stories. Great job RMNews, staying on top of the issues for our swing state and providing us with local political commentators from multiple sides. Keep shining the light, toward the left and the right and everyone else too!
September 16, 2008

9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

kabookey writes:

cassidy22 writes:

He says "encourages people to shoot wolves out of airplanes" like it's a good thing.

It's only one of the many little things about her that disgust me. I've been writing letters, and fighting along side the Humane Society for years to stop inhumane practices against animals like that one. I'm all for hunting from talented hunters who know how to quickly kill their prey AND take it home and eat it. Hunting wolves and watching them bleed to death just for a picture of it? Disgusting.

And so is she. How can her supporters keep ignoring her lies? And how can they keep touting one-sided statistics? Keep it up folks, use only the data you want, while ignoring the other side of the story. Everyone here is showing their true colors.. and the true color is ignorance

*********

LOL, so you are for the wolves overrunning populated areas? Maybe we can post a sign up asking them to kindly leave the area. I bet you are out there fighting for the unborn like you are fighting for wolves or fighting for those babies that survive an abortion? Yea those same babies that a bill Saint O fought against. Save the double talk on that one because he voted against it whether there was another bill or he thought it unconstitutional or not is bs. Vote for the bill and let judges decide if it is or isn't. I guess Saint O thought he was as good as any judge as well.
September 16, 2008

9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Without a doubt Palin has tapped into a sizeable demographic that longs to regard America as something this country hasn't been in a long time. Namely, a country of small towns with Main Streets, populated with smiling TV families. Or, frontier towns populated with rugged individualists.

The reality is, this country is increasingly made up of endless subdivisions, big box chain stores, parking lots, massive freeways, and over-scheduled families who really don't see all that much of each other. Few people make their own goods and food anymore, that's all taken care of by corporate conglomerates.

But, since that reality jars with how we'd prefer to view ourselves and our lives, many choose to cling (yes, I said it!) to a more idealistic vision.

And THAT is what Palin has tapped into.

A recent article in Time describes the phenomenon much more aptly than I just did. I highly recommend it, it's a very good read.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/art...
September 16, 2008

9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spidey1 writes:

It seems to me like voting for a President should be about picking the person you personally believe will be a better leader, who you believe represents your personal morals and beliefs. To watch all of the Liberal "attacks" on here is absolutely hilarious! It's almost like they think they are defending Osama personally! Like he's going to send them a thank you card or a personal pat on the back. If you are in love with Osama, then by all means, vote for him! But do not mislead your misguided minds into thinking that you are going to come on here and convince others that you are right and they (we) are wrong just because you say so. Very shallow. As far as the high chair comment kabookey? Wow. Did you beat your wife just prior to posting, or just after? Name calling? You lost your last 2 cents worth of intellectual credibility, pal. Again, sounds like a kindergarden kid lashing out. Any mental midget can do that.
September 16, 2008

9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

great piece.

palin was nothing more than a dog whistle for the american taliban and a distraction to take attetion away from republican failures.

the question every voter should be asking themselves as they walk to the polls this fall is do they trust that the republicans' plans of more of the same will fix the mess they created.

considering that they've done as much damage to the country as the folks who hit us on 9/11...that's a tough sell.

maybe that's why we're talking about palin instead of policy.
September 16, 2008

9:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

kabookey writes:

nachosleaze writes:

kabookey:

when you are at home crying on nov 4th, will you will use all your party's lies to dry your tears? although now you take comfort in what rove spoon feeds you, when you want to wake up and do some critical thinking, hop off the high chair and come sit at the big person table, but wipe the rove-dribble off your chin first.

***********

Cheesey, it sounds like you are the one doing the crying here buddy. Did the wife and kids stand up to you today? Keep hate alive buddy and keep posting.
September 16, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

mgsorens writes:

Sarah Palin is a phenom because she is everything Obama is not. Unlike Senator Obama, Governor Palin is distinguished by her accomplishments.

Governor Palin was a governor for longer than Obama was a senator when he began running for office. Obama cites living in Indonesia before high school as his most important foreign relations experience. I'm willing to grant that is more than Palin can cite. However, among the four major candidate, Palin has far more energy experience, far more regulatory experience, and far more executive experience. All that is impressive of course, but more impressive is what she accomplished in those roles.

Rather than comparing the candidate's time in office, shouldn't we compare their accomplishments? What better way is there to judge how they might perform in office than examining their past accomplishments?
September 16, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

kabookey: "LOL, so you are for the wolves overrunning populated areas?"

The footage I saw was of wolves running for their lives from a low-flying airplane through a barren landscape of snow and forest.

They are shooting down those wolves to artificially inflate the number of caribou and moose, period. And if they identify the killed wolf is a female, they look to see if she left any cubs anywhere. If they find them, they go into the dens and shoot them, too.
September 16, 2008

9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

valwayne writes:

Why is the excitement & enthusiasm about the selection of a hard working, attractive, smart, talented, working mom, popular Governor, from a working class background, with a real chance to break the glass ceiling at the highest level a mystery??? I understand the contempt and incredulity of the NYT, Washington Post, LAT, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, but as a native of the state of Colorado I'm shocked that a writer for the Rocky Mountain News would write this article? Where the heck are you from? As a Hillary supporter I could barely contain my anger at the humiliation she had to endure from "The ONE". I don't agree with McCain or Gov Palin about everything, but the contempt for working people and sexism coming from Obama and his supporters have disqualifed him from every being President. As for the economy: Its the Harvard Ivy league educated Good Ol Boy sneer merchants that have ripped off middle class America and created this melt down. People like Obama and Biden who think the average American needs to be ruled by their Ivy League betters because we are just a bunch of dumb, bitter, gun toting, bible thumping, bigots! Well no more!......McCain/Palin 2008, Hillary 2012!
September 16, 2008

9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

RufusTFirefly writes:

Sweet young naive Nacho......Nice hit, thanks for letting me know that you lib's beleive President Bush is an idiot, and anyone who supports him is an idiot too. I guess all Democrats want is someone just to be "PRESENT" in the white house.
September 16, 2008

9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

kabookey writes:

soccermom writes:

So let's get this straight.
2001 umemployment was 4.2% and now it's 6.1%
We went from a 281 billion dollar surplus to a 357 billion dollar deficit.
National debt went from 5.7 trillion to 9.7 trillion
Gas went from 1.50 to 4.00+ per gallon
There is a Wall Street meltdown that Alan Greenspan calls a once in a lifetime event.
This has happened under Republican leadership.

And McCain says the fundamentals of our economy are strong.
He's out of touch and we need to stop this train wreck.

***********************

Hey Mom, you pretty much describe what has happened to the country since the dems took over. Go back and change that 2001 to 2006 and you pretty much hit the nail on the head. What has congress done since the dems took over? Well they tried to cut off funding for the war, they have investigated firing of political appointees and that is about it. Good job dems, another 2 years and they can help us into a depression.
September 16, 2008

9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spidey1 writes:

mytwosense - thank you for the link - it was a good read! And for posting something worthwhile! I think it's more the IDEA of Palin, as the article points out, that scares these proud, self-professed liberals. And the fact that they are scared that they really may lose this election, and don't know what to say, how to fight back, or even how to simply react, other than lashing out. A cornered, scared creature can be very bitter and angry. Name calling, mud-slinging, and personal attacks on people that DARE to have a different opinion than them are the very foundation of online anger and lashing out.
September 16, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

KarlHungus writes:

Those were the days. I remember that bad feeling in my gut. It was four years ago and I knew the Republican era had run its course. I was convinced that the next President would be Hillary and for the rest of my life would endure endless Democrats crowing about shattering the glass ceiling. Then that bad feeling turned to unbearable nausea as someone even worse won their nomination. That slow death march to a 4 point defeat followed by years of reeducation at the feet of The Barack Of O'bama had me in a funk. Then I fell in love. Her name was Sarah Palin. Some had said that Hillary's historic campaign had prepared the nation for a woman. Those people are obviously gay. To me, it's clear that on the Kelvin scale, HRC is liquid nitrogen. Sarah is the center of the sun. I smile everytime I remember that the dreaded B of O' regime ain't so certain anymore. The best part of all, however, is that the Democrats are the ones with the stomach problems now.
September 16, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

I've taken the liberty of putting a little more refined perspective on some of your data points soccermom:

Unemployment:

January 2001 = 4.2%

In January of 2007 when Democrats gained control of the Congress, unemployment was 4.6% (that's a .4 % increase in 5 years under Republican control).

In August of 2008, unemployment is 6.1%, that's a 1.5% rise in the two years since democrats took control of congress.

Average price of a gallon of gas:

January 2001 = $1.52

In January of 2006, the average price of a gallon of gas was $2.33 (that's a $.79 increase in 5 years under Republican control).

In August of 2008, the average price of a gallon of gas was $3.74 (that's a $1.41 increase in 2 years under Democrat control) and it is not $4.00+.

Banking industry:

1999 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which was the start of the downfall of the banking industry that we are seeing today.

It is easy to point a finger at one "side" or the other regarding the government, it just depends on one's perspective.
September 16, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spidey1 writes:

nachosleaze - thanks! Easiest point I have ever proven!
September 16, 2008

9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

kabookey writes:

mytwosense writes:

kabookey: "LOL, so you are for the wolves overrunning populated areas?"

The footage I saw was of wolves running for their lives from a low-flying airplane through a barren landscape of snow and forest.

They are shooting down those wolves to artificially inflate the number of caribou and moose, period. And if they identify the killed wolf is a female, they look to see if she left any cubs anywhere. If they find them, they go into the dens and shoot them, too

**************

I guess you would feel better with footage of someone fighting them off with their bare hands on the front porch. I guess you have no problem with Saint O voting against that born alive bill but you have real problems with hunting wolves. That is the priority of the left worry about the premature spotted owl and flush the aborted babies down the toilet. Keep up the good work.
September 16, 2008

9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnDimitri writes:

I'm not gonna tell you all who I support so half of you wont immediately disagree with me. Doesnt anyone else see a major problem with how much Dems hate Reps and how much Reps hate Dems? The hate towards the other party is so strong in this country it almost seems anti-american. How can you possibly agree with EVERYTHING that 1 side says and NOTHING that the other side says? This is mind boggling to me. Does anyone even listen to the candidates or do they just look for the R or the D and base their decision on that? Maybe Im naive...but I see a MAJOR flaw in the American political system and I think we need to get rid of the political parties so we can stop wasting millions of dollars bad mouthing eachother and put that money to better use.
September 16, 2008

9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

fntsymtn @ 9:54,

I don't know why more people can't understand that.
September 16, 2008

9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnDimitri writes:

And let me ask you 1 thing republicans? Are we better off in any way as a nation than we were before George Bush took over? No BS. Are we and in what area? Dems I already know you answers so dont bother...
September 16, 2008

9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

"I see a MAJOR flaw in the American political system and I think we need to get rid of the political parties so we can stop wasting millions of dollars bad mouthing eachother and put that money to better use."

I totally agree!!!
September 16, 2008

9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

bowlegs339 writes:

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: beauty queen, local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate laywer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
* If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.
September 16, 2008

9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

Correction to my last post:

In January of 2007 when Democrats gained control of the Congress, unemployment was 4.6% (that's a .4 % increase in 5 years under Republican control).

Should read:

In January of 2006 when Democrats gained control of the Congress, unemployment was 4.6% (that's a .4 % increase in 5 years under Republican control).
September 16, 2008

10 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnDimitri writes:

"I've taken the liberty of putting a little more refined perspective on some of your data points soccermom:

Unemployment:

January 2001 = 4.2%

In January of 2007 when Democrats gained control of the Congress, unemployment was 4.6% (that's a .4 % increase in 5 years under Republican control).

In August of 2008, unemployment is 6.1%, that's a 1.5% rise in the two years since democrats took control of congress.

Average price of a gallon of gas:

January 2001 = $1.52

In January of 2006, the average price of a gallon of gas was $2.33 (that's a $.79 increase in 5 years under Republican control).

In August of 2008, the average price of a gallon of gas was $3.74 (that's a $1.41 increase in 2 years under Democrat control) and it is not $4.00+.

Banking industry:

1999 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which was the start of the downfall of the banking industry that we are seeing today.

It is easy to point a finger at one "side" or the other regarding the government, it just depends on one's perspective."

YES YOU IDIOT. THE DEMOCRATS RUINED THE WHOLE COUNTRY IN 18 MONTHS. THE PREVIOUS 7 YEARS WHEN REPUBLICANS OWNED CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE SHOULD BE UTTERLY IGNORED. ITS IRRELEVANT!
September 16, 2008

10 a.m.

Suggest removal

dennish writes:

Wow. I luv to see the hate these people have for Palin. Means they are runnin' scared! Littwin has it and so do some of the comments above. The more they rip her, the more McCain-Palin gains. 20 electoral vote lead for McCain-Palin today in Realclearpolitics.com today!
September 16, 2008

10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Spidey, thanks for reading it. I thought it was a very compelling read. I'm actually "one of those libs" though. Hope you won't hold it against me!:)

Anyway, after I read the article, it got me thinking about how many of us see our country changing in ways that are a bit unsettling. This creates different fears and worries, and this whole election is certainly tapping into that, as well. Conservatives see changes they don't like, liberals see changes they don't like. It's a discussion worth having if everyone could put their insults away, but of course, that is always hard to do when emotions are heated and it seems so much at stake.
September 16, 2008

10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

kabookey writes:

JohnDimitri writes:

And let me ask you 1 thing republicans? Are we better off in any way as a nation than we were before George Bush took over? No BS. Are we and in what area? Dems I already know you answers so dont bother..

**************

We were till the dems took over in 2006 but hey don't let the facts get in your way.
September 16, 2008

10:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnDimitri writes:

"

JohnDimitri writes:

"I've taken the liberty of putting a little more refined perspective on some of your data points soccermom:

Unemployment:

January 2001 = 4.2%

In January of 2007 when Democrats gained control of the Congress, unemployment was 4.6% (that's a .4 % increase in 5 years under Republican control).

In August of 2008, unemployment is 6.1%, that's a 1.5% rise in the two years since democrats took control of congress.

Average price of a gallon of gas:

January 2001 = $1.52

In January of 2006, the average price of a gallon of gas was $2.33 (that's a $.79 increase in 5 years under Republican control).

In August of 2008, the average price of a gallon of gas was $3.74 (that's a $1.41 increase in 2 years under Democrat control) and it is not $4.00+.

Banking industry:

1999 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which was the start of the downfall of the banking industry that we are seeing today.

It is easy to point a finger at one "side" or the other regarding the government, it just depends on one's perspective.""

THIS IS THE CRAP I TALK ABOUT. JUST BLAME IT ON THE OTHER PARTY. NO!!!! EVERYONE NEEDS TO TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY. IF THE REPUBLICANS WERE DOING THEIR JOB IN 2000-2007 THEN THE DEMS WOULDNT HAVE NEEDED TO TAKE OVER. WASHINGTON IS TO BLAME. NOT REPUBLICANS! NOT DEMOCRATS! ITS PISS POOR LEADERSHIP ACROSS THE BOARD THAT CAUSED THIS SITUATION WE ARE IN! TAKE OFF YOU BLIND FOLDS AND STOP POINTING THE GINGER AND 1 PARTY... THEY BOTH ARE TO BLAME!
September 16, 2008

10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

JohnDimitri @ 9:58 am. "Maybe Im naive...but I see a MAJOR flaw in the American political system "

You are not alone.
September 16, 2008

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnDimitri writes:

"#

JohnDimitri writes:

And let me ask you 1 thing republicans? Are we better off in any way as a nation than we were before George Bush took over? No BS. Are we and in what area? Dems I already know you answers so dont bother..

**************

We were till the dems took over in 2006 but hey don't let the facts get in your way.

HOW??? YOU ARE TRULY LOST. GOOD LORD!
September 16, 2008

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Don_Lopez writes:

“I mean, it's not her fault if she's unqualified for the job.”

Here’s what Mr. Littwin continues to try and sell: Having an unqualified vice-president is worse than having an unqualified president.

Fortunately, not many are buying.

Five times in the last 48 years American voters have felt a governor was qualified to sit in the oval office so it’s difficult to understand how Mr. Littwin would now believe a governor is unqualified to be vice-president.

Or maybe it’s not all governors just this one.

And the fact that Mr. Littwin doesn’t understand Governor Palin’s appeal is testament to how out of touch he is. I’ll bet none of his friends understands either.
September 16, 2008

10:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

kabooky writes: "That is the priority of the left worry about the premature spotted owl and flush the aborted babies down the toilet."

You know, I'd probably join the pro-lifers in their cause if they weren't some of the most singularly unpleasant people in this country today. Other than your noble cause, there is very little else I can identify with, sorry. At least us animal rights people have enough compassion to extend to animals as well as humans.
September 16, 2008

10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

JohnDimitri,

fntsymtn wrote at the end:

"It is easy to point a finger at one "side" or the other regarding the government, it just depends on one's perspective."

I think he was saying the same thing you are, but in a different way.
September 16, 2008

10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

take a civics class, bookey/fistingmn...the republicans have obstructed legislation and initiatives not only with the support of the majority of americans but which could have helped us to possibly avoid the financial meltdown we're seeing.

if you really believe the dems are to blame for the results of 5 years of republican rule before they took office, by all means point out which policy decisions and legislation you believe caused them to absorb the track record.

that's not rhetorical. back your rushian talking points up with fact.

you guys on the far right can try to shift the blame for republican policies to the dems all day long, but it's not gonna fly here.

you might as well stop trying.

i'm interested to hear if anyone can explain to me why voting for mccain and continuing the policies that have created this mess will fix said mess.
September 16, 2008

10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

For all those Palin defenders, take a look at her record as mayor and governor from someone other than one of her supporters: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/...

One choice quote (there are many to choose from):

'Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.'

Sound like an administration you've heard of? Bush Jr was a really popular governor too of a much, much larger state.

Or:

'Dan Fa_an, a prominent conservative radio host and longtime friend of Ms. Palin, urged his listeners to vote for her in 2006. But when he took her to task for raising taxes on oil companies, he said, he found himself branded a “hater.”

It is part of a pattern, Mr. Fa_an said, in which Ms. Palin characterizes critics as “bad people who are anti-Alaska.” '

As far as I can recall Republicans used to be against raising oil company taxes and when one actually stood up he was treated worse by Palin than he would have been by a Democrat. We absolutely don't need another person in the White House that has this really harsh view of reality of us vs. them and that the world is simple black and white, good and evil. You can have disagreements and still not be evil or an enemy.

Also, remember: She's the VP not the president! You're still voting for McCain, not Palin!

Note to RMN: I can't even submit the guy's name due to your stupid auto censoring script. It's spelled F.a.g.a.n.
September 16, 2008

10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnDimitri writes:

"

Heidi writes:

JohnDimitri,

fntsymtn wrote at the end:

"It is easy to point a finger at one "side" or the other regarding the government, it just depends on one's perspective."

I think he was saying the same thing you are, but in a different way."

YOU ARE CORRECT!! SORRY!
September 16, 2008

10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

rjnova writes:

Why is it Littwin you say Sarah Palin is unqualified to be VP yet she has more executive experience and qualifications than Obama who is running for the presidency? You liberal media guys are in a panic because people see her as one of their own and like her.

In using Sarah Palin's small town mayoral years as lack of experience the media ignores she is a sitting governor of Alaska. Her additional and current 2 yrs as governor gives her more experience than Obama's 2 yrs. in the US Senate (and he is running for President of the United States, no less). And that time Obama has mostly spent campaigning for the Presidency, for which he is the least qualified candidate ever in the history of the United States. And if you are going to question earmarks why not be honest and report that Obama has taken time for some $900 Millions in ongoing requests in his busy 2 yrs. of campaigning.

The wheels are coming off the Obama campaign wagon Littwin and you have less than 50 days to repair Obama before the election. Fact is it is painfully apparent the man is not ready to be President of the US and after you have ignored this fact for 2 yrs, now that voters are giving the election some thought they do not want this imposter Obama.
September 16, 2008

10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

Actually, I wasn't intending to "blame" anything on anyone, JohnDimitri. I was merely stating that by putting perspective on the data one can "blame" anyone for anything. I've repeatedly stated that the "blame" lies within all government and if we continue to use the finger-pointing lens, we make no progress.

Sometimes, it is necessary to point out when people are skewing data to support their cause.

It is not necessary to yell in order to be read. Walls of capitalized text are a quick way to be discounted as a troll or irrational poster.
September 16, 2008

10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

Ahh, I see that the RMN village idoit has joined the fray. Welcome to the discussion, simpleton.
September 16, 2008

10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

dijeadios writes:

This is so funny because this morning I was reading how Sarah Palin does not even know the job of the VP which she is running for and how she said that her people would get back on that question!Hello you learn that in school and this is not some state that she is running for to become governor of or whatver but the VP of the US!If that makes her qualified,having a pregnant 17 year old daughter and a kid with down syndrome which she uses to get more supporters I feel sorry for the people.She believed in abstinence until her daughter got pregnant,then took that issue off which leaves many wondering why,she knows nothing related to foreign affairs eventhough Cindy McCain claims she does.McCain is the same as Bush in many ways meaning that if McCain wins we will have more war,more debt,less money invested in education,low taxes which will not help the bad economy and so forth.With Obama at least you have a different agenda while he increases taxes for the rich to balance out the gap between rich and rich which is widening.I really thought that Hillary was way more qualified than Palin in many areas from the way she addresses the people,how she behaves,having experience as well as socializing with people.The economy if blamed on not the Reps or Dems but on the whole Washington where failure in banks and such have resulted to chaos in economy.We need a strong President to do something and surely it is not McCain since he thinks that our economy is strong!He is delusional about many things the economy and well being of the people being one of them.
September 16, 2008

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

I'll take a page from your 3rd grade book, simpleton, and repost what I've posted before:

I see that you continue to run from your responsibilities, simpleton, regarding your statements about me. Since you refuse to retract your blatantly false accusations about me, you deserve no more education from me.
September 16, 2008

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnDimitri writes:

"Actually, I wasn't intending to "blame" anything on anyone, JohnDimitri. I was merely stating that by putting perspective on the data one can "blame" anyone for anything. I've repeatedly stated that the "blame" lies within all government and if we continue to use the finger-pointing lens, we make no progress.

Sometimes, it is necessary to point out when people are skewing data to support their cause.

It is not necessary to yell in order to be read. Walls of capitalized text are a quick way to be discounted as a troll or irrational poster."

DONT WORRY! I WONT BE BACK AFTER TODAY SO YOU WONT HAVE TO IGNORE ME. AND I DONT CONSIDER CAPS TO BE YELLING. SORRY TO HURT ANYONES EARS WHO DOES. I USED THE CAPS TO SHOW WHERE THE QUOTE ENDED AND MY OPINION BEGAN. AND I DID APOLOGIZE TO YOU ABOVE...
September 16, 2008

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spidey1 writes:

JohnDimitri makes an interesting point in that he thinks we need to "get rid of the political parties" etc. because of all the back biting and in-fighting. However, in his next comment, he sadly undermines his own good point, and seems to go right back to the "bring it on" standpoint that he started out against. Heck no, we are not really "better off." I know MANY registered republicans who say this. Now, I believe we must ask ourselves: Is that due SOLELY to Bush, or, is that due to some of the political policies introduced by BOTH parties over the last 16 years? That being said, I am a GOP'er, if you will, and I vote for the best PERSON, as I said in a prior message, that I think best represents my morals, values and standards, as well as who I think will do the best job, male or female. That means I'm not voting for O. (btw, that's an "oh" not a "zero") In MY humble opinion, if O gets into office, we can sit back and watch this whole thing, the economy, our way of life and our personal assets dissipate and go down the drain. It takes more than "we want change" and then waiting to see what your opponent says, and 'lashing out' at them. And quite frankly, there's been too much of that by BOTH parties.
September 16, 2008

10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Redstate_Artist writes:

"JohnDimitri writes:

And let me ask you 1 thing republicans? Are we better off in any way as a nation than we were before George Bush took over? No BS. Are we and in what area? Dems I already know you answers so dont bother..."

I dont know about you, John, but Im much better off than I was during Bubba Clinton's regime.

1999-I was working a $5.00/hr job and renting a shack for $225/mo. I was living paycheck to paycheck with no savings.

2008-I own my own business, which is doing very well. I own my own home. I have an excellent retirement plan and a nice nest-egg.

Now, if NObama and his stormtroopers get into office, I will be taxed into oblivion. You see, they absolutely hate people who are smart, work hard, sacrifice to get ahead, and actually love this country...unlike the lib moonbats who think the UN should run things and worship the idea of a nanny state.

So, yes. I am much, much better of than I would have been under a fanatical leftist state.
September 16, 2008

10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

tsilionis writes:

There are a couple things I think are important to bring out as they are not talked about.

1) Pennsylvania is a MUST STATE for Obama and not so important for McCain. Based on Obama making that statement "Clinging to Guns and Religion" a large door is present in PA for an upset. The fact that polls have PA tied right now is a concern for Obama beyond anything else. It does not matter if McCain is ahead or behind on the national polls as long as he can win PA. Colorado, Minnesota, Virginia, New Mexico, Michigan, Iowa and Wisconsin become irrelevant. McCain wins with 274 Electoral votes even if he loses all those States as long as he wins PA, FL and OH.

2) The youth movement for Obama has taken a big setback by Palin. If you look at the numbers the bigger youth movements have been in California, Massachusetts New York, Florida and the rest of the Northeast. Outside of FLORIDA none of those States matter regardless of margin. Since Palin though you have seen a large Youth movement on her part and how much of that is going to effect Obama's numbers?

More important the youth movement was large prior to summer break. Have we seen the youth get re-energized now that they are back to school?

3) When is McCain going to combat the 1982 ad? Rather then coming out with ridicules Sex Ed ads why does he not combat that 1982 ad with explaining that War Injuries prevent him from using a PC? Show people how much of a hypocrite Obama and his campaign really is.

Just ideas..

Tom Tsilionis
McCain Supporter
September 16, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnDimitri writes:

"#

September 16, 2008

10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Redstate_Artist writes:

"JohnDimitri writes:

And let me ask you 1 thing republicans? Are we better off in any way as a nation than we were before George Bush took over? No BS. Are we and in what area? Dems I already know you answers so dont bother..."

I dont know about you, John, but Im much better off than I was during Bubba Clinton's regime.

1999-I was working a $5.00/hr job and renting a shack for $225/mo. I was living paycheck to paycheck with no savings.

2008-I own my own business, which is doing very well. I own my own home. I have an excellent retirement plan and a nice nest-egg.

Now, if NObama and his stormtroopers get into office, I will be taxed into oblivion. You see, they absolutely hate people who are smart, work hard, sacrifice to get ahead, and actually love this country...unlike the lib moonbats who think the UN should run things and worship the idea of a nanny state.

So, yes. I am much, much better of than I would have been under a fanatical leftist state."

SO AM I BECAUSE I WAS 18 in 1996. THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE WAS BETTER OFF THEN THEY ARE NOW. IM NOT CONCERNED WITH HOW 1 GUY IS DOING NOW COMPARED TO THEN. OBVIOUSLY THATS IRRELEVENT SINCE THERE ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS. TO DENY THAT THE COUNTRY WAS BETTER OFF BACK THEN ECONOMICALLY IS RIDICULOUS. C'MON REPUBLICANS...ADMIT THAT IT WAS BUT THEN GIVE ALL THE CREDIT TO GEORGE H BUSH AND HIS ECONOMIC POLICY WHICH WAS...BOMB THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ!
September 16, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Willy writes:

bapple writes:

Willy, I honestly don't get her appeal. I don't even think she's attractive. I'm sure she doesn't put out.

Bapple - maybe you should get out of your mother's basement and take a walk in a mall or something if you can't understand why she appeals to some folk.
September 16, 2008

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

dajhilton writes:

Oh, please. Please stop repeating that ridiculous false claim about John McCain's age. He is NOT "the first 72-year-old non-incumbent" to run for President. Only a few years ago, Bob Dole, aged 73+, was the Republicans' nominee for President (and, interestingly, no one mentioned his age). And there have been many older nominees in previous elections.

So please give that falsehood a rest, ok?
September 16, 2008

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnDimitri writes:

"bapple writes:

Willy, I honestly don't get her appeal. I don't even think she's attractive. I'm sure she doesn't put out.

Bapple - maybe you should get out of your mother's basement and take a walk in a mall or something if you can't understand why she appeals to some folk."

I acually dont see whats so appealing about her either...except her looks. Shes scary to me. She wants to go to war with Russia...thats scary to me. I guess I just need to take my skirt off and go buy a gun.
September 16, 2008

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Purpolhayes writes:

Sounds like the Obama drones are still out repeating every talking point he and the liberal media has made, yet nothing new. Thes "more of the same" crap is beating dead horse. Come up with some real substance. Gov. Palin (who I have known about before all of this, by the way) has plenty, but the liberals are too busy trying to destroy her that focus is going away from soon to be President McCain. Smear Palin at your own risk.
September 16, 2008

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

gjblahblahblah writes:

Okay - will we stop harping on the fact that Palin's executive experience is "more valuable" than Obama's legislative?? Don't you people realize that McCain has NO Executive experience either - only legislative? Are you people really saying that his VP pick is more qualified to run the nation than him because she has Executive experience? That's what I'm hearing. Think before you speak.
September 16, 2008

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Willy writes:

Heidi writes:

"I see a MAJOR flaw in the American political system and I think we need to get rid of the political parties so we can stop wasting millions of dollars bad mouthing each other and put that money to better use."

I totally agree!!!

EXACTLY - Both parties are in bed together anyway but we are the ones getting ******
September 16, 2008

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

whitecat writes:

"All of you defending Obama are liars. You KNOW he is not qualified to run this country. He is smart and savvy and maybe one day he would be a great president. But not now! The DNC did not pick the most qualified person. They didn't pick based on what was best for the country. They picked based on what was best for Obama and the DNC. That is inexcusable. Obama and the DNC put themselves before country. The Democrats have lost all of the integrity and honor that we used to admire in them."

Isn't it interesting what a few word changes can do?

***********

If the DNC had allowed the votes of most registered Democrats to decide the Dem nominee, it would be Hillary running for president and Palin wouldn't be an issue.
September 16, 2008

10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

HistoryBuff writes:

A big 'Thanks' to the Rocky Mountain News.

I am now aware of another clueless 'Journalist' that is 'in the Tank for Obama'. Litwin is the name, I believe...

After the election, I think there needs to be some investigation by 'non-journalists' into why the state of journalism is so poor. If these jokers ever worked in any other field they'd be 'last to hire, first to fire'.
September 16, 2008

10:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnDimitri writes:

""All of you defending Obama are liars. You KNOW he is not qualified to run this country. He is smart and savvy and maybe one day he would be a great president. But not now! The DNC did not pick the most qualified person. They didn't pick based on what was best for the country. They picked based on what was best for Obama and the DNC. That is inexcusable. Obama and the DNC put themselves before country. The Democrats have lost all of the integrity and honor that we used to admire in them."

Isn't it interesting what a few word changes can do?

***********

If the DNC had allowed the votes of most registered Democrats to decide the Dem nominee, it would be Hillary running for president and Palin wouldn't be an issue."

What exactly makes one qualified? A powerful last name? Thats how The W got in...is it not?
September 16, 2008

10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

JohnDimitri, through your continued posts, it has becoming clear that you are an Obama supporter. Not sure how long you had hoped your position would remain anonymous, but it is fairly clear now. So your original intent to delay anyone from disagreeing with you based on where you stand regarding the election, is lost.
September 16, 2008

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

HopiMedicineMan writes:

Phew, a lot of comments to comment on, so I won't, I'll simply deliver my set of the usual observations from an indigenous perspective.

Liberals attempt to minimize analyzing or problem solving to guiding a set of "facts" with a system of "logic" into one of a few judgmental sewage ponds. Facts aren't allowed to speak for themselves, they must be forced into a pre-set group of conclusions. These sewage ponds are "liar," "racist," "idiot," "unethical if you earned a fortune," and today, "inexperienced." usually the head condor has to paint the picture, then all others line up for their portion. In this newspaper, all the columnists say the same things about the same issues always. Why are so many needed? Why not have a standard liberal go-to writer. The only original writer on the whole staff, if you've been paying any sort of attention, is Jean Torkelson.

So Littwin brings up the experience canard. Here's the real deal:
A small town mayor knows more about running America than a partial term senator. The Senate chooses it's battles. A small town mayor has problems thrust her way that must be solved on a daily basis. But good mayors of small towns never get national attention and that's what these journalists are relating to when they refer to "experience," confusing it with fame. And for Littwin to get on this hackneyed band wagon, you feel embarrassment for him.

Obama wants to beat the old drum for equality, whatever that is,
and send more money to education which ultimately ends up in the NEA election fund. I'd trust Palin over Obama to repairing the water lines under the streets, the thing that needs to be done. That's the job of government. Obama thinks water comes from a tap. How could he know about water lines, he thinks we have 57 states, a big Heinz condiment.
September 16, 2008

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

gjblahblahblah writes:

Last night my husband and I read through both candidates websites. It's amazing how similar the views of both parties are on things like immigration and health care (Obama's health care plan seemed a little friendlier) and the environment. It made both of us (one Obama supporter, one sorta McCain supporter) laugh.

I do not care for Palin much simply because I dont' agree with her stance on the issues. I think maybe a Cabinet position would've been better than a VP position.
September 16, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mainer1776 writes:

Firstly, Gibson's gotcha question about "the Bush Doctrine" had no correct answer. Whatever Palin answered would have been declared "WRONG" by the Leftists at ABC. Secondly, the interview ABC aired was extremely, heavily edited simply to make the Governor bad.

Palin is far more qualified to be PRESIDENT than Obama is.. and Palin is the VP nominee.

I'm voting for McCain/Palin!
September 16, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Willy writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 16, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

frankly writes:

I’m tired of hearing Obama has no experience. Let’s debate real issues instead by setting the record straight. Graduated Columbia University (BA Political Science, Minor International Affairs). Community Organizer for 3 years. Graduated Harvard Law (Juris Doctor). President of Harvard Law Review. Civil Rights Attorney 11 years, while teaching Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School for 12 years. Illinois State Senator 8 years, representing 780,000+ people in the 13th Congressional District. US Senator 4 years representing 12,800,000+ people. On Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works, Veterans' Affairs, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs.

Check out http://www.republicansforobama.org/
September 16, 2008

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnDimitri writes:

"JohnDimitri, through your continued posts, it has becoming clear that you are an Obama supporter. Not sure how long you had hoped your position would remain anonymous, but it is fairly clear now. So your original intent to delay anyone from disagreeing with you based on where you stand regarding the election, is lost."

OBVIOUSLY...BUT ITS MORE THAT I DONT THINK REPUBLICANS CAN HANDLE THE ECONOMY. ITS NOT THAT I LIKE OBAMA...I JUST REALLY DONT LIKE PALIN. IM NEUTRAL ON MCCAIN AND I HAVE NO OPINION OF BIDEN...LIKE MOST PEOPLE. PALIN SCARES ME. OBAMA IS INEXPERIENCED BUT I CANT IN GOOD FAITH REWARD THE REPUBLICANS BY VOTING FOR MCCAIN. THAT WOULD IMPLY I THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING A GOOD JOB. MAYBE I JUST AM BITTER BECAUSE I SUPPORTED GEORGE W WAY BACK WHEN UNTIL I GOT TO SEE HIM IN ACTION. NOW I REGARD HIM AS ARGUABLY THE WORST PRESIDENT THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN. IM STILL TECHNICALLY A REPUBLICAN BUT IM NOT VOTING FOR MCCAIN. IF HE DIES BEFORE THE ELECTION THEN MAYBE THEY CAN GET MY VOTE IF THE NEW CANDIDATE GETS RID OF PALIN...
September 16, 2008

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette
September 16, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnDimitri writes:

THANKS FR LISTENING TO MY RAMBLINGS PEOPLE. ITS ALMOST LUNCH AND THEN I WILL LEAVE YOU ALL FOREVER. LETS HOPE WHOEVER GETS VOTED IN DOES A MUCH BETTER JOB THEN OUR CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.
September 16, 2008

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

what does "experience" have to do with supporting the continuation of failed policies?

i guy off the street with no experience can be a great president by using common sense and supporting policies that have a good track record. the opposite is also true...a career politician with decades of experience can be a terrible president by simply suppporting bad policies.

i'm still interested to hear if anyone can explain to me why voting for mccain and continuing the policies that have created this mess will fix said mess.

oh...and fistingman...if you can't back up your rushian rhetoric with facts...don't pout and call me names...it's beneath you.

or is it?
September 16, 2008

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

scrolltroll writes:

what happened to nacho? he was pretty funny and made some good points. apparently rmn is being patrolled by bill o'reilly. too bad.

in any event, a vote for mcpalin is a vote for disaster. if you hate your country, vote mcpalin 08!
September 16, 2008

10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

Ha! I can't believe you use the moniker 'HistoryBuff'. Apparently you don't know too much in regards to the history of journalism.

First of all this is an opinion piece. If one cannot expound upon their own opinion in their opinion piece when can they? If I was reading the opinion page of the Washington Times I'd expect to see generally conservative opinions. If I'm reading Littwin's column I expect to see a relatively moderate or liberal opinion. That's the way it has always been in the US. Heck, in the past it used to be quite a bit more vicious and many journalists a hundred years ago or more would play fast and loose with the facts in their opinion pages and even in news articles. They are generally much better in terms of facts than they were in the past and opinion articles are generally much tamer than the ones of the past.

"After the election, I think there needs to be some investigation by 'non-journalists' into why the state of journalism is so poor. If these jokers ever worked in any other field they'd be 'last to hire, first to fire'."

Sounds like Putin might be your long-lost soul mate. Yes, please by all means stomp on people's 1st amendment rights and make sure that even on OPINION articles people can't express their own opinion.
September 16, 2008

10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

christianman504 writes:

Badapple writes,." WE NEED TO KEEP RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT !!!!

perhaps you are unaware of where most of our constitusion came from which allows you to foam at the mouth.the bible knucklehead.i'll leave you with a quote from a founding father..We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams, Address to the Military, October 11, 1798
September 16, 2008

10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

HistoryBuff writes: "A big 'Thanks' to the Rocky Mountain News.
I am now aware of another clueless 'Journalist' that is 'in the Tank for Obama'. Litwin is the name, I believe..."

Wow, genius, your revelation is utterly...underwhelming.

He's an opinion columnist. It's no secret he holds liberal opinions, in fact, he (get ready for this!) GETS PAID TO WRITE THEM.

As does Vincent Carroll, Mike Rosen, Tina Griego, Jason Salzman, and a host of other conservative and liberal opinion columnists for the RMN.
September 16, 2008

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

The simpleton talks about calling people names ... you really are an imbecile, jay.

What in the facts that I posted above is false or rhetorical?

You continue to state that I support McCain for president, I have challenged you to provide any evidence to support your claim. You have not, until you retract your claims, you will continue to be a finger-pointing 3rd grader in my book.
September 16, 2008

11 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

And the fact that you knew that I was referring to you when I said the RMN village idiot and simpleton tells me that you are bothered by your new pet names ... to borrow a phrase from your favorite President ... "Mission Accomplished!"
September 16, 2008

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

HistoryBuff writes: A big 'Thanks' to the Rocky Mountain News.
I am now aware of another clueless 'Journalist' that is 'in the Tank for Obama'. Litwin is the name, I believe..

Nice one, History Buff.

Query: HOW MANY "journalists" will throw themselves in front of the Obama juggernaut to prove their fealty to the Liberal gawds, like some deranged Hindu zealot in a loincloth?

Remember all of the supplicants who destroyed their reputations by committing hari kari for Bill Clinton's reputation? Example: Sandy "cow patty" Burger, who lost his law license for stealing incriminating notes about Clinton's failure to address terrorism? Example: Remember when Steven Brill launched a new ~non-partisan~ political journal ---Brill's Content-- to address media-bias during the Impeachment proceedings, but reading it was like eavesdropping on Adlai Stevenson lunching with George McGovern?!!

Charles "chucky" Gibson has now thrown himself off the cliff of rectitude to kneel at the feet of the Liberal gawds. New York Time's "jeanyus" li'l Tommy Friedman gets more fried (or baked?) everyday, gouging huge holes in his legacy by carrying water for 'Bama.

Question, How MANY Liberal "journalists" will come out of the Marxist-closet to highlight their indefensible bigotry and destroy their professional reputations like the sacrifice of the Holy Bull, during the Dyonistic scene in Apocalypse Now?

Stay tuned, Sportsfans...
September 16, 2008

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spidey1 writes:

HopiMedicineMan - very well said.

JohnDimitri - you act as if you are the only voter in America that has been disappointed by Bush. Big difference is, many things have happened during his administration that he had NO control over. Does that mean I'm justifying his actions or nonactions? No. But to think that one man drives this bus is naive. I DO think we need one man to "guide" the bus, per se, and that takes someone who is unafraid to say the unpopular thing or take on the establishment. I'm sorry, but O just doesn't strike me as that man. He's to reminiscent of "Slick Willy" for me. Heck, ANYONE on this message board could hold a microphone and complain about Bush, or your opponent. Nothing special there. I don't know about you, but I'm SICK of the same old, same old everyday routine in D.C. that is our government. My humble opinion is, let's put these 'mavericks' in there and see if they can turn this thing around. We don't need more of the same smoke being blown you know where, linguistical massaging, or broken promises.
September 16, 2008

11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

fistingmen, again....if you can't provide us with facts...ie, policy decisions, initiatives or legislation that provides us with a reason to shift the blame for the last 8 years largely from the republicans to the dems, your rushian rhetoric about everything going downhill since they took a slim majority in congress is ignorant at best.

you can call me names all day long when i shoot holes in your talking points, but it's not going to help your credibility here.

now...are we clear?

do you have such information?

i never said you support mccain...i simply said that you can't justify a vote to continue failed policies.

and you can't.

any other questions about any of this?
September 16, 2008

11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

HopiMedicineMan writes:

gjblahblahblah
The campaigns are almost identical. So, it comes down more to personalities, experience and histories than issues. But with the advent of an economic depression, he or she will win, who can assemble together and communicate the enormity of our de-industrialization since LBJ. The public is leaning Republican this moment because the GOP has a bit more experience with industry, actually pushing drilling when Democrats were not. Now we have Palin who knows about building pipelines when we need them to sustain our economy or we go to the hard scrabble existence of my ancestors. Palin is a serious candidate. To minimize her experience is blindness.
September 16, 2008

11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

RMNSTAFF writes:

I, personally, love Sarah Palin.
September 16, 2008

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

christianman504 writes:

gotta give one to the author,take note and responsibility-During the course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety. Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, December 9, 1805
September 16, 2008

11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

morganc writes:

SARAH PALIN JUST FEELS GOOD

Reagan called it “Morning in America”….that special sensation the country felt when they listened to this very positive man talk about them. They felt good. And that’s what is happening with Sarah Palin….she makes us feel good. Or more accurate, we let ourselves feel good when we listen to her.

We feel good about our country, even when we know it has flaws. We feel good about the government, knowing it really can change for the better. And most important, we feel good about ourselves, and that alone goes a long way towards changing everything, since we are the country.

Conditions don’t change for the better just because you sit around and complain about them…they actually get worse. Nor do they change when you rush to action while still focusing and complaining about the problem…again, they are forever perpetuated; merely observe any government program. Yet conditions change automatically when we all feel good. It really is the only condition that does bring about any lasting change.

There is a big difference between a government who wants to give you everything, and a government who knows you can handle things on your own. One says, “Here, let me do this thing for you because I see you cannot do it for yourself.” Not very empowering. The other says, “I have faith in you and I believe that you are capable of doing anything yourself.” Pretty good empowerment. And since everyone wants to feel empowered, which statement do you think resonates more with who we all truly wish to be?

Sarah Palin is a happy politician. Happy people are just more fun to be around. Think about the people you hang out with. Who’s more fun? The ones who sit around and complain about everything in their life; blaming everyone except themselves, or the happy ones who view even the worst of conditions with irreverent humor and smiles. One could be called a Gloomy Gus and the other a Pollyanna. Yet, Pollyannas are not only much more successful, they are way more fun to be around, because some of that happy optimism always rubs off on you….and it does feel good….as John McCain is discovering.
September 16, 2008

11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

Spidey1: I respect your opinion and wish everyone would make their decisions similarly to you. I disagree with you about Obama of course but reasonable people disagree with each other all the time.

But be sure to watch the debates, I think it will be fun.

I will say this much though: I was rooting for McCain in 2000 and would have seriously considered voting for him since I think he really would have been a 'uniter' and obviously had the guts to stand up to his own party. However, since 2006 his stock has gone way down with many people including myself. I really think at this point he will approve any ad and use virtually any trick that was used against him in 2000 to win this time (for example, bring up the subject of how many homes he owns and he will always respond that he didn't have a home or anything when he was a POW. He was a POW 40 years ago. What the heck does that have to do with him not knowing how many homes he owns now?? I thought it was a funny, meaningless gaff originally but detest the way he tries to defend the gaff using the POW card over and over again--similar to how Giuliani kept using the 9/11 card to defend against any of his own gaffs or failures). That is simply unacceptable and is truly disappointing. At this point I have a heck of a lot more respect for Huckabee than McCain even though I disagree with Huckabee on even more subjects than McCain and I think Huckabee gave the most respectful speech against the Obama/Biden ticket at the RNC convention. At least Huckabee is still honest and respectable.
September 16, 2008

11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

chris33 writes:

Palin lied repeatedly in her acceptance speech. She lied about wanting the bridge to nowhere, she lied about asking for earmarks, and she lied to the public about troopergate. Her husband Todd was just subpoenaed by the prosecutor, so hopefully she will be indicted next month.
September 16, 2008

11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

Simpleton, you embody all the reasons why Social Security, Socialized Medicine, NCLB, minimum wage and progressive taxes are necessary in this country.

You are a prime example of why abortion must remain legal in this country so that parents who are ill-prepared to raise a child can choose to terminate the pregnancy before their offspring grows into adult 3rd graders.
September 16, 2008

11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mom365 writes:

Sarah Palin is going for the number 2 spot...Not number 1.
She still has more experience than the Dem's number 1 pick.
In times such as these.....
Change??? Other than changing his mind.....What change?
Iraq/ Iran/ Russia/ N Korea/ economy....
Do we really want someone who has already changed his mind ( dare I say, flip flopped) on his position of the Iraq surge, the position to hold off on his tax increases ( and yes, repealing the tax cuts is indeed something the middle class should be scared of), as well as the rumors he may have to change his mind on his VP pick???
This guy can't get it right the first time.
That is why in all his years of "working", the only education bill he has ever signed onto was only for sex ed ,( not reform).
And the only tax bills he has ever signed onto were...Oh yeah, he voted against all of those.
Who believes this guy?
In times such as these, I prefer someone who has proven himself to be real.
In times such as these, I want to know I don't have someone who has been known to "change" his mind.
That isn't the kind of CHANGE I am comfortable with.

The Dems have had control of the house for 2years....
They have committees who are supposed to be watching out for "the little guys".
September 16, 2008

11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

MereMortal writes:

Bwahahahahaha! Poor Littwin. The coronation of Obama has run into a well-tanned problem.
Fellow Americans, we have a choice. An inexperienced Vice President with a known past or an inexperienced President with a hidden past.
Hey Littwin, you want mysteries? How about these?
Why won't Obama release his medical records as McCain has?
How does Obama "lose" his doctoral thesis from Harvard? Can you imagine losing something that you worked on for years, a thesis that is the pinnacle of your educational achievement at Harvard University?
Why won't Obama release his college transcripts?
How did Obama move from humble circumstances to prep schools and Harvard?
If Obama is so worried about others, why does his half-brother live in abject poverty while Obama lives in a mansion?
What is the real story behind the Obama mansion and convicted felon Tony Rezko?
What other president of the Harvard Review never wrote an article for the Review?
When has the so-called post-partisan Obama gone up against his own party to work with Republicans as McCain has famously done many times in working with Democrats?
Why does Obama, the agent of change in Washington, pick a man who has been in Washington for 36 years as a running mate?
Why pick a man whose earlier run for the presidency ended when he was caught stealing another man's speeches?

Why can't the Obama campaign will figure out that hiding Biden and running Obama against Palin makes Obama look small and scared? Hopefully they will not figure that out until it's too late.
September 16, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

primafacie writes:

Morganc, you have very nicely articulated the Barack Obama platform: Americans aren't good enough.

He says every day that you aren't smart enough to get an education on your own, aren't productive enough to make yourself valuable to an employer, aren't savvy enough to build a career on your own, can't prioritize your needs to afford health care, aren't resourceful enough to deal the unfairness of life.

You simply aren't good enough. So Obama proposes to hold your hand.

What a downer message. The audacity of pity.
September 16, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spidey1 writes:

There you have it everybody. Another "sharpshooter" is here! Thank you Jay for setting all the rest of us dummies straight. Another 'somebody' that uses the liberal media to tell us all what to believe, then try to slam anyone that has the AUDACITY to disagree. Jay, if you REALLY believe in O, then by all means, vote for him; but don't convince yourself that you are going to come on here and rip other people for their opinions, and change peoples minds. Anybody can do that. Remember, we American's get to deal with being told 'what to think' everyday by the Lindsay Lohan's and Sean Penn's of the world, through their sweetheart friends in the media.

morganc - great comment. I think it goes a long way into the psychological depths of optimism vs. pessimism, and where those lie within the supporters of each party.

Chris33 - please tell me you aren't another one of those "I said it so therefore it is" hollow vindicators? You can do better than that.
September 16, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

morgan, i urge you to consider the ignorance contained in this statement before voting in november:

"We feel good about the government, knowing it really can change for the better."

i want you to pay attention....YOU ARE PLANNING ON VOTING FOR FOLKS WHO ARE GOING CONTINUE FAILED POLICIES...NOT CHANGE THEM.

jebus...how many times do we have to go over this people??

fistingmen...that's what i thought.

come back and see me when you can back up your far right rhetoric with facts.

until then...continue the name calling and trolling...i'm sure that credibility gap could always get a little bigger...forcing you to just change your name, right?
September 16, 2008

11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Well, back to the opinion piece by Mr. Littwin, it's funny that he cannot seem to understand the appeal of Palin, because one could quite easily write the same type of column about Obama.

Now here's what I find mystifying: The current congressional approval rating is somewhere around 15%, and yet in seven weeks, 'we the people' will go out and re-elect the incumbents running for office at about a 95% rate.

Our voting habits are the ultimate Bridge to Nowhere.
September 16, 2008

11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

David_R writes:

Memo to Littwin, From the Obamaessiah HQ on the Mount

Any further deviation, even slight like this example of "almost objectivitive," will result in you having to turn in your Obamanation pom poms and go through reeducation training. The only objectivity and honesty allowed by our MSM is that which is fabricated by us. You are not competent to enter such areas independent of our official proclamations.

Charles B (above) best described the attributes of our - the Obamanation's - thought process; heed it well and toe the line:

"Nothing gets them energized like a lying, cheating, incompetent loser." Our anointed one personifies that description.
September 16, 2008

11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

stevenscat writes:

Palin supporters are no different than the share cropers who enlisted in the reb army to defend the rich planters, and no smarter.
September 16, 2008

11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

jugdish writes:

Jugdish think Littwin just jealous because Palin's hair longer than his and she can pin it up in sexy way. :)
September 16, 2008

11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

MereMortal: "inexperienced President with a hidden past."

What the heck are you talking about?? Obama has already written a very popular book about his own past and admitted his childhood and adolescent mistakes. It's hard to hide your past when you write a NYTimes best seller book about it.

Sara Palin, on the other hand, is very secretive. Just read this article or any portion of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/...

For McCain's past, well other than supporting the surge and being a POW the less said the better it seems. He was against Bush's tax cut before he was for it, he was embroiled in quite the financial controversy in the 80s, cheated on his first wife, crashed five Navy jets, etc.
September 16, 2008

11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Littwin hits on a good point. Since when does anyone care about the VP race? (and please don't give me the tired argument about McCain being 72). The race is between Obama and McCain and it is more and more evident that the old veteran is out-manouvering the young upstart. The Palin pick has completely taken the wind out of Obama's sails and Obama needs to get back on message if he wants to regain some of the momentum.

This race IS all about personalities. Each side has it's old establishment piece (McCain/Biden) and it's new look counterpart (Obama/Palin). Voters are deciding which combo they prefer.

Maybe now that some of the dust is settled from the GOP stealing some of the Dems "new look" thunder - we can get down to the issues and away from distractions like "Lipstickgate" of which both sides are guilty.
September 16, 2008

11:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

September 16, 2008

11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

fistingmen, again....if you can't provide us with facts...ie, policy decisions, initiatives or legislation that provides us with a reason to shift the blame for the last 8 years largely from the republicans to the dems, your rushian rhetoric about everything going downhill since they took a slim majority in congress is ignorant at best.

And your insistence that the republicans are to blame when they too had a "slim majority" in congress is not ignorant? Come on, simpleton, I'm sure even you can see the fallacy of your argument here. I could take a page from the village idiot's guide to political commentary and say that it was the obstructionist democrats (Bill Clinton, 105th-109th congress) who are to blame for failed policies of the government, but that would be, like you, dishonest. The reality is that, without holding a super-majority, the Executive and Legislative branches of the government must work together to pass legislation and policy that is good for the country. Pointing fingers leads to failures and is pretty much all that the government has done since the end of Clinton's first term as president. Or do you think that the Executive and Legislative branches have operated under a model of cooperation for the last 12 years?

you can call me names all day long when i shoot holes in your talking points, but it's not going to help your credibility here.

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black regarding the "name calling" isn't it, simpleton?
September 16, 2008

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

stevenscat writes: Palin supporters are no different than the share cropers who enlisted in the reb army to defend the rich planters, and no smarter.

Scat, you might as well be voting for yourself for Homecoming Queen with that type of argument. You don't appreciate McCain -- or maybe like your "leader," Hairy Reid, you hate him -- but everyone knows that Liberals run off of emotion while Conservatives are powered by logic.

Try a bit harder next time, li'l Stevie Scatter.

ps, it's "sharecropper." Note to Lib advocates -- if you are going to write a brief excoriation of your foes, why not let Word help you with a bit of spell-checking? lmao
September 16, 2008

11:47 a.m.

ou8one2 writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 16, 2008

11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"The current congressional approval rating is somewhere around 15%, and yet in seven weeks, 'we the people' will go out and re-elect the incumbents running for office at about a 95% rate."

actually, davies, they'll vote yet more republicans out of office...proving the point that it's not the dems, but rather the obstructionist rubs that are the cause of low congressional approval ratings.

"And your insistence that the republicans are to blame when they too had a "slim majority" in congress is not ignorant?"

nope...this is what we call a strawman argument, fister.

i never claimed any such thing.

they controlled all three branches of gov't for nearly 6 years.

let me know when that sinks in...as it completely invalidates the rest of your post.

as much as you'd like to run from it...you simply can't make The Track Record disappear and you certainly can't shoulder the dems with it.

again...when did accountability become a four letter word in the conservative ranks?

as far as your latest conspiracy theory...i'm sorry...i have been unaware of calling you names like "simpleton" and "village idiot".

did i miss that somewhere or are you just lying yet again?
September 16, 2008

11:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ashley writes:

I'll leave the political wrangling to the rest of you. But I will point out for those of you who don't know, that Mike Littwin is a COLUMNIST. There's a fundamental difference between a columnist and a reporter; columns express opinions, preferences and bias, while articles try not to. Make of that what you will, but kindly remember that Littwin is allowed and encouraged to have an agenda while he's interviewing and writing. That's the point of a column.
September 16, 2008

11:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

westslope writes:

She's got charisma and would be a good leader... of a sect (!) Her narrow focus makes her a divider... bad for America.
September 16, 2008

11:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

Mainer1776: 'Whatever Palin answered would have been declared "WRONG" by the Leftists at ABC.'

Oh come on. She didn't even know what he was referring to. That was pretty obvious and pretty sad. Any senator and most governors and any political junkie like me would know what he was referring to by the 'Bush Doctrine' and have an answer ready for it. She obviously did not have an answer ready and it absolutely was a legitimate question. The biggest question about her is her views on foreign policy and international relations. The 'Bush Doctrine' is the viewpoint taken by Bush's administration on foreign policy including preemptive war, the right to attack countries that harbor terrorists, and generally being able to conduct international business unilaterally (the whole "you're either with us or against us" thing).

Yes, from a liberal point of view her answer probably would have been wrong even if she had a clue but that's because she's an arch conservative. Duh.

"Palin is far more qualified to be PRESIDENT than Obama is.. and Palin is the VP nominee."

Sure. She doesn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is. She nominates high school friends to positions they are completely unqualified for. She is so secretive as to order Alaska government employees to not talk to the press about her. She pays herself per diem for staying at her own house and spent over 200 days at her house during her first year as governor (hundreds of miles away from the capital). Yea, sure got a winner there. Try reading that detailed article I posted to before and judge for yourself what you think about her '2 years' of experience.
September 16, 2008

11:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

September 16, 2008

11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"The current congressional approval rating is somewhere around 15%, and yet in seven weeks, 'we the people' will go out and re-elect the incumbents running for office at about a 95% rate."

actually, davies, they'll vote yet more republicans out of office...proving the point that it's not the dems, but rather the obstructionist rubs that are the cause of low congressional approval ratings.

Ah, the village idiot tries to redirect the approval rating of a democrat controlled congress onto the "obstructionist republicans". When did accountability become a four letter word for you, simpleton?

simpleton writes:

as far as your latest conspiracy theory...i'm sorry...i have been unaware of calling you names like "simpleton" and "village idiot".

Silly child, at 11:03 and at 11:27 you complained about my name calling. Care to back-track on your "conspiracy theory" statement?
September 16, 2008

noon

Suggest removal

clearthinker writes:

Boy, a lot of false outrage at the media here. And on a snark piece nonetheless. And KarlDaggerfield says "Liberals run off of emotion while Conservatives are powered by logic". Hah!

Why can't you Palin enthusiasts just admit that the reason you love her is that she shares your social values? She sure doesn't share your economic values; after all, she raised taxes on oil companies, hired lobbyists to get earmarks and went from a surplus to a deficit in Wasilla.

Any objective assessment of her qualifications would find them lacking. But that misses the point, becuase you will vote for her no matter what her qualifications. She believes what you believe. And you believe what you believe because you believe it even when faced with incontrovertable evidence that you are wrong. Its kind of like religion, you just have to believe, not because it is logical, but because it takes "faith".

Now that is a vote based on emotion.

Well I'm sorry, I believe what I believe because I look at the facts, the science and I assess them using logic. And logic tells me that the only reason McCain picked Palin, is because he knew she would fire up the religious right of the Republican party for all the reasons I've outlined above.

I'll give McCain credit for one thing; he was right. But call a spade a spade; this was a political decision; and nothing more. Thinking people like me hope it doesn't work, but are scared to death that it will.
September 16, 2008

12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Yeah, jay, you're getting a little shrill - I'm worried about your blood pressure. Here:

fntsymtn and I hereby agree, the Republicans are to blame for EVERYTHING. The Republicans are wrong about EVERYTHING. The last two years DON'T COUNT. Anything that is a problem is the fault of the Republicans, and is not the result of an overall shared failure to govern effectively, and is not the fault of any voters except Republican voters.

See there? We clearly see your unbiased point; now take it easy, will you?
September 16, 2008

12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

clearthinker: Great post! I'd love to see a reasoned response to it by a Republican or Libertarian.
September 16, 2008

12:11 p.m.

clearthinker writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 16, 2008

12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

mtrani_2000 writes:

I am a fiscally conservative republican. A couple of points regarding this article and some of the comments that have been made:

1. Palin is grossly underqualified. Obama is much more qualified as he has served his time in the federal government where he has been privy to the debates, briefings, and experience of other congressman, regarding the issues that affect our nation. Palin has only served a short amount of time in municipal and state government where those issues are never considered. Anyone who argues otherwise knows not what he/she is talking about. McCain disappointed me greatly with this selection. If he was truly putting "country first", he would have picked someone who would be qualified to be president if called upon (Romney!).

2. Littwin is not supposed to be a "reporter" as everyone posting here has suggested. He is an analyst. If you don't like hearing his liberal point of view, don't read his articles.
September 16, 2008

12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"the village idiot tries to redirect the approval rating of a democrat controlled congress onto the "obstructionist republicans". When did accountability become a four letter word for you, simpleton?"

looks like fister needs to take a civics class.

may i ask if you've ever taken a college course, fister? and as far as me calling you names...if you don't have an example...it appears that you are the only one calling other folks names.

"the Republicans are to blame for EVERYTHING"

yet another strawman argument the right wing.

i never said any such thing...all i did was to correct fister's rushian rhetoric that dems and rubs are "equally" culpable for the failures of the last 8 years.

"The last two years DON'T COUNT"

never said this either...yet another strawman argument. i simply said correctly that fister (nor you apparently) is able to point to a policy decision, initiative or legislation that warrants shifting the blame for the poor performance following 6 years of complete republican rule to the dems.

it's kind of like ignoring the fact that the republicans have obstructed legislation and initiatives with the support of the majority of americans and the whining that congress isn't getting anything done.

you guys make this too easy.
September 16, 2008

12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

Ashley said: "I will point out for those of you who don't know, that Mike Littwin is a COLUMNIST. There's a fundamental difference between a columnist and a reporter; columns express opinions, preferences and bias, while articles try not to."

Ashley, that's simply ghastly. Just because a person is a "columnist" means they can leave the facts, objectivity & ethical obligation to be truthful to the readers at the door? THAT is what it means to be an "editorial writer"? Sorry, but believe it or not, there is a CANON OF ETHICS for journalists. And even Littwin qualifies in that category. Shocking, huh?!!

Some ways Littwin has trashed the Canon:

1) Mindlessly allowing others to form his position in a transparently partisan manner.

2) Stating things that, by any objective standard, are simply false. Example: Claiming that Palin is the first politician in recorded memory to have developed a cult of celebrity without any logic behind it. THAT has already happened to Obama. Who just happens to be in the same race. But I guess Littwin forgot that. Palin, unlike Obama, does not have a completely inexplicable rise to popularity. She has high-level executive experience & legislative budget slashing & corruption battling victories. He DOES NOT.

3) That her enthusiasts have no logical motivation except for mindless and contrary-to-logic party loyalty.

The FACT is that people who are not corrupt LOVE reformers, because it reinforces their belief that good can beat evil. Not to suggest that Palin is good incarnate, since all people have flaws. BUT, the average non-partisan is thrilled at her battling the powers that be, refusing to be cowed, taking potentially career-ending risks, and doing it all with a smile on her face. Especially, as a WOMAN!!!

Libs, the game has permanently changed. People care about reform. Would you kindly stop acting like you have the market cornered on Truth, Justice, & Ethics, the whole while moving heaven, earth & hell itself to regain power?

Thanks, Ashley.
September 16, 2008

12:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

clearthinker writes:

mtrani_2000. The first logical post I have seen here from a Republican.

You must be a self-respecting and introspective person and I respect you for it.

Truth is, most Americans, Democratic and Republican alike are fiscally conservative. What devides us are the wedge issues that the socially conservative wing of your party have used to divide and conquer.

Frankly, I feel sorry for true economically conservative Republicans who have had their party hijacked. I can only hope that McCain's pick of Palin doesn't work so that the true economic conservative base of the Republican party can regain its foothold on the party. It would be a good thing for our country and in future elections might even facilitate a return to debate on the issues that really matter, rather than the wedge issues that divide.

But if the social conservatives win this one, it will only serve to reward them for their bad behaviour.
September 16, 2008

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

joggle
But she can see Russia from Alaska.
September 16, 2008

12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Willy writes:

davies writes:

Well, back to the opinion piece by Mr. Littwin, it's funny that he cannot seem to understand the appeal of Palin, because one could quite easily write the same type of column about Obama.

Now here's what I find mystifying: The current congressional approval rating is somewhere around 15%, and yet in seven weeks, 'we the people' will go out and re-elect the incumbents running for office at about a 95% rate.

Our voting habits are the ultimate Bridge to Nowhere.

BINGO - we have a winner. We are so brainwashed by both corrupt parties that we follow along like nice little sheep. Isn't it about time that "we the people" controlled our government instead of the shadow figures who are pulling the strings in both parties. 200+ years ago we fought to get out of a monarchy, but our system has devolved into a defacto duoarchy.
September 16, 2008

12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

stevenscat writes:

Note to KarlDaggerfield: thanks for the spelling help. I have supported John McCain since 2000. In fact he was the first presidential candidate I ever sent money to and I did so again earlier this year. I still have my McCain 2000 shirt and ball cap which I wore to a rally this year when I shook his hand. But he lost me with this Palin thing which was the topper after his switch on the tax policy. I still like him but I am done voting for ‘wacko’ cowboys and sound bite slogans spouted by mindless lemmings, see “ou8one2”s comments above if you want an example.
September 16, 2008

12:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

clearthinker writes:

KarlDaggerfield writes:

"3) That her enthusiasts have no logical motivation except for mindless and contrary-to-logic party loyalty.

The FACT is that people who are not corrupt LOVE reformers, because it reinforces their belief that good can beat evil. Not to suggest that Palin is good incarnate, since all people have flaws. BUT, the average non-partisan is thrilled at her battling the powers that be, refusing to be cowed, taking potentially career-ending risks, and doing it all with a smile on her face. Especially, as a WOMAN!!!"

I challenge the premise of your response. What exactly are the facts that support the premise that Palin is a reformer. Seems to me that there are many claims by the Republicans that this is the case. But as the facts become more clear, those claims are being dismantled one by one.

Reformer Claim 1: She told Congress "no thanks to the bridge to nowhere".

Turns out, she told Congress nothing. She supported the project as a candidate for Govenor. Congress removed the earmark long before she removed her support for the project. She kept the money and spent it on other things.

Reformer Claim 2: "She will shake up Washington and fight earmarks."

Well, it turns out that she hired the first lobbyist ever in the town of Wasilla to SEEK EARMARKS! Her state takes more EARMARKS per person than any state in the country.

As a person of logic, I look at the facts and people's behaviour more than their self-aggrandizing claims. And in this case, Palin's claim's of being a reformer don't stack up against the facts and her pattern of behaviour.

Again, your premise is wrong. You can continue to claim, falsely I might add, that she is a reformer. But you cannot run from the facts; she is not.

So if your reformer argument does not explain this sudden infatuation with Palin, what might I as you does?
September 16, 2008

12:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

alexbonen writes:

This is incredible how biases are clouding logical minds. I want to interject my feelings - no hate, no statistics, no biases, no quotes: just plain and simple impressions.

I'm scared of Sarah Palin. I am scared that biases for party could put this woman a hearbeat away from being Chief - god forbids that anything happens to McCain.

At least Obama, Biden, and McCain went through the primaries. At least we got a chance to listen to them and decide if we wanted to vote for them. At least we were able to become familiar with their messages and personalities. At least the nation was able to decide how far each of them were able to make it.

Yet I sit here scared that an unproven ghost is thrust upon us and that we are expected to vote for her blindly. It is my opinion that she does not deserve to be sitting that close to being Chief.
Maybe if she had thrown her hat in the ring a year ago, I would have been given a chance to listen to her message and decide for myself with a primary vote.

How does she deserve this? Please do not let your party bias bypass your common sense of what the Presidency means. The road to the White House is a long and ardourus journey. This road tests the candidates, this road gives us the chance to listen and to give a primary vote. She should not be this far on that road.

I'm scared because she is the great unknown. If we didn't like her in the primaries, then we could have showed her by our votes. Primaries are long gone now, and people are supporting a person who should not be on the ticket.

It is my opinion that she does not deserve this, and it is my opinion that we do not deserve to be stuck with an untested person sitting that close to the Oval Office.

Thank you for letting me tell you my feelings.
September 16, 2008

12:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

clearthinker writes: "Boy, a lot of false outrage at the media here. And on a snark piece nonetheless. And KarlDaggerfield says "Liberals run off of emotion while Conservatives are powered by logic". Hah!...Any objective assessment of her (Palin's) qualifications would find them lacking."

Clear, I think the Liberals have discovered a tar pit here of excruciating attraction. As a result, we have a genuine contradiction: How does a 'Bama advocate trash Palin's "experience" when to do so throws a light upon the scurrying-cockroach-on-the-kitchen-floor of the 'Bama campaign: HIS UTTER & UNMITIGATED LACK OF EXPERIENCE?!!!!

This reminds me of what a "Yo Mama's So Fat" contest between Rosie O'Donnell & Roseanne Barr would sound like.

Since Palin has, ostensibly, MORE executive experience than 'Bama, despite her being the VP & he being the Prez candidate, HOW do the 'Bamites think that their histrionic campaign of "Palin-No-Experience-Exposing" will work out in their favor??? Hmmm, Br'er Rabbit?

After all, since PALIN has a fair amount of time running a STATE, but 'Bama has ZERO experience running anything, but his mouth -- HOW can he win that debate?

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, friends...
September 16, 2008

12:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

mlh66 writes:

to clearthinker and joggle

Name a state that does not have earmarks. Alaska just has fewer $ amounts. The voters decided to build a community center to get that deficit in Wasilla, and Palin did not collect all that she was allowed to for her per diem. You should get your facts b4 you engage mouth or type...
September 16, 2008

12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

September 16, 2008

12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

...

looks like fister needs to take a civics class.

may i ask if you've ever taken a college course, fister? and as far as me calling you names...if you don't have an example...it appears that you are the only one calling other folks names.

Wow, I only implied that you were stupid, now you've gone and proven me right.

I'm sorry that your own posts are beyond your comprehension, simpleton. Prime example of why late term abortions (a.k.a. post birth) should be legal.
September 16, 2008

12:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

JJHLH1 writes:

It is not her gender that is fueling Sarah Palin's meteoric rise and record campaign crowds.

If that were true, Hillary Clinton would have won her party's nomination.

What's unique about Palin is her clear understanding of the constitutional principles of limited government. That's something unseen on the national level since Ronald Reagan.

It is a conservative viewpoint that this nation is hungry for - not simply a female.

Unless her political rivals understand this and attempt to intellectually defeat conservatism head on, something they seem unprepared to do, then they will surely succumb to the tide of history.
September 16, 2008

12:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

clearthinker: I am mostly conservative but not a Palin enthusiast. However I will point out that Obama's qualifications are not particularly strong, and he also comes to us from a political point considerably off center. "Thinking people" may find the prospect of Obama leading our nation to be a little scary too.

It is laughable, don't you think, for either side to deny that the choice of a vice presidential running mate is NOT a political decision? I mean, the press speculates endlessly during every election about the strategic implications of this person being from the South, or that person being Hispanic, etc. etc.

True, McCain didn't add much to the 'experience factor' for his ticket with Palin, while Obama did. But just maybe McCain doesn't think he needs it that much. True, choosing Palin was pandering to the right somewhat; a strategic decision to try to generate enthusiasm and shore up his support. But why would we believe Obama was doing any differently with his own choice, other than just reacting to criticism and trying to shore up support? It's not like Biden is guaranteed one iota of actual influence in an Obama administration. That is purely speculative at this point.
September 16, 2008

12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

dilligaf: :-)

I wish I was the reporter who received that answer from her. I would have then asked "Have you ever seen Russia and if so how did that effect Alaska's policy towards Russia?"

Willy: "Our voting habits are the ultimate Bridge to Nowhere."

That's true. I think a lot of that has to do with a lack of interest in local politics. We care much more about national policy vs. state and local policy compared to our ancestors (if we care at all, most people I talk to in person don't seem to have much of a clue as to what's going on in the political world). I think we are generally less civic minded than people were 50-100 years ago and only go out to vote when we really want to see a change rather than voting every time due to civic duty. Most people vote with their party rather than for the individual.

Another big factor is the fall in diversity of local newspapers. People don't read the papers nearly as much as they did in the past and aren't being exposed to local politics as much as before. When their congressman does something stupid or something well most people don't even notice.

It's also not entirely Congress' fault that they are so unpopular. For example, they passed legislation to fund stem-cell research. It was vetoed twice by the president. If it had passed it would have certainly made some constituents happier with the performance of Congress. Instead, nothing happened so nobody is happy (except for those few people against funding stem cell research). There really was no room for compromise with the Bush administration on this issue so unless they could make a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate they simply can't make progress on this issue until another president is in office.
September 16, 2008

12:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

Boy Palin sure has Littwin in an uproar, scared? Put on some lipstick Littwin and cheer harder, your a company man at the Rocky. Reading these posts, anybody ever take you seriously?
September 16, 2008

12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

clearthinker writes:

KarlDaggerfield

The premise of your response is based on the false notion that executive experience is the only experience that matters. If that is the case, please explain to me the qualifications of your candidate for President; John McCain has never run anything in his life either.

In my view, you can tell alot about someone's experience by their world view and their ability to articulate solutions to tough questions.

Sarah Palin's world view is that she can see Russia from an island in Alaska that she has never been to. That she has been to Ireland because she stopped on an airport tarmac their refueling on the way to Kuwait. Her perspective on a hypothetical Israeli attack on Iran is that we shouldn't question Israel. She believes that global warming is not caused by man-made features despite incontroverbile evidence to the contrary and the fact that her own state will be most impacted. And finally, that she believes our troops are on a mission from GOD.

Does this paint the picture of someone who has a deep, rich understanding of the complex social, political and economic issues that threaten the entire World? I think not. It paints the picture of a small-town mayor in the middle of Alaska. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself. Its just not the kind of experience or world-view that causes any person of logic to think she is qualified to run our country and to lead the World.

I have listened intently to what little Ms. Palin has made public of her world view. I wish the McCain campaign would give her a greater opportunity to explain her world view. But fact it, they won't let her come out from hiding, because they know she doesn't know enough to be credible.

As I've taken the time to listen to Ms. Palin, I'd encourage you to take the time to listen to Mr. Obama. You may disagree with his policies, but I'd challenge you to argue that he has a simplistic, poorly formed view of the world.

Call me elitist if you wish. But I want the smartest guy in the room running our country. The past eight years have shown us the results of putting the person you most want to have a beer with us in the most powerful and important job in the world. A failed experiment for sure.
September 16, 2008

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

davies: "But why would we believe Obama was doing any differently with his own choice, other than just reacting to criticism and trying to shore up support?"

That's easy. If he wanted to pander he would have picked Clinton. She has both the support of white women and has experience. That's how we know Obama wasn't trying to pander.

He picked Biden because he recognizes that he needs good guidance in foreign policy and needs someone to tell him the unvarnished truth. He could not have picked a better person in the Senate to do just that, as anybody that knows Biden would tell you.

McCain is not going to get any useful advice from Palin I think due to her lack of experience. He might get Karl Rove type of advice from her on how to win elections but that's about it I think, despite her claims of vast knowledge about oil production.
September 16, 2008

12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

vstillwell writes:

Right wing idiots are just happy to have a pretty face as their poster child instead of Fred Thompson and John McSame. Can't blame them for that. Have you seen Fred Thompson? The country's still split in half. It'll take another great depression to kill off these freaks like it did in the 1920s. If we keep this up, it might happen. Herbert Hoover '08--wait I mean John McPalin '08 baby!!!!!!! Whew Hoo!
September 16, 2008

12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

jaybyrd writes:

Littwin as political commentator...even more of a mystery. Obama shill Littwin fails to consider the embarassing lack of credentials that Barry possesses, and instead picks up the far left torch against Palin, who would not be in this race if the Dem nominee had a shred of experience in anything, anywhere. I am certain that Littwin verified his assertion regarding the the Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers credentials of the Palin crowd; otherwise, he would be classified as an inflammatory left-wing fraud.
September 16, 2008

12:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

mlh66 writes:

to clearthinker
look at the following site to see who Obama's supporters are
and what he stands for. I would not trust him to go to 7/11 to get me a soda... www.the obama file.com ,,,,,
CHECK IT OUT AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION....
September 16, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

alexbonen writes:

I want the smartest guy/girl to lead this country too. But I also want that person to be someone we will feel confident in trusting our hopes and dreams to. When all of our chips are down, and we can only trust the President to steer us to a better place in life, we had better hope we have a President who can inspire us to rally around what needs to be done. That jobs takes a person who is inspirational, who is a natural born leader who is not tied to a specific agenda.

Who can we trust to be this person? Certainly not Palin in my viewpoint - god forbid anything happens to McCain.

This is a huge reason why I support Obama - because I am confident that he can fill this requirement.
September 16, 2008

1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

clearthinker says "As a person of logic, I look at the facts and people's behaviour more than their self-aggrandizing claims. And in this case, Palin's claim's of being a reformer don't stack up against the facts and her pattern of behaviour. Again, your premise is wrong. You can continue to claim, falsely I might add, that she is a reformer. But you cannot run from the facts; she is not. So if your reformer argument does not explain this sudden infatuation with Palin, what might I as you does?"

So, Mr "Person of Logic," WHERE do you file her fighting the head of her party, turning him for rank corruption to Governor Murkowski & when the Guv did nothing -- turning him in to the court getting him fined & dropped from the AK Oil & Gas Panel? Talk about a career risk -- when she was NOBODY in the state. (When has Barack EVER taken such a risk to fight corruption?)

How about her: Selling the Executive Jet?; Slashing the budget by 500 million?; Getting rid of her personal chef?; etc etc etc

Logic Lover, your stance is transparently fallacious. Fallacies used:

1. First Falacy
Impossible Conditions: "the call for perfection"

Example: When discussing welfare theft, none would take seriously the suggestion: "If people were only taught to be honest, we would not need need Welfare Reform." In less obvious situations the contention that mankind should first be changed or perfected in one way or another before any claim for achievement be taken seriuosly, is logically absurd.

Since no one is perfect, whether Palin has been a reformer in every possible instance, is not the issue. Whether she generally has acted as a reformer is the whole question; and she HAS. Further, with how hard politics is, in general, it's a miracle she achieved even half of what she has done.

2. Second Fallacy:
The All-or-Nothing Mistake

The all-or-nothing mistake assumes a naked dichotomy where no such simplification is warranted. Mr. Justice Frankfurter has called this "the great either-or." In this instance, you claim that Palin is either a wholly perfect reformer, or be denounced as a fraud. But we ALL know that even the best people don't have a 100% track record, correct?

3. Third Fallacy:
Reification

This is a species of Platonism that claims that real things are "perfect," allowing no flaws. In this instance, Palin either does 100% reforms, all the time, or she cannot be called a "reformer." (See Plato's Phaedrus)

Of course, this is a childish & absurd expectations that not even the greatest American statesman could fulfill -- being perfect in every virtue & in each example of a life.

Clear, if you'd like more lessons in the logic you claim to love, please let em know.
September 16, 2008

1:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

" he also comes to us from a political point considerably off center."

davies, i've asked this question before and don't remember if you answered. which of his policy stances (supported by the majority of americans) do you find to be "considerably off center"?

karl, you ironically fail to realize that the rubs largely took the experience arrow out of their quiver by putting a relatively inexperienced beauty queen mayor of a town half the size of windsor, co on the ticket this fall.

i'll take a harvard educated, law review president, community organizer (as jesus was) and state and us senator who supports SOLID policy over someone who doesn't...no matter how much experience they have.

fstnman...i take it we're done as besides childish namecalling, you've failed to back up any of your far right wing rhetoric with credible data of any kind.

again, i hope you find your way to using the strength of policy stances to decide who you vote for his fall.
September 16, 2008

1:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Fisherman writes:

Littwin,
Are you getting a paycheck from Obama or the RMN? I think your article just tipped thousands of Colorado voters over to McCain. Thanks. Good job. Keep up the attacks.......only end your articles with, "My name is Barrack Obama and I approve this message."
September 16, 2008

1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

joggle writes: "If (Obama) wanted to pander he would have picked Clinton. She has both the support of white women and has experience. That's how we know Obama wasn't trying to pander."

Maybe. Or maybe he hasn't figured out how to sleep with one eye open ;-)
September 16, 2008

1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

simpleton, you are a tired broken record ... conversations with you never actually begin because you cannot comprehend discourse.

As for who to vote for this fall, you can count on my vote for no more of the same from the carbon-copy republican and democrat candidates this election.

Carry on, idiot.
September 16, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

clearthinker writes:

Davies I have to agree with joggle's repsonse to your question.

I would add that selecting Biden shows that Obama understands one of the greatest threats we face is our declining world standing. Biden has the knoweldge, experience and temperment to navigate complicated geo-political issues like what we are facing with Russia and the former Sovient Republics and in the Middle East.

So while you can be certain that politics play a role in any VP selection, Biden adds a critical ingredient that faces down a very specific challenge we face. In my opinion, Palin adds virtually nothing.

Now, McCain will and has claimed that Palin "knows more about energy than anyone in the world", but this is farce. The only energy she knows about is oil and gas. Nothing about coal, wind, solar, wave, geothermal, ... And of oil and gas, she knows only onw to extract it, transport it and tax it.

So if the most meaningful ingredient she adds to the ticket is energy credentials, consider me unimpressed.
September 16, 2008

1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

zenosparadox writes:

First of all, why are so many people slamming Litwin for merely expressing his opinion? He is, after all, a columnist whose job is to express reasoned opinions. If you don't agree with him, fine. But, attacking the writer is no way to deal with the issue at hand.

I have voted both Dem. and Rep. (and even voted for Perot - one of the few who will still admit it), but I see Palin as part of the McCain campaign's general strategy of employing "weapons of mass distraction" in order to win the election. Obviously, the economy is in the tank and we got there with a Republican in the White House. The sooner we stop yammering about lipstick, hockey moms and pitbulls and start debating what to do about $4 gas, growing unemployment, people losing their homes, etc. etc., the better off we will all be. After all, shouldn't the team that offers the best solutions to our problems win?
September 16, 2008

1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

Dear Mr. Litwin,
Please update your resume and send it out soon. You are unqualified to be a columnist.
Thank you,
A Fan.
September 16, 2008

1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

DisabledVet writes:

I think many people don't care for either McCain or Obama and deep down we are hoping that McCain wins and then he steps down for whatever reason and Sarah becomes the President. She has more balls than both McCain and Obama!
September 16, 2008

1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

Clear, I tire of typing. Since you have a nice compositional style, please explain WHY America should trust a person -- Barack Obama -- to lead them when he has no executive experience, has chosen anarchists, Marxists, racists, con men & convicts, and thieves as some of his closest friends?

After all, he opened his first-ever political race in the living room of an admitted, unreformed bomb-throwing Marxist, and titled his book after the speech of an unrepentant racist & lives in a house purchased under the market value from a convicted land-swindler currently in prison?!!!

I don't understand seemingly intelligent & educated people glossing over such a history while slamming Gov Palin as if she was a corrupt Girl Scout!!
September 16, 2008

1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

richardboyd writes:

Bush was a phony conservative, and really blew it with his base by expanding government spending at a record pace (Iraq war is only 4% of total gov't spending!!). Obama promises even more government programs, aka more of the same. Talk about a vision doomed to fail . . . And exactly how is the government going to pay for the huge increases in spending? By collecting more taxes, esp from the evil rich people and evil corporations! Well guess what? Rich people don't like to pay taxes any more than poor people, only they're a lot better at protecting their money, which means it really comes out to a tax increase on everybody! And yet he promises you'll pay less. Geez, to listen to this guy, you'd think he's the savior of the human race.
September 16, 2008

1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

slocatch writes:

To me it's like Obama wants a page as his backup so the course of hot air is not disrupted. On the other hand, Mc Cain is quite comfortable in the company of mavericks. Which will create the most change?
September 16, 2008

1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

McCain finds ear marks abhorrent so picks as his vice queen of pork. If Obama/Biden win may they sue Palin for return of the $millions pocketed for the bridge to nowhere she lobbied. Palin is stealing from the America her Independence Party hates, though she calls herself Republican for her purpose. Richard Grimes, deicide, anxious to send her god to Mythology Cemetery.
September 16, 2008

1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

daRock writes:

Those that take glee about the "Bush Doctrine" obviously do not know that there are 4 Bush doctrines and the one that Gibson was referring to is one of the lesser ones.

As to the question "Are we better off today than we were 8 years ago?" I believe we are in one area I consider at the top of the list.

We have not been attacked since 9-11-01. The way we gather intelligence and are fighting the war on terror somewhere other than our own soil is very important to me. We are safer now.

In the US we value freedom of religion and take it for granted. Obama being a Christian is fine for us. Not so in Muslim countries. Being born a Muslim is a way of life and to give that birth right up is viewed as apostate.

This link is to a very well thought out article on how Obama is/would be viewed in the Arab world should he be elected president.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0519/p0...

I am not bashing anyone, just pointing out one issue that is very important to me.
September 16, 2008

1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

alexbonen writes:

mlh66 writes:

to clearthinker
look at the following site to see who Obama's supporters are
and what he stands for. I would not trust him to go to 7/11 to get me a soda... www.the obama file.com ,,,,,
CHECK IT OUT AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION....

Hey, I am ex-military - a disabled veteran from Gulf War. College educated. White collar. And I'm a white guy. I've been all over Europe as well, and I can tell you, the world needs us to change! I support Obama because I believe he represents the real change our country needs.

Palin scares me, and McCain scares me because he expects she is going to pick up the votes he can't get. She does not deserve to be that close to controlling our futures.
September 16, 2008

1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

slocatch writes:

She sure can push you guys around.
September 16, 2008

1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

clearthinker writes:

Karl,

Great job pulling out the textbook Karl.

But please show me where have I called for Palin to be perfect. I have called for there to be truth behind the claims she has used to support the case that she is a reformer. And regrettably, as the facts become clear, her claims are being shown to be false.

There may be other facts that support the case that she is a reformer, but I have not heard them made by the McCain campaign. I won't go into the laundry list of other facts that dispel the claim that she is a reformer.

Call me simple, but when someone has to make stuff up to support a position, I'm inclined to call into question the position. Palin came out of the gate claiming she was a reformer on facts that don't stand up to inspection.
September 16, 2008

1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

knowledgeborn25 writes:

Too bad Obama can't fit all of this in a TV commercial... I'm a little
confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....
* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.'
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American
story.
* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic
Muslim.* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well
grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city
council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000
people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people,
then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking
executive.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're
not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your
disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a
Christian.
* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including
the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no
other option in sex education in your state's school system while your
unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.
* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.

* If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until
age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession
of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
September 16, 2008

1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"please explain WHY America should trust a person -- Barack Obama -- to lead them when he has no executive experience, has chosen anarchists, Marxists, racists, con men & convicts, and thieves as some of his closest friends?"

first of all, karl, the last half of the question is an ignorant misrepresentation of obama's experience and support staff...but i wager a guess you know that when you typed it.

secondly, obama is the better choice simply because his POLICY STANCES have a greater track record of success than mccain's do.

if you're not going to base your vote on the policy stances, i urge you to do the nation a favor and stay home on election day.

the last thing we need is more uninformed voters at the poll.

ftsnmn, thanks for playing...next time if you actually leave the right wing rhetoric on the bench and remember to bring facts all of your pouting and namecalling won't be necessary.
September 16, 2008

1:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

clearthinker, I believe I ably defended Palin as a reformer. I describe her as a less-than-perfect, but accomplished corruption battler. You claim she lacks any reforming credentials. But even her most vociferous critics have tended to admit she has done some good for Alaska. So I think the Fallacies description hit a bullseye, as you simply illustrate the worth of the "textbook" you mention. I won't bother to fillet your statements, again.

Knowing Fallacies is key to clear thinking. I'm sure as a logical thinker, you will heartily agree.

But would you PLEASE answer this basic question:

Please explain WHY America should trust a person -- Barack Obama -- to lead them when he has no executive experience, has chosen anarchists, Marxists, racists, con men & convicts, and thieves as some of his closest friends?

After all, he opened his first-ever political race in the living room of an admitted, unreformed bomb-throwing Marxist, and titled his book after the speech of an unrepentant racist & lives in a house purchased under the market value from a convicted land-swindler currently in prison?!!!

I don't understand seemingly intelligent & educated people glossing over such a history while slamming Gov Palin as if she was a corrupt Girl Scout!!
September 16, 2008

1:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

jay writes: "which of (Obama's) policy stances (supported by the majority of americans) do you find to be "considerably off center"?"

You know jay, you sort of have me there; but the man is a little vague on specifics, after all. So my statement was based on the consensus that his overall voting record is among the most liberal in the US Senate.

'Policy stances' is your term. I really only know of a few major policy stances of Obama: One is that he favors a specific timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. A strategic mistake but admittedly a fairly popular stance, especially for those who (IMO) don't understand the implications, or don't care. The other is his opposition to permitting additional drilling in the ANWR and the Pacific coast shelf. This I understand was recently and reluctantly modified slightly to perhaps allow very limited offshore drilling.

I also understand that he opposes prohibiting late term partial-birth abortions. I know abortion is an emotional issue and I am reluctant to bring it up, but I am pro-choice and I still support prohibiting this type of abortion, as do the majority of Americans.

I guess if the majority of Americans do understand and support his "policy stances", then you should have nothing to worry about in the election.
September 16, 2008

1:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

clearthinker writes:

KarlDaggerfield writes:

"Clear, I tire of typing. Since you have a nice compositional style, please explain WHY America should trust a person -- Barack Obama -- to lead them when he has no executive experience, has chosen anarchists, Marxists, racists, con men & convicts, and thieves as some of his closest friends?"

Oh Karl. Again with the executive experience and now the bomb throwing. Do you want me to follow you into the mud and start talking about Palin's former church where they speak in tounges.

As for "slamming Palin", I havn't taken one personal shot at her. She chose the claims she would use to support her desired maverick persona. But the claims she chose are FALSE.

I did not make that choice for her. But you want to criticize me for calling her on them?

I'm sorry, but she did this to herself. And that may be the best sign of any that she is inexpereinced and that her running mate has poor judgement.
September 16, 2008

1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

slocatch writes:

I do recall, he did not vote aprox. 43% of the time, rather presented a present statement. In his position, every vote really does count. How are you going to convince me he can change the system? He has shown minimal effort so far. Just showing up does not count at all to me, in fact in a system where every vote counts,he failed. The other guy, spent five years in a cage to make it possible for him to vote. He does not deserve to be on the same stage. Lucky to be present in the senate.
September 16, 2008

1:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

knowledgeborn25 writes:

How did McCain spending 5 years in prison give us the right to vote? That was another unpopular war. We weren't attacked. Our freedoms weren't jeopardized.
September 16, 2008

1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

knowledgeborn25 writes:

Too bad Obama can't fit all of this in a TV commercial... I'm a little
confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....
* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.'
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American
story.
* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic
Muslim.* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well
grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city
council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000
people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people,
then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking
executive.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're
not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your
disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a
Christian.
* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including
the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no
other option in sex education in your state's school system while your
unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.
* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.

* If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until
age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession
of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
September 16, 2008

2 p.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

jay writes: "first of all, karl, the last half of the question is an ignorant misrepresentation of obama's experience and support staff...but i wager a guess you know that when you typed it."

Jay, the weird thing about Obama is he seems to have no friends to speak of. The only people I ever see getting up to defend or extol his virtues are celebrities, politicians, and his plebian hem-of-the-garment worshippers.

But where are his FRIENDS? I have only ever heard about Rezko, Ayers, Wright & the like from his earliest days. He is starting to remind me of another "Jay" -- Gatsby, that is, sitting all by himself in his mansion in West Egg, the quintessential American success story. Rising from nothing & taking the world by storm, but strangely empty & nothing but naked ambition.

jay writes: "secondly, obama is the better choice simply because his POLICY STANCES have a greater track record of success than mccain's do. if you're not going to base your vote on the policy stances, i urge you to do the nation a favor and stay home on election day. the last thing we need is more uninformed voters at the poll."

Jay, my friend -- Heraclitus teaches, "Character is Destiny." Would you suggest putting your hopes, dreams & expectations upon a person who is changeable & not predictable in their convictions or policies? HOW MANY TIMES has Obama changed his positions? Here are some: Taking Govt Campaign Aid, Oil Drilling, Bush's Tax Cuts, Iraq, School Vouchers, Tax Increases, etc etc etc...see a pattern, Jay?

Obama takes a principled stand when his polls advise him to do so. So as opposed to scolding me to stay home & mind my P'S & Q's, I think you ought to hibernate on the eve of polling day & consider whether Character means anything meaningful?

If not, it doesn't matter who you vote for, so stay home. If so, then go to the booth on election day & pull the lever for the only man with tested Character -- John McCain.

For Obama, like Keat's grave epitaph reads, is one whose name is writ on water.
September 16, 2008

2:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

ou8one2 writes:

"You can put a suit and tie on a Muslim terrorist, but he is still a Muslim terrorist.

The only difference between oBama and oSama is a little BS!"
September 16, 2008

2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

davies, i am glad to see that you realize you are supporting some of your "feelings" about obama on pure conjecture and bad data.

i hope you find the time to educate yourself on the details of his platform before november.

it seems as if your own willful ignorance might be your own worst enemy, karl.

again...,if you don't plan on voting for a candidate based upon his policy stances, i urge you to stay home on election day.
September 16, 2008

2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

clearthinker writes:

Really laying it on thick now Karl. The premise of your question is broken. Ask it in an unbiased and intelligent way and you may get a response.

I had to note your response to Jay as well. Karl wrore:

"Jay, my friend -- Heraclitus teaches, "Character is Destiny." Would you suggest putting your hopes, dreams & expectations upon a person who is changeable & not predictable in their convictions or policies? HOW MANY TIMES has Obama changed his positions? Here are some: Taking Govt Campaign Aid, Oil Drilling, Bush's Tax Cuts, Iraq, School Vouchers, Tax Increases, etc etc etc...see a pattern, Jay?"

Interesting, because McCain has also changed his stance on three of the positions you mentioned Obama changing on; drilling, Bush Tax Cuts, Tax increases and many more I won't bother to list.

Sorry, but you are on the wrong side of this one. Where is the McCain of old anyway, I would have voted for him in 2000 had Bush not defeated him by dismantling his "character".
September 16, 2008

2:11 p.m.

alexbonen writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 16, 2008

2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

leatherneck writes:

Littwin we all can tell how truely scared you and the left really are now...... Littwin please, it's not that bad.. come down off the ledge...everything will be fine after 4 more years of therapy...

McCain / Palin 08
September 16, 2008

2:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

dumpdenial writes:

All of you Palin supporters are so STUPID!!! It doesn't matter that she lies, that she's dumb and barely has a college education of her own; that in her ignorance she doesn't support sex education which is the reason her child is pregnant out of wedlock - all that matters to you idiots is that she's a woman. Grow the hell up!!! Be more intelligent than that - she needs to know the Bush doctrine especially being that she's signed on to support it. She needs to know what the VP does being that she's running to hold the office and she needs to stop using the fact that she has a Down Syndrome child as a sympathy card - millions of moms do and they don't exploit their children for their personal gain. Palin is an example of McCain's bad decision making skills and you ALL need a reality check.
September 16, 2008

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

daRock: "We are safer now."

How did the USSR fall in '91? Were they attacked? No, their economy collapsed in large part due to their government overspending based on the presumption of the continued high price of energy which was a huge source of income back then and still is. Instead the price of oil dropped and they couldn't/wouldn't cut spending and essentially went bankrupt.

We are in the most dangerous economic position in my life and the next president could make a huge effect on whether we go up or down from here. For how long can we continue to see major banks go bankrupt before a staggering recession occurs? For how long can we sustain such huge trading and budget deficits?

We have stretched our volunteer military to the very limit and the Federal Reserve is doing everything they can to keep the economy from going into a complete tailspin.

I feel a heck of a lot less safe than I did even in the 80s back in the Cold War. And with the reemergence of Russia as a major power and China right on their heels we need the best possible leadership to handle the economy and foreign relations and the last thing we need is another hotshot president that's going to continue the exact same tax policy as his predecessor and the same if not even more harsh international policy. We cannot continue to take on all of our enemies alone. We will not win such a battle/war. And if you think Bush had a hard time getting allies to join us, just wait to see how hard of a time McCain/Palin would have.

As for the low road/gotcha arguments (again) against Obama of buying his home for less than market value and ties to 'an unreformed terrorist' then take that somewhere else. We've been over it before many times. Would you like to defend Palin or McCain against similar attacks? I've posted attacks against McCain before without nary a response. I could even more easily make a very long post with attacks against Palin (who is much more similar to Bush Jr 2000 than most Republicans realize). I'd prefer to stick to the issues though which are namely the economy, the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan and keeping Russia, Iran, N Korea and China in check.
September 16, 2008

2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Willy writes:

vstillwell writes:

Right wing idiots are just happy to have a pretty face as their poster child instead of Fred Thompson and John McSame. Can't blame them for that. Have you seen Fred Thompson? The country's still split in half. It'll take another great depression to kill off these freaks like it did in the 1920s. If we keep this up, it might happen. Herbert Hoover '08--wait I mean John McPalin '08 baby!!!!!!! Whew Hoo!

Re-read your history books M. Stillwell. The parties have switched sides of the bed since 1930.
September 16, 2008

2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

David_R writes:

@DisabledVet -> "...hoping that McCain wins and then he steps down for whatever reason and Sarah becomes the President. She has more balls than both McCain and Obama!"

AMEN! I'm a firm believer that if we had more citizen politicians with a "can do" attitude running our government -- from both parties -- we wouldn't be in the operational quagmire our government has been struggling with the last 30 or so years.

The "intellectual," professional politicians we have come to rely on have, from both parties, have failed us miserably.

@ Charles B -> "That's right. He banned me because I criticized him, otherwise he would have presented a reason or an example of a T.O.S. violation (which doesn't exist)."

Say it ain't so! Although I don't post very often, I do read the forum almost daily. Reading your parroting of the empty leftist talking points, cleverly reworded in a vain attempt to appear as if critical, original thought has been almost a daily source of amusement. I would sorely miss your faux intellectual observations and critiques; even if they are simply retreaded worn out failed leftist thought -- you displayed panache through your arrogant delivery.
September 16, 2008

2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

alexbonen writes:

Right on joggle. I've posted against McCain without nary a response as well. I only wonder why the GOP supporters cannot get past their biased minds to see the idiocy of Palin on ticket. She should not be there. It it would be scary if they get elected. At least everyone else in this race has been tested by the primaries.
September 16, 2008

2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Watchful_Eye writes:

To bapple... Wasilla, Alaska IS a city. More than likely you wouldn't know a village if you were standing in one. Sarah Palin has more executive experience than the other three candidates combined. At least she IS an executive and has the authority to make executive decisions. The other three can only vote - if they're present when Congress is in session.
Sounds like you're an Obama supporter.... If he's elected, you deserve what you get, and may God be with us all! I'd rather take my chances with the McCain/Palin ticket.
September 16, 2008

2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

daRock writes:

Dump,
Which one of the 4 Bush doctrines are you referring to?
September 16, 2008

3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

snowsurfer writes:

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

* If you grow up in Hawaii , raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers: a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow , Trig, and Track: you're a maverick.

* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating: you're well grounded.

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl (sports caster), 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with fewer than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America 's.
* If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DUI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA , your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.
September 16, 2008

3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

Obama reminds me of one of those lizards that turns the same color as any person or object he happens to be standing near. What are those things called, again?

Oh, and WHY does 'Bama loathe harmless Sean Hannity? I think if he ran into him on the street he'd scream, start profusely sweating & then whip out a cross to hold towards his face...

But this guy Bam-Bam 'Bama will stand up to Putin better than Sarah Palin? My word...he can't even hold up under his wife's withering glare -- as according to well-connected sources, it was Michelle who put the kibosh on Hillary.

And if Hillary was on the ticket, Palin would still be a little-known Governor & Littwin wouldn't be repeating the Party mantra of "Change Means no Palin", and we'd have nothing to have our barnyard squabble over.

So, thanks for being a Weenie, Bam-Bam!!!
September 16, 2008

3:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

Watchful_Eye: Palin is running for VP, not president. By the powers granted by the Constitution she can only cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. That's it.

Of course she needs to be ready to step in to take charge if necessary but the person first and foremost you need to consider is McCain.

As for executive experience, Bush Jr had even more executive experience than Palin, ruining companies and governing Texas. So really, how much is executive experience worth in and of itself? Heck I'd take Arlen Specter (R senator of Pennsylvania) over her any day, who also has zero 'executive experience'.

"if they're present when Congress is in session."

Funny you should say that. McCain has been absent even more than Obama and Sara Palin was at her house 312 nights since she became governor of Alaska, and that's not even including other trips she's made and her absence since being nominated VP. From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/...

'During the last legislative session, some lawmakers became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing “Where’s Sarah?” pins.'

Her home is over 600 miles from the capital of Alaska BTW.
September 16, 2008

3:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

David_R writes:

snowsurfer writes:

"I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight....."

Yes; it's quite obvious you're confused. You've cut and pasted the same talking points several times.

Besides having many of the alleged facts incorrect in your talking points, your repetitive cut and paste efforts clearly demonstrates that you are indeed confused and don't understand the difference between fact and fantasy, even if the fantasy is spun from half truths.

Rather than continually pasting the same, repetitive drivel time and time again, why don't you do a little independent study of the actual facts and question the underlying assertions.

While repetition doesn't create truth from carefully spun fiction, it does show the "follow the herd" mentality of the poster.
September 16, 2008

3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Darwin writes:

"LITTWIN: Palin as phenom: It's a mystery"

Let me educate you little man, it's the press stupid! Stupid is as stupid prints.
September 16, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Fisherman writes:

snowsurfer,
You don't sound confused at all. Thanks for supporting Palin.
September 16, 2008

3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

Charles B "Ask John why he thinks people with alternate political views from his are being banned from posting."

Chuck, since we see diverse viewpoints on this thread, isn't it possible that it is NOT your viewpoint, but maybe something more substantial, like your aftershave?

Just curious...
September 16, 2008

3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

clearthinker writes:

Karl,

Have you forgotten about me? Or have you tired of me systematically dismantling your right wing propaganda?

Speaking of chameleons, your latest post really shows your "true colors". Do you work for Hannity?

The only one in this election that is changing colors is McCain. I'm against extending the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans; no I'm for them. I'm against the religious right - those agents of intolerance; no I want one as my VP. My campaign is all about experience, I mean change, I mean reform. I don't know how to use a computer; no I invented the BlackBerry.

Btw, Palin's star is fading. She came out of the gate with the highest favorability rating of any of the candidates; she was of course unknown at the time. Now, her favorability rating is the lowest of any of the candidtes.

And Sarah Palin is going to stand up to Putin? Well they are neighbors after all! Just like the Hatfields and McCoys; lets have ourselves a shootout with ICBMs. Scary!
September 16, 2008

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

CyberHostage writes:

Way too many people are gullible morons. Mystery solved.
September 16, 2008

3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

snowsurfer writes:

David_R is a funny guy. He makes me laugh.
September 16, 2008

3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

PeteKent writes:

It's no mystery. Palin is the first true representative of the people to aspire to high office since Truman.

"He had only to open his mouth and his origins were plain," wrote David McCullough in his biography of the 33rd president, in lines that might also have been written about Mrs. Palin. "It wasn't just that he came from a particular part of the country, geographically, but from a specific part of the American experience, an authentic pioneer background, and a specific place in the American imagination."

This is Palin's power.
September 16, 2008

3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

jeh11 writes:

for this comment:

"I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight..... etc."

snowsurfer has just become my new best friend.
September 16, 2008

3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Billy writes:

McCain and Palin, Bush and Cheney, different people, same result. Another four years of lies, wars, and bad economics. You people are whiners.
September 16, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

CyberHostage: "Way too many people are gullible morons. Mystery solved."

I think too many people live too insular lives. If a conservative listens to talk radio it's probably very conservative talk radio like Rush Limbaugh. If a liberal person listens to talk radio it's probably NPR (which, despite what you hear from the right is not as far to the left as Rush is to the right) or actual liberal talk radio (a very rare breed on the airwaves). Conservatives tend to live in conservative neighborhoods and liberals tend to live in liberal neighborhoods. And so on. We need much more healthy debate and discourse in this country, honestly. I think debate should be a required subject in school and would even be in favor of national exchange students (I could just see that, sending kids from the country in Texas to San Fransisco :P).

I grew up in the country of Texas so was always on the defense since my family was liberal and I was very much into politics even back then. I wish more people were forced to defend their beliefs more growing up. Then we wouldn't see so many kids losing their faith when going to universities (and being truly exposed to people of different faiths/lack of faiths and experiences for the first time) and being better able to resist herd mentality.

Most people can't stand shows like the McLaughlin Group or even Meet the Press. I think that's a result of a fundamental problem in this country to be honest. There is nothing wrong with debates, even spirited ones like on the McLaughlin Group.

I wish parents would challenge their kids to defend their opinions/beliefs and even force them to argue the opposite side. We need leaders that are thoughtful and can see things from other people's point of view rather than having a myopic view on the world that has been reinforced by their friends, family and church their entire childhood with little to no exposure to opposing viewpoints.

You don't need to be a genius to debate. You do need to be open-minded enough to see things from other people's point of view though.
September 16, 2008

4:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

daRock: I just read the article you posted earlier. It is well-written and even scholarly. However, it doesn't mention the current view of mainstream Muslims or how they've already responded to the prospect of a president leading the US with the name of Obama (a very common Muslim name). While they generally aren't expecting the US to suddenly sympathize more with Muslim countries they would be more excited about the fact that someone of Muslim descent can be elected president of the US. This, in turn, could lead to more favorable views of the US depending on the actions of the Obama administration of course.

As for how Al Qaeda reacts, well we aren't trying to please them with this election are we? I've yet to see a conservative article (except for this one) saying that we should give a darn what our allies think about who we elect for president, much less our enemies. I think it's safe to assume that no matter who is elected Al Qaeda will unleash a new barrage of propaganda to smear the new leader of the US. Big deal. We need to focus on mainstream Muslims' view of the US, not radicals that think of us all as infidels or apostates.

I also think it's much more important to form strong relations with our allies versus antagonizing our worst enemy. Even if the article was right and Al Qaeda was able to recruit better with propaganda about the US being lead by an apostate rather than an infidel (something I strongly question) I think Obama/Biden would still be far better off because he would be able to form stronger ties to our allies in Europe than McCain/Palin and when facing an enemy it's always better to have friends guarding your flanks and back than to just be there by yourself.
September 16, 2008

4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

iamwoman writes:

Two comments:
1 - I'm tired of the far right constantly complaining about the media and journalists. There's a reason they're doing the vetting on Palin; it's obvious that the GOP didn't! Journalists research the issues and candidates and see the manipulation and lies that are being offered more than 8-hours a day. Perhaps they see that McCain & Palin are even less than the C- President we are currently 'stuck' with!
2 - Palin is an insult to any woman. She certainly does NOT represent anything I believe in or support. Yes, the GOP is a Party of rich, old, white men as shown by this 'choice' for VP. Roe/Wade is related to the right of PRIVACY for a woman, something that Palin seems incapable of understanding (such as the Bush Doctrine or anything that hasn't happened in Alaska.)

Obama/Bidden - the brains and ethics we need and deserve in Washington!

Go Littwin - you were nicer to Palin than I could ever be.
September 16, 2008

4:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

daRock writes:

Joggle,
Thank you for taking the time to read the article and constructing are respectful post/reply. I appreciate those that can articulate their opinion without resorting to name calling or insults, from either side. I just gloss over those because if a poster needs to go there to support their position, frankly I don't respect anything else they have to say.
I think the article did address the pro-American Arab governments and how their mainstream citizens may react.

I do believe one of the big issues facing the next president is foreign policy in the middle east.
September 16, 2008

5:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

primafacie writes:

"Palin is an insult to any woman."

Right. Who could respect a smart, capable and articulate woman who embodies all that the feminist movement was supposedly about: a self-made woman whose success and achievements are earned wholly on her own, who has carved an identity, who smashed the notion of an old-boys network, who "has it all" with a career and a family?

Or are you admitting the feminist ideal is about one issue and one issue only?
September 16, 2008

5:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

jerrybaylor writes:

Having voted for McCain in 2000 (yes you can write in a name other than the party choice!) I was excited about his campaign until he gave up his rather candid and maverick approach to dealing with the media. Now that he is in the hold of the Karl Rove soundbite camp, my support is wavering. I also think about all the financial upheaval I've witnessed first hand over the past two decades. The S & L debacle and now the mortgage mess. Both have affected my pocketbook as an investor and as a financial consultant. And, both have occurred while my party (Republican) was in the "de-regulating" mode. Add in a war that will go on long after my grandchildren are old (witness a place called Isreal) and my faith in the G.O.P is wavering. What Mr. McCain needs to do is recapture his maverick spirit and not just follow the tired old party line. I'm not sure, after his choice of a running mate, that that is possible.
September 16, 2008

5:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

PeteKent writes:

iamwoman represents everything that has been wrong with feminism up until now. The movement has been completed co-opted by the Democrat party and has been reduced to just another left wing "amen" chorus.

Camille Paglia wrote about this particular phenomenon in Salon last Wednesday. The eagerness with which so-called feminists would attack the first legitimate candidate for Vice President in two generations and the leading contender to be the first female president, betrays a poltical bias that is unhelpful to the cause of women everywhere. It is particularly shameful that Governor Palin has been attacked for trying to be a working mother in a man's world.

You've come a long way, baby?
September 16, 2008

5:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

RepublicanObamacan writes:

It's not a mystery - right-wingers are zealots by definition. They could've tossed any one who's simpatico with them and they would've freaked out - and the fact that she's attractive blows their minds. That's why they can rail for months about Obama lacking experience and qualifications and then support a candidate who's by far the least experienced and qualified in history. That's why they can goof on Obama's education (the #1 student in the #1 law school in the country) while ignoring Palin's uhh, err, undistinguished education (6 colleges in 4 years, and all of them s*ck). That's why they can see what's happened the last 8 years, can't name a single Republican accomplishment in that time, and still blame "liberals" for everything! Stop assuming they have minds of their own - they are lemmings who only know party trumps country.
September 16, 2008

5:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

No problem daRock :-). I also pretty much don't respond to posters that engage in name-calling. It reflects a total lack of understanding of the purpose of debate (to convince a skeptical audience).

"I think the article did address the pro-American Arab governments and how their mainstream citizens may react."

The only mention I saw of potentially mainstream citizens in the article was:

'Conservative Muslim populations that are riddled with poverty and low literacy rates can be more readily swayed to join the cause against the "Great Satan" (the US) if their imams and mullahs shout that it is led by an apostate.'

That's an assertion in the article that is only backed up by the author's own experience. Obviously the US is an infidel country according to Sharia so whether it's led by an apostate or not doesn't seem to matter much, at least to me and I think probably to them as well. It has never been occupied by a Muslim people so they have no particular interest how infidels rule themselves. They focus much more on their local affairs and on how infidels position their forces in their own back yard. Imagine if a Muslim army was occupying Mexico for a perspective on how they feel. While there is no good analogy to whether this hypothetical army was led by a true Muslim or a renegade Christian from our point of view (since we don't really have an equivalent to an apostate) I don't think we would care very much. We would just want that Muslim army out of Mexico.

I've read other articles that interview Muslim people in Pakistan, Iran and other countries and it seems they generally agree with my previous assertion that they would not think less of us due to being led by an apostate.

"I do believe one of the big issues facing the next president is foreign policy in the middle east."

I agree. But I also think the economy here at home is very important and perhaps even more important.
September 16, 2008

5:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

If the economy crashes here at home there's no way we'll be able to adequately defend ourselves much less take the spear of the attack to our enemies in Afghanistan as we have been doing. And I sure as heck don't think McCain would handle the economy any better than his predecessor did. And this isn't a baseless opinion. I've read his economic policy posted on his website (which has a lot fewer details than Obama's posted plan). McCain's plan continues all of the tax cuts of the current administration. In addition, he is fundamentally opposed to regulation based on his own statements. Well guess what, these major banks were making bets with far too much risk and there was nobody there to stop them. So a conservative may say "great, let the market take care of it". Well the market says the bank fails (and several have--more would have if the government didn't step in). If too many major banks fail nobody can get loans. If nobody can get loans the economy shrinks (brutally, like it did in the 30s). I've read Obama's tax and budget plans and while not as detailed as I would like they seem similar enough to Clinton's budget and tax plans to satisfy me (budget/tax plans that actually worked).

One thing to remember is that whoever the next president is they will most likely be rather unpopular for much of their presidency similar to Truman. What we need is another Truman who is willing to be unpopular and make the right choices rather than another populist like Bush who simply sticks to campaign promises regardless of world events just to make sure he can get re-elected and because plans never need to be changed. This is why I was originally for Joe Biden for president (he's probably the straightest talking senator in Washington, although the talk is rather, umm, verbose...). I think it said alot about Obama when he picked him for VP and it also says a lot about McCain when he picked Palin. I think McCain is playing to win the election regardless of consequences. I think Obama is playing to win the election but is also considering consequences. If McCain wins and is incapacitated we will be a heck of a lot worse off with Palin as president (see my previously posted article) than we would be with Biden (a person that both Republican and Democrat politicians respect) who has some of the best credentials for foreign policy out of any politician in this country (the main reason I was for him).
September 16, 2008

5:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

"clearthinker writes: Karl, Have you forgotten about me? Or have you tired of me systematically dismantling your right wing propaganda?"

Clear, you may want to sit down for a minute...ooops, you are already seated!! (sorry, couldn't resist the "Biden, serious politician"! moment...). You haven't dismantled a single thing I have stated. Instead, I demolished your "arguments" with the "logic" you claimed to embody.

But, no reason to kick a guy when's he's already down, Right -- Clear? (oooh, ouch! No more Biden jokes, puh-leez!!)

Folks, let's all P-R-A-Y that O'Biden doesn't hit the Lotto on that fateful day....with all the trouble we are already in, economically, it's no time for the Marx Brothers Comedy Tour!!!

ps, Folks -- could we ALL STAND and give Clear a big-fat-hand? brahahahaha....wow, gotta love that Biden, what a knucklehead, huh?!! Joe Biden does The Rat Pack Meets Dickens: "Gawd luv us, each & every one...uhhhh, Frank & Dino, ANOTHER Martini, Puh-LEEZ!!! Oooh, and here comes that Sammie Davis Obama, and his backup singers, the Wright Bro's!!!"
September 16, 2008

5:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Folks, let's all P-R-A-Y that O'Biden doesn't hit the Lotto on that fateful day....with all the trouble we are already in, economically, it's no time for the Marx Brothers Comedy Tour!!!"

so instead of the democrats plans, you're in favor of continuing the policies that have put us in this "economic trouble", karl?

does that sound smart to you?
September 16, 2008

6 p.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

jay writes: "so instead of the democrats plans, you're in favor of continuing the policies that have put us in this "economic trouble", karl? does that sound smart to you?"

Jay, how is Marxism an "answer" to our problems? To take money from wealthier folks & send it to the less-well-off is a central tenet of Marxism, correct? And, if you read the fine print on Obama's "plans," that is one of his big goals. And to hike tax rates for corporations.

Jay, do you know of ANY market-friendly policies that Obama is suggesting? Did you know we became the world's greatest economic power by having open markets with low taxes?!! Or could you name a single great power that became mighty through Socialism? Of course not.

What I believe McCain & Palin will do is cut the massive overspending our country has become infamous for & return to fiscal sanity. That is ALL we need to do for long-term economic health. Obama wouldn't recognize that idea as a real solution if it was dropped from the heavens, attached to an anvil, that hit him square in the noggin.

ALL of our markets are well-founded, which is how we became great, economically. All we need to do is return to sound decision-making & give up the idea that a free-lunch is ever possible, or even desirable, if it were.
September 16, 2008

6:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

redwhiteandBLUE writes:

A mystery..? Obama and McCains issues.. that's a mystery.
Too much blather from both of them.
September 16, 2008

6:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

KarlDaggerfield: 'Jay, how is Marxism an "answer" to our problems? To take money from wealthier folks & send it to the less-well-off is a central tenet of Marxism, correct? And, if you read the fine print on Obama's "plans," that is one of his big goals. And to hike tax rates for corporations.'

Oh no, you used a label. Well that settles the argument right there.

'Jay, do you know of ANY market-friendly policies that Obama is suggesting? Did you know we became the world's greatest economic power by having open markets with low taxes?!! Or could you name a single great power that became mighty through Socialism? Of course not.'

Oh no, more labels. Did you know that your questions aren't actually rhetorical? Here's some answers:

Obama proposes to CUT the capital gains tax to small businesses. That sure won't hurt their bottom line. He only plans to increase the capital gains tax for large corporations and wealthy families. And not to ridiculous amounts, just back to the lowest rate back during the prosperous Clinton years. A person earning most of their income from capital gains would still be paying a lower tax rate than most people would pay on their income tax (only 20% rather than the current 15%).

He has also proposed several pro-business tax credits such as a small business healthcare tax credit, making the R&D tax credit permanent, and close loopholes in the tax code that gave corporations incentives to send jobs overseas.

Do you know what led to the stock market crash of '29? Do you know why we haven't had such a crash since then or similar crashes in the decades leading up to the great crash of '29? It has something to do with banks and regulation but I'm curious what your explanation is (it certainly isn't less regulated now than the years prior to '29 when there was virtually no regulation).

Did you know that our economy is in huge financial trouble right this very moment as are others around the globe? Do you have any clue as to why this is?

Do you see why asking open-ended questions and tossing around labels is a stupid way of carrying out a debate? Of course not.
September 16, 2008

6:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

joggle writes: "Do you see why asking open-ended questions and tossing around labels is a stupid way of carrying out a debate? Of course not."

Open-ended questions spur conversation. Labels mark things as falling within certain parameters. For a further examination of this topic, please google Semiotics, especially Saussure, Pierce, Barthes, Levi-Strauss, et al. Is that a problem, Joggle?

Stupid is as stupid does, according to the great Liberal Icon, Forrest Gump. Is that why you use such simplistic invective, Jiggety-Jog?

Just curious, of course.
September 16, 2008

6:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

daRock writes:

Joggle,
Once again I thank you for you well thought-out and articulated post/position. Like you, I have read the economic positions of each presidential candidate and do have some problems with both, especially Obama. While many of them sound great, I question his ability to deliver. Nationalizing health care with a single source provider would appear to relieve a big concern and expense to the average middle class family, in reality I fear that the cost would be far higher and the quality lower if we move that direction. I have yet to see where any industry (other than national defense and other areas that obviously must be done at a federal level) have become less expensive and more efficient than can be done in the private sector. I lived in Canada for several years and if that is the health care model, I will pass.
Even the area of taking care of our poor and disadvantaged is much more efficient if left to the private sector, including religious organizations that depend on private donations and employees/volunteers 'called' to that cause.

I donate money to non-profits, but I have a rule that if they spend more than 14% of their budget on salaries or fund raising, I do not support them. On average, that is the threshold I accept for prudent financial management. Sadly, many government programs exceed 50%-70% of their budget just for salaries and benefits.
Back to the point of presidential economic platforms, I do not believe Obama can deliver all he promises, including tax cuts for all but the top 5% of our wealthy taxpayers.
BTW, I have not seen an economic plan from McCain I can support either.
The issues are complicated and I would welcome more of a specific plan than I have seen.
I would also like to see each candidate address immigration reform. That system is very broken and neither candidate wants to take a position that would cost them votes, so they ignore a very important issue to many Americans.
For the record, I believe the LEAST we need to do is secure our borders before we can address reform.

NO other major country has as free of a border as we do, and the effect on our economy is substantial.

I have rambled a bit.....so I will turn it back to you.
September 16, 2008

6:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

clearthinker writes:

Karl,

You should really take your comedy act on the road; no really somewhere far away like Alaska.

Do do you really want to argue that Biden is not a serious adult and that Palin is. Wow, you have completely discredited yourself now.

Watch the VP debate Karl; then come back to me and try to argue that Palin is a more serious candidate for VP than Biden.
September 16, 2008

7:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

The most important part of Obama's economic plan is his staggering Trillion-dollar-a-year proposal to increase Government spending. That's US News & World Report's analysis of his promises.

Of course, since the US has only a 14 Trillion-dollar-a-year economy, that represents an increase in taxing that the world has never seen.

Upon being informed that his budget plans would cause a struggling economy to enter a depression, Obama replied that the Bush tax cuts would have to be continued.

But this just underscores the fact that Oba, has ZERO experience balancing a budget larger than a family's, and that he refuses to admit that higher taxes result in lower revenue for the Government, especially in Capital Gains.

Yet, Obama has NO excuse for plodding on in this disastrous direction, since Charlie Gibson told him directly in an interview: "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up" Obama responded by changing the subject.

Jiggety-Jog, I realize you think your dear leader has a clue in economics, but he really doesn't -- and his leadership in the markets will bankrupt this country, when Socialized Medicine is shoved down our throats, like a bitter pill.
September 16, 2008

7:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

KarlDaggerfield writes:

Joggle writes, "Do you know what led to the stock market crash of '29? Do you know why we haven't had such a crash since then or similar crashes in the decades leading up to the great crash of '29? It has something to do with banks and regulation but I'm curious what your explanation is (it certainly isn't less regulated now than the years prior to '29 when there was virtually no regulation)."

The Great Depression could have been a minor downturn, but the Government bungled its response, sending the economy on a decade-long tumble.

The main thing to remember is that economic growth is always about the money supply -- Too much cheap money creates inflation and too little money chokes off an economy.

In "A Monetary History of the United States," Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman blames the Great Depression on the Federal Reserve.

Said the late Friedman, "The recession was an ordinary business cycle. We had repeated recessions over hundreds of years, but what converted [this one] into a major depression was bad monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve System had been established to prevent what actually happened. It was set up to avoid a situation in which you would have to close down banks, in which you would have a banking crisis. And yet, under the Federal Reserve System, you had the worst banking crisis in the history of the United States. There's no other example I can think of, of a government measure which produced so clearly the opposite of the results that were intended.

And what happened is that [the Federal Reserve] followed policies which led to a decline in the quantity of money by a third. For every $100 in paper money, in deposits, in cash, in currency, in existence in 1929, by the time you got to 1933 there was only about $65, $66 left. And that extraordinary collapse in the banking system, with about a third of the banks failing from beginning to end, with millions of people having their savings essentially washed out, that decline was utterly unnecessary.

At all times, the Federal Reserve had the power and the knowledge to have stopped that. And there were people at the time who were all the time urging them to do that. So it was, in my opinion, clearly a mistake of policy that led to the Great Depression."

And Bernanke agrees with this analysis.
September 16, 2008

9:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

clearthinker writes:

Karl,

Economics is clearly not your strength becuase you way off topic here.

First, Joggle's comment was about the stock market crash of 1929 (Black Tuesday), not the Great Depression. Therefore, the regulations Joggle refers to are the Glass-Stegall Act (1933), the1933 Securities Act and the 1934 Securites Act. Glass-Stegall was watershed banking regulation for example which was constructed to reduce speculation.

Having said that, although most historians agree that the Great Depression started with the stock market crash, they are not one in the same. The Federal Reserve's inaction made matters worse by not loosening monetary policy. But don't confuse the Fed with regulation or with government. The Fed is a quasi-public entity. Congress and the Executive branch have not direct control over Fed monetary policy. It is an independent entity. The Fed has been pretty spot on since; Bernanke included.

So don't try to blame the stock market crash of 1929 on regulation. No credible economist would join you in that argument. Neither was the Great Depression caused by regulation.

No, regulation was required to reduce the rampant speculation that lead to the stock market crash of 1929 and the resulting Great Depression. Sound familiar. Unfortunately, as our financial markets have become more complicated and the spreading of risk more difficult to track, innovative new regulations may again be required.

But hey, your candidate changed tunes today. John McCain who has said of himsel that he is anti-regulation and that he never supports more regulation has changed his tune. What do you know. Should I call that a flip-flop or a man actually learning.
September 16, 2008

9:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

4smallgovernment writes:

"I mean, it's not her fault if she's unqualified for the job" -- I am laughing at the fact that you wrote this. Really? You put this in print? Look who's at the TOP of the Democratic ticket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p9EzU...
September 16, 2008

9:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sweetpickle writes:

Palin is bubba's dream girl. She hunts, she fishes, she shoots, she has a bikini and she is a smart mouth.

She has the appeal that Bush had in 2000, but better because she has no public record of drug use. It doesn't matter to many voters whether she is qualified or not, look at the president we have. She will deliver bubba's vote and that may be all J.M. needs.
September 16, 2008

10:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Nationalizing health care with a single source provider would appear to relieve a big concern and expense to the average middle class family, in reality I fear that the cost would be far higher and the quality lower if we move that direction. I have yet to see where any industry (other than national defense and other areas that obviously must be done at a federal level) have become less expensive and more efficient than can be done in the private sector. "

nope. again...there are countries doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are.

there's no excuse not to know this.
September 16, 2008

10:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

baw writes:

She's been under investigation for "abuse of power" since before she got the VP nod...now the GOP is suing to have the results of the investigation delayed until AFTER the election!
That's ALL we need...an ETHICS scandal before McCain is even sworn in! She was an irresponsible choice on McCain's part...and, no, she is not more qualified than Obama for the job. She barely got through college, folks!
September 16, 2008

10:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

daRock writes:

Jay....I have lived in one and it was horrible.

Please give me your evidence as to why "there are countries doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are.
there's no excuse not to know this."

Focus on the "better' bit.

Um errrrr....there is no excuse to make a statement like this that has absolutely no factual support.
September 16, 2008

10:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Barb writes:

There is just something creepy about Palin. Aside from the fact that she has promoted (not just supported) the barbaric and inhumane aerial killing of 800 magnificent wolves animals (my favorite wild animal), she is just scary. Kinda reminds me of a "right-wing Stepford wife." She may smile pretty for you now, but just wait -- you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
September 16, 2008

11:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

baw writes:

The screwy thing is, that our health insurance is provided by a middle man whose primary goal is bringing in improved profits every year. They raise rates and deductables and even deny coverage to meet those expectations. There is no way that this system can aspire to be the most cost effective (or "best") way of delivering health coverage. Paying my own insurance (not including wife and kid) means well over $4000 per year in premiums...with a nearly $4000 deductable...talk about "redistributing" wealth!
Paying a little extra in taxes to cover a not-for-profit government insurance would undoubtedly be cheaper than the current options, and it would take pressure off of those who REALLY drive the economy; the middle class (who do most of the buying).
Too bad neither candidate has that in their plans. At least Obama is offering the Senate's health plan to the uninsured.
September 16, 2008

11:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

daRock: "While many of them sound great, I question his ability to deliver."

I completely agree. Not only is it risky to be very specific about your economic plan at this point, which basically multiplies the number of pledges you're making, but it can pigeonhole you a year later when you're in office and conditions probably have changed (similar logic as to why Bush claims a firm timetable shouldn't be set in Iraq). Hypothetically, if there was an even bigger 'adjustment' as Bush described happening on Wall Street last Monday sometime this October I think it would simply not be possible for Obama to implement his economic plan without any adjustment. Even without any other major shakeup he still would need to work out numerous details before a final budget is even proposed to, much less passed by Congress. That process will almost certainly result in not having the exact budget plan promised by him.

But beyond details, he still may not be able to deliver on all of his major promises. However, I think he is willing to take his lumps when necessary rather than to carry on blindly as our current president did to keep his pledge (such as cutting taxes) regardless of any circumstance. I think Bush Sr really got a bum rap for not keeping his 'no new taxes' pledge. It was a stupid pledge and I regret that Obama is making a similar (though not identical) pledge. The future four years are not knowable and to predict such a major policy decision for the next four years without any qualification was a mistake by Bush Sr and an even bigger mistake by Bush Jr when he kept an even stronger pledge despite war, natural disaster, economic downturn and attacks. Back in 2000 I would have felt McCain similarly would have had the guts to make the right call but over the past couple of years and especially in his campaign I have completely lost my confidence in him.

Personally, I hope the next president doesn't focus too much on health care during their first term. There are just too many major, extremely consequential issues to deal with and risking huge roadblocks and discussions on yet another issue similar to the early part of the Clinton presidency is just not desired and would make it more difficult to address the other issues.
September 16, 2008

11:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

I know it's the easiest thing in the world for a politician to over-promise during their campaign and probably every presidential candidate has been guilty of this. To me one of the most important events during each presidential campaign is the presidential and vice presidential debates. Back in 2000 I thought Bush came off as a complete idiot and quickly solidified my choice in Gore. Similarly, if McCain cannot debate without using his POW card as a defense against almost any disparaging remark then I think that should sway peoples' votes that are on the fence. And if Palin is torched in the VP debate (which I think will be even more lopsided than the Gore-Bush debates) I would hope that that too would have some effect on undecided voters. But time will tell I guess.

As for the immigration issue that may come up in the debates but surely not before due to it being a powerful third rail. You may get your wish thanks to the debates and they'll finally have to address it prominently. I think you'll find both of their positions to disappoint you. To me it isn't a major issue and hasn't been on my radar in over four years (it got pushed off due to the ongoing wars, relations with Russia and our major economic issues on Wall Street, the federal budget and the trading deficit).
September 16, 2008

11:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

joggle writes:

Oops, I meant to say that I hope the next president doesn't focus too much on health care during their first year, not their first term. Ugh, I wish there was a way to edit posts here like there is on the Denver Post website.
September 16, 2008

11:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Redstate_Artist writes:

Hey Barb, are you against all hunting or just the hunting of wolves? Its people like you that cause wild animals to suffer. How? By allowing those animals to over-populate. When the population grows larger than the local food supply, those animals starve. That is a much more agonizing death than a bullet. In many states that practically ban hunting, people are killed by deer that run out in front of their cars. This is caused by over-population. I guess people dying doesnt matter to libs. After all, they dont have a problem murdering babies.

The same holds true with those enviro-nuts. God forbid that someone cut down a tree. Did you know that the National Park Service in the Great Smokey Mountains allows local residents to cut dead timber? Thats one of the reasons we dont have massive forest fires here. Since the locals harvest the dead timber, fires dont have the fuel source it does in the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Crapifornia and other western states.

By the way, I love to hunt deer. Bambi is really tasty.
September 16, 2008

11:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

darock, your personal anectode aside, i think i'll stick with the data.

we've gone over this stuff so many times before that i hope you don't mind if i just post a link to the thread in which this fact was proved.

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/le...
September 17, 2008

12:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

TomDenver writes:

I love playing the game when I read comments to articles like this: "spot the pro Obama blogger who is cutting and pasting from their DNC talking points" I think my success rate in spotting these is about the same as Gov Palin's approval rating (80+%).

What is it that drives some feminists (and their surrogates in the press) nuts about Palin? There are excellent articles on dickmorris.com, wsj.com and other places but I think its this: in the words of Willie Brown (former SF mayor): she's not of the people, she IS the people. She just happens to be very articulate, smart and walks the walk - how refreshing that someone actually lives their values (some of which I don't agree with but I respect her right to her values). She breaks the stereotype of a typical feminist and that drives some to apoplectic heights.

Makes me smile to see the shoe on the other foot.
September 17, 2008

1:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Bluebix writes:

As an Alaskan, it's interesting reading this discussion. A couple of things worth noting:

When Palin became governor she promised us transparency and accountability. She worked fairly well with Democrats and didn't push her fundamentalist beliefs. She raised taxes on oil companies (a popular move here). She did support the Bridge to Nowhere originally, and she did keep the money after the earmark died. (Thank you, taxpayers.) She also supports the Other Bridge, another earmark project, which is locally controversial.

From the moment McCain picked her, she has completely changed. Before then, she was "eager" to cooperate in a legislative inquiry into Troopergate that received bipartisan, unanimous approval. But two McCain lawyers have been here for the past few weeks strategizing with her own lawyer, and now the inquiry is being stonewalled like crazy. Several Republican legislators are openly stating now that they want the inquiry delayed until after the election. Why do you suppose that is? The McCain meddling has been so blatant that of course now we're all wondering what she's trying to hide, if it has McCain freaked out that badly.

In short, she has been anything but transparent and accountable. Although many people here still support her and are proud of her, I sincerely doubt that most Alaskans, if they were being honest, think she belongs in the White House. She clearly knows very little about national affairs. She's just not capable of it. I don't mean that as a smear or an insult. I would simply prefer to have a leader who isn't a "quick study." I want someone who is ready on Day One. And I want someone who lives up to her campaign promises. She hasn't.

I hope those of you who are captivated by her charm and appearance will at some point take the time to really evaluate what you know about her and what she says compared to what she's actually done. You should also realize that the "reforming" going on in Alaska is almost entirely due to a two-year FBI sting. Yes, the feds had to come in to clean us up, and god bless them.

I know she seems "just like me," (although I'd prefer to be earning $225,000/year as she and Todd do--her hockey mom days are long gone). But, frankly, I want someone smarter and better than me in the White House. We've had eight years of governing by the guy we'd like to have a beer with, and they haven't been good years.

Apologies for the length of this. I just hope people to look beyond headlines and first impressions and really scrutinize her record. It's just not that pretty, even if she is.
September 17, 2008

1:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

bwg writes:

re this (note btw, I'm not voting for McCain or Obama):
"When I watched Palin's interviews with Charlie Gibson on ABC, she seemed so much like an eager student"

Actually the problem was that she needed to be a "student" trying to understand what Gibson was asking because Gibson was clueless and didn't realize he was and was a backwards enough student to not realize he needed to be educated. ie, ala the column in RMN the other day explaining that the "Bush doctrine" is an inherently ambiguous term so its naturally then to need to ask the questioner the [doctrine] "with respect to what?".
Apparently the N different editorialists and reporters who didn't know the phrase the "Bush doctrine" hasn't been used by the administration itself to refer to some concrete policy, its a creation of the media itself and has been used in multiple ambiguous ways. There are alot of things a generic phrase the "Bush doctrine" might refer to.

Similarly it seemed when Gibson was asking her if we'd aid a country that joined NATO, what was probably running through her mind during her answer seemed like "er, duh, thats what NATO is all about, could he be wasting time on something that basic, or if not what aspect of all the inherent complications of doing so in this case could be wanting me to address (eg, whether we should let them join in the first place, or how we would handle tip toeing into the situation to do the most good rather than escalating tensions, etc..).. or given this is a sound-bite level interview I'll just state the obvious and let him ask for more so I know what the heck he is getting beyond that.." but then "argh, the guy doesn't understand I gave him the hook to ask further questions, not sharp enough to understand the give and take process of an interview when the path to take is ambiguous..".

Unfortunately of course this sort of inner dialogue likely can't be imagined by many journalists who aren't that sophisticated and don't realize when they are the ones being clueless.

They also don't understand the nature of an *executive* role where you have a huge underlying staff.. whether its as huge as a state (even a small one) or the federal government you're underlying role is to choose the right experts to trust (knowing that you can't be the best expert on everything.. no matter how many years experience you have) and delegate since you can't do everything yourself. Those with a small staff haven't had the need to do this and sometimes those who are well educated overestimate their own knowledge and make mistakes because they don't properly delegate and try to do too much themselves.
A governor with very high approval ratings would seem likely to have demonstrated the appropriate skills.

If anything given the problems with the current policies coming out of the Democratic Congress and Republican White House.. it would seem having experience in those ways of thinking wouldn't be a positive thing.
continued:
September 17, 2008

1:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

bwg writes:

A Governor like the president can't introduce or pass bills.. that is the job of the legislative body. The executive just signs the bills or vetos them. Those who are truly in favor of reform who are in the Senate (as with all 3 of the major party ticket) are capable of introducing new legislation unlike the P&VP who can only suggest. If anyone is claiming they are in favor of change now the key to look for is whether they actually worked to *introduce* new legislation for change (whether it succeeded or not.. sometimes change takes time to be adopted). This is btw different from being a co-sponsor on a bill since many legislators put their name on bills that others have done the work to introduce. A congressman whose party controls the congress especially should have done alot (Democrats now, Republicans before).

Those who value power (eg, political office) may at times initiate change if they see risk they will not get/keep that power. eg, Apple sells only a tiny % of the number of its machines compared to the number that run Microsoft Windows. However Microsoft windows has been improved over the last 20 years in order to keep it that way and prevent Apple from gaining a larger market share.

Similarly major party candidates can pay attention to the true source of ideas for change, 3rd party candidates, when they see a threat those candidates can steal there votes and eg swing the election to the other major party. ie, votes for a Libertarian or Green candidate increase the odds the party will become the "swing vote" between the major parties and cause major party candidates to listen. The problem is that the media doesn't want change and doesn't want to cover real issues and 3rd party positions on them rather than covering trivial campaign topics given the lack of sophistication of journalists like Gibson who have an inflated sense of themselves due to the attention they get from the public.

They avoid getting getting the public and then the parties to pay attention since it may take time and repetition to get an issue addressed,eg as Perot tried to do years ago for too brief a time re: the national debt, or the broken social security system that is selling the nations kids down the river, while in Chile the system was privatized 29 years ago as 39 countries or so (see cato.org) have done since then after seeing Chile becoming richer by doing so. Unfortunately media would rather focus on scare stories than look at evidence of change that has worked elsewhere. The only reason the media covered him was that he was a billionaire who'd be spending lots of money on commercials, etc., so he couldn't be silenced and was an amusing twist to the "race".
September 17, 2008

7:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

ez2amuze writes:

The problem with the Republicans is that they get this country involved in stupid wars, dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into a wastebasket. That's what causes the problems in the economy, not "wall street speculators," inadequate regulation of banks, or any other such nonsense.

When you start a stupid war in the Middle East, and disrupt the oil supply of a producer like Iraq, is it a wonder that oil prices climb? This aggravates problems in the U.S. economy.

We dump huge amounts of money into foreign countries when we import oil. What have the Republicans done to encourage alternate energy? Most of them are in bed with the oil companies, in one way or another, so its no surprise they pay lip service to developing alternate energy, but do nothing.

Well, I guess I'd believe everything was fine, if I had so many houses I couldn't count them.
September 17, 2008

7:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

knowledgeborn25 writes:

TomDenver you are so intelligent. How did you figure out that those are the talking points from the DNC? Wow!! I guess because they are true talking points. Instead of trying to guess if it were a cut and paste. Lets have an intelligent discussion on the hidden issues that the Republicans are trying to avoid.
September 17, 2008

8:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

slocatch writes:

Mike Littwin must feel real obsolete after 8 hard years of bashing the republican party and then here comes Palin. Wow, she has given me a turbo boost, never read his colum, just want to read some of the comments of others. At best I guess Mike can claim responsibility for something. Joe who? PS Thank you John for all you do and have done. Your choiice has given me hope again. Go Sarah!
September 17, 2008

8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

I read somewhere that Palin not only shoots wolves; she corners them first, then fires at their paws to make them dance while forcing them to sing:

"Oh I'm a Democrat and I'm OK,
I just lay around 'til it's welfare day.
I believe anyone who will promise Change,
So shoot me now or I'll give you the mange!"
September 17, 2008

9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

the palin/convention bounce has officially eroded.

i guess it's back to swiftboat politics and running from The Track Record.

oh...and "passive aggressive" pseudo-independent bloggers can try that trick all day long, but very few of us are naive enough to buy the ruse.

right, fntsymtn?
September 17, 2008

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

Palin: Just return the money porked over to you for the bridge to no-where to the national treasury and stop claiming you told Congress, "Thanks but no thanks." Mc is against pork and you are the pork queen who participates in succession for Alaska: The odd couple. Richard Grimes, deicide anxious to send Palin's god to Mythology Cemetery
September 17, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Excalibur writes:

I was a McCain fan in 2000 and remember how the conservative base got excited about Bush. Now that McCain has become a turncoat, I'm watching the conservative base get excited about Palin. Where did the excitement over Bush get us? It's downright scary how history could repeat itself as I can't afford 8 more years of this economy!
September 17, 2008

10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Well look who's back. Engarde jay!

2:06 yesterday jay writes:

"davies, i am glad to see that you realize you are supporting some of your "feelings" about obama on pure conjecture and bad data."

Pure conjecture and bad data? Huh! I stated that there was a consensus that Obama's voting record was among the most liberal in the Senate; then I also cited three of Obama's specific "policy stances" (your term) that I am aware of, and which I find objectionable.

You refuted none of this, so where's the conjecture and bad data? You passed on the opportunity to educate me on the man's specific "policy stances". What are they? Universal health care? How nice, pleasant sounding and vague, but tell me how we're going to pay for it. Remember the famous pledge of the new Democratic majority in 2006? "Pay as you go", they said. If Obama is elected and the Democrats maintain their majorities in both houses, what do you think will be accomplished in four years?

Don't refer me elsewhere, unless you are admitting that you don't know his policy stances either, beyond vague promises of "change".
September 17, 2008

11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

your "feelings" about obama being "far left of center" were never backed up with facts about his policy stances, davies....but rather your opinions (which might indeed confirm your stance on the far right of the political spectrum...considering you apparently believe the majority of americans to also be "far left of center")

in fact, your words when confronted on that were "you sort of have me there"...after which you rambled about his popular opinions on iraq, leaving medical decisions to families without gov't interference and some conspiracy theory about opposing drilling (a myth we've debunked many many times).

so yes...i'll repeat...i am glad to see that you realize you are supporting some of your "feelings" about obama on pure conjecture and bad data.

i hope you find the time to educate yourself on the details of his platform before november.

the last thing this country needs is uninformed voters at the polls.
September 17, 2008

12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

lindabhead writes:

If this pair of liars (McCain-Palin) gets elected, what happens to the country will be on the heads of those who are looking for ANYBODY to vote for as long as it isn't a black man. Look closely within yourself before you say race doesn't matter.
September 17, 2008

12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

4gColoNative writes:

daRock 6:44PM
"NO other major country has as free of a border as we do..."

I was recently driving through Europe. Passed from Germany to France to Italy and on to former USSR countries before re-entering Germany. Never once was I stopped ... no check-points, no immigration control.

The emphatic "NO" is amusing.
September 17, 2008

12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

slocatch writes:

He should just be happy being "present" in the Senate. After he gets in a few more votes, then you might say he could be ready. The course of hot air is not very certain to more and more of us, just look at the polls. It is still not to late to get Hillary on the ticket, but I doubt she would be asked, now she wants the top spot and is willing to wait.
September 17, 2008

1:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

I am always left aghast at those who in life eat prunes to create gods always feel qualified to say who is not qualified. What have you accomplished in life?
September 17, 2008

1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

jay jay jay jay jay, I will try mightily to educate myself by November. However I fear that in order to do so, I'm going to have to ignore your posts from now on, as I cannot afford any extra time to devote to nothing but tortured logic, glib dismissals and unsupported partisan rhetoric. Perhaps your Democratic Party myopia makes you unable to recognize an honest attempt to objectively discuss/debate an issue.
September 17, 2008

1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

davies, whatever you need to rationalize your uninformed status is fine with me.

just try to get that info before you vote...for the country's sake.
September 17, 2008

1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Flatiron writes:

Palin is another fantasy that won't play well in reality, like Bush..but she's like the babysitter who comes and says free ice cream for everyone...She's popular with the kids but leaves the house a wreck.

The people want to believe that politics isn't so complicated and that anyone with an once of common sense can do it. so why not Palin? If so why does McCain have more than a hundred lobbyists on his campaign and planning for his administration? Why can't she go on the news programs to answer questions? Why does she require "deference" from the media?

The Republican Convention was telling because the delegates could let their hair down and scream and yell about bombing away anyone they didn't like...it was infantile rage. From Putin to Iran, to Sadam, to the liberal media to those damn gas prices, secular humanism, to the funny light bulbs...anything that frustrated them was fair game. And they could just rant and rave to their heart's content, and Palin egged them on. Republicans are mad.

McCain and Pailn are liars, even Rove is saying so.. McCain has flip flopped himself to his own party and won't be able to deliver to all of his supporters, if elected. Ms. Sarah repeats her lies over and over, with disregard for any real feedback. Then she tells us she is doing a competent job--the people want to believe her because they think she might be able to eliminate their petty frustrations. Those real world problems that crop up when you need to leave lalaland and face the world's realities.

Like your property values are dropping and the President you voted for in the last election really was incompetent and left your with $4 gas, a financial melt down, and two wars in the Middle East. He bungled all the sectors (Oil, arms, and money) where the Republicans think the Dems can't hack it.

I think when a party has failed this badly they really need to be punished. The way Colorado kicked the bums out of the legislature and Governorship when our own Rep. administration refused to govern. But the nice thing about Palin (and now McCain, since he's his speech where he said the same bombed so badly), is she doesn't think so. She tells you you've been doing just fine...and if not she can "reform it" and that really feels good, no change necessary.
September 17, 2008

2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Citizen21 writes:

wendy027: Thank you for your factual commentary.

Jay: Obama is far left. What little voting record he has does support that. And, have you read his books - he's practically a socialist. I beleive in good ole' capitalism - where one is free to succeed or fail. Yes, as Americans we are free to fail too.

And for all those name callers - Just because someone is not supportive of Obama/Biden does not make them a liar or ignorant. Obama is left and want to tax to pay for inefficent welfare programs. Biden is represenative of "Old School" washington - definately not change.
September 17, 2008

2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Citizen21 writes:

The economy is cyclical. Are we so shortsighted that we can't see if the election was held a year ago, the Bush administration would be heralded for the robust economy? After record high employment, low unemployment and the DOW hitting a record high in 2007, the economy is now slowing. It happens. It will go back up, provided we are not over taxed to bailout individuals and companies who made poor decisions.

-- Just last October (2007), the Dow hit a record high 14280 points
-- March 2007: 4.4 unemployment rate "There's now very strong growth in the labor force, as strong as it's been since the turn of the decade," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "Wages are rising and people are starting to recognize that this is the best time to be looking for a job since 2000."
-- September 2007: Unemployment Rate Remains Low At 4.6 Percent -- The Bureau Of Labor Statistics Released New Jobs Figures. Nonfarm payroll employment edged down in August by 4,000 jobs, meaning our economy created 1.6 million jobs in prior 12 months, and 8.22 million since August 2003 when the labor market began its turnaround. Private employment increased by 24,000 jobs in August 2007, marking the 48th consecutive month of private job growth. The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 4.6 percent, below the average of each of the past four decades.
--Foreclosures – if you bought a house you could not afford, or if you pulled out an equity loan worth more than your house, or if you put ZERO (0) down with an ARM and now can’t make payments – THAT is on you. You signed the papers. Take accountability. As far as housing values falling, they need to. Many areas went up a ridiculous 10% or more in less than a year. This out priced many lower to middle income persons.

Regulation -- In 2003, Bush proposed overhaul in the housing finance industry. The Democrats blocked it. A new agency was proposed to have the authority, instead of Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would have been able to exercise authority to determine whether the two were adequately managing the risks of ballooning portfolios. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-which had issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt at the time-was broken.

WHAT DID THE DEMOCRATS SAY?
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina,''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
September 17, 2008

3:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

kevin67898 writes:

I will answer this post since some Obama supporters are too lazy or stupid to actually post original content. Twice its has been posted here by different users as though it was something special and thier own. And to think that I thought Joe Biden was the only plagiarist in the Obama camp.

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic,
different.'
---Yes, if your mother has communist beliefs and your father is a Kenyan mystery. Later his mother marries another man and moves to Indonesia and regristers your religion as a Musilm although you say your a Christian.Dueling Religions? Nothing damming but...yes exotic
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.
---Quintessentially American Western exotic

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
No, but the fact that he hides it and there are various sects in it that do trouble most Americans is problematic. The gaffe about the 57 states, which happens to be the same number as the Islamist states in the world and the prayer he recited in Arabic to a NYT reporter.'My Musilm faith,'a Fruedian slip? Should I go into Bill Ayers, the terrorist, and the Wood's Foundation....you know...you just don't care if your voting him.
* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
---Maverick names just like Barack...or is it Barry. I see no point to all this but I'll continue to play along.

* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
---Amirable, Gov. Palin couldn't get funding like Obama and had to work her way through school. Where did he get his funding and why doesn't this great man release his college transcripts before law school. I like to see his grades and interests at Occidental College.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
---Not grounded, starving is a better discription

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
---You mean Acorn community agitator and vote getter for Mayor Daley's corrupt Chicago poltical machine. You mean he signed some bills. The ones he did do by myself got canned or did every little for anybody.Too busy writing memiors and mugging for Ophra I guess. I would list McCain's resume but I would get carpal tunnel.

Continued 3000 character limit
September 17, 2008

3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

kevin67898 writes:

* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.
---Harry Truman sold men suits before VP, got some on the job training dropped the bomb and turned out all right. The problem is, as Biden said there is no time for on the job training for---dare I say it---President Obama. And if he won't admit the surged worked, he's probably too stupid or too full of himself to ask for training.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
---A great church, I can hear the chorus, "GOD BLESS AMERICA...NO...GOD DAM AMERICA!"

Continued 3000 character limit

* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.
---He, also disfigured, took full responibity for the divorce and is still good friends with X-wife.To be Christan---which I am not---is to forgive. Which to me sounds Ok, even if it is a personnel matter between husband and wife and isn't anyone's business.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
---Yes, If you teach it to K-12, the latter years doesn't bother me. But the bill included the teaching of todders about HIV and STDs. How you figure they'll explain something like that.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.
---What's that saying??? The sins of the parents should not be bestowed upon the children and vice versa...something like that. Again, nobodys business but their own.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate laywer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
-----A wife who's only proud of her county when her husand is on top of the polls. Where was Michelle at the 9/11 tribute? Oh yeah, the kid's first day of school. Do I need to tell you to take a look at her college thesis.
September 17, 2008

3:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

kevin67898 writes:

And Finally...

* If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
---I was a memeber of the Conch Republic of Key West when I got out of grad school. Does this mean I am traitor too. All I wanted was free booze and female company. Honest. I wasn't gonna take up arms against this country. Yes admirable, because the angry, dumb left have attacked them like parahas and the family has exposed the vocal,petty cowardness of liberals.

The sadest part of all this, is your comparing, for the most part, the bottom of the Republican ticket to the top of yours. And they say only pictures speak a thousand words.
September 17, 2008

4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Obama is far left"

citizen21, i always have the same question for folks who make this kind of remark.

can you point me to which of obama's policy stances you believe to be "far left"?
September 17, 2008

5:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Flatiron writes:

The melt down of Wallstreet is leaving McCain twisting in the wind. From saying the fundamentals of the economy are sound to calling for a commission to study the problem....hum....and today: the government was forced to nationalize AIG ...He sounds like a real decisive and fearless leader.

As for transparency and clarity on the ticket Palin is stonewalling the investigation she claimed she would cooperate with (so inconvenient right now) taking a page out of the Bush Administration playbook just like Rove, Meyers, Libby, and the rest of her political bed-fellows.
September 17, 2008

7:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

commoncents writes:

I always thought Hillary would be too polarizing if on the ticket. Palin is more than what I imagined with Hillary. But ultimately it is obvious that many people out there were waiting for one more reason to try and tear down Obama. To even compare him to her real record, not the propped up one she was introduced to America with, is an insult.
September 17, 2008

8:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jill_W writes:

I wonder how insulted the American people will feel when they realize the emperor has no clothes. Obama on softball follow up questions....HuH...AHH..Huh. Mumblin, stunblin to encircled emptiness.
September 17, 2008

9:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

commoncents writes:

At least when he says something it is based in truth and not a bunch of prefabricated lies. I will take the hesitance in speaking over the out and out lying of the past few years we have had to live through. Blurting out the first thing that comes to mind has gotten us very little except some good punch lines for jokes around the world.
September 17, 2008

10:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

jay,

You are an idiot.

How many times have you regurgitated the misleading "McCain has sided 90% of the time with Bush"?

And at the same time claim ignorance of any knowledge of Obama's voting record of 98 % consistency to the left.

Votes are of public record, and to ignorantly insinuate BO has not taken far left stances, and then conveinently flip flopped to appear more centrist after being handed the Dem nomination, is comical at best.

Here are many, but admittingly an incomplete list, of inconvenient reminders of what your boy really means by "change".

CHANGE #1: Despite Pledging To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq Immediately, Barack Obama Now Says He Would "Refine" His Policy After Listening To The Commanders On The Ground
CHANGE #2: Despite Pledging To Accept Public Financing, Barack Obama Has Reversed His Position And Opted Out Of The System
CHANGE #3: Barack Obama Is Backtracking On His Support For Unilaterally Renegotiating NAFTA
CHANGE #4: Barack Obama Is Considering Reducing Corporate Taxes Despite Having Called Corporate Tax Cuts "The Exact Wrong Prescription For America"
CHANGE #5: Barack Obama Has Changed Positions On The D.C. Handgun Ban
CHANGE #6: Barack Obama Has Shifted From Opposing Welfare Reform To Celebrating Welfare Reform In A Television Ad
CHANGE #7: As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Criticizes The Administration's Energy Policy Despite Having Voted For The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill
CHANGE #8: Barack Obama Has Shifted Positions On Nuclear Power
CHANGE #9: Obama Adviser Said Obama Was Not Opposed To An Individual Health Care Mandate Despite His Opposition During The Primary
CHANGE #10: During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Filibuster Any Bill Which Contained Immunity For Telecommunications Companies Involved In Electronic Surveillance, But Now Backs A Compromise Bill
CHANGE #11: Barack Obama Disagreed With The Supreme Court Decision Striking Down The Use Of The Death Penalty For A Convicted Child Rapist Although In The Past He Opposed The Death Penalty
CHANGE #12: Barack Obama Has Backtracked From His Earlier Commitment To Meet With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror "Without Precondition"
September 17, 2008

10:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Obama's and jay's "change" continued-

CHANGE #13: After Saying Jerusalem Should Be "Undivided," Barack Obama Has Since Backtracked
CHANGE #14: As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Has Backed Away From His Earlier Support For Normalized Relations With Cuba And Ending The Embargo
CHANGE #15: Barack Obama Is Against The California Ballot Measure Banning Gay Marriage Despite His Assertion That Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman
CHANGE #16: Barack Obama Says That "Mental Distress" Should Not Be Reason For A Late Term Abortion Which Contradicts His Past Extreme Pro-Abortion Views
CHANGE #17: Barack Obama Said He Would Debate "Anywhere, Anytime" But Has Rejected Joint Town Hall Meetings
Change #18: Barack Obama decides to tap the strategic oil reserve.
Change #19: Obama now says he's "open" to oil drilling.
Change #20: Obama flip flops in the same sentence in response to a seven year old girl's question about why he wants to be president.
Change #21: Obama doesn't know correct stance on Georgia.
Change #22: Obama insists he voted for protecting infants who survive abortion.
Change #23: Obama said, at the Saddleback forum that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman.
Change #24: Iraq political stabilization
Change #25: Obama was friends with domestic terrorist William Ayers and then "denounced" him.
Change #26: On the value of experience to be President.
Change # 27: Obama now considers the surge a success.

See all quotes, videos and links here-
http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.ph...

What happened jay?

Why cant you admit, when scrutinized, THE ONE has thrown you under the bus, just like he will America if elected by useful idiots such as yourself?
September 17, 2008

11:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jill_W writes:

<At least when he says something it is based in truth and not a bunch of prefabricated lies. I will take the hesitance in speaking over the out and out lying of the past few years we have had to live through. Blurting out the first thing that comes to mind has gotten us very little except some good punch lines for jokes around the world.>

That's the problem. I never voted for Bush. Bush will be in Crawford on 1/20/09, hopefuly with Obama continuing his campaign there. I am not about to sit this one out and let this country go further down the rabbit hole on hope and change with bad economics as hidden details. Raising taxes (on whoever) that will slow the economy further not providing enough gov't revenue to cover his huge social welfare programs, will be put back into soup kitchens. Bush failed because his tax cuts had no spending reductions in them (McCain voted against). Obama's ideas are more in line with Jimmy Carter then Bill Clintion. That Jimmy Carter worked out well too.
September 19, 2008

10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

Littwin marshalls his words far better than I. "Phenom" is good description: The "Phenom" is now calling her candidacy: Palin/McCain. She is such a liar in claiming she scuttled the bridge to nowhere but kept the money. I don't care if she gave birth to her first at age 17 without benefit of clergy; clergy is an evil and wicked administration like "Palin/McCain; some of my kids were born without benefit of clergy. I care about Palin's participation in Alaska seceding from the Union in concert with hubby and her pastor who says, "I hate America." I care about a pork queen robbing the national treasury and wanting to be President.

Home › News › News Columns & Blogs

LITTWIN: Palin as phenom: It's a mystery

By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 16, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Related Stories

More News Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs