In 72 hours, the media has subjected Bristol Palin to more scrutiny than they've given to Barack Obama in two years.
Perhaps that's a mild exaggeration. But pretty darn mild.
I'm sure "60 Minutes" and CNN are working hard on that Ayers-Obama investigation as I write this.
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
PhantomPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:56 pm
Less than a month ago, the Public Editor of the New York Times, Clark Hoyt, addressed his paper's failure to cover the John Edwards "love child" story until after Edwards' interview with ABC News, in which he confessed to the Rielle Hunter affair. Hoyt explained that this kind of story just isn't up the Times' alley:
I do not think liberal bias had anything to do with it. But I think The Times — like The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, major networks and wire services — was far too squeamish about tackling the story. ...
It is ... the kind of story that The Times seems instinctively to recoil from, just as it ignored such stories in its own backyard as A-Rod and Madonna and Christie Brinkley’s ugly divorce, and played down the “love child” scandal involving New York City’s only Republican congressman, Vito Fossella, earlier this year. ...
Edwards-Hunter was “classically not a Times-like story,” said Craig Whitney, the standards editor.
That's not all: the Times has limited resources to cover the Presidential campaign, and it has to devote itself to the stories that are really important:
“Edwards isn’t a player at the moment,” said Richard Stevenson, who directs the newspaper’s campaign coverage. “There are a lot of big issues facing the country. The two candidates are compelling figures, and we have finite resources.” He said he agreed that Edwards was “fair game for journalism of this sort, but this hasn’t seemed to me to be a high priority for us at this moment.”
Today, the Times has three front-page stories about Bristol Palin. It's nice to see that they've gotten over that squeamish feeling. Seems like we've learned something about their priorities, too.
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
DocTarPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:33 pm
I have seen more hatred spewed discussing politics than any other topic on this board.
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 1936
Location: one toke over the line
PerryPeabodyPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:39 pm
DocTar wrote:
I have seen more hatred spewed discussing politics than any other topic on this board.
As have I--each thread begun by one of the same five people. Over and over and over and over.
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 1093
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:48 pm
Wasn't there a song like that? Over and over and over again. Nevermind, it is late, and I am one drink over the line, but that's OK, it is a beautiful evening here. Have a good one, everyone.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6605
Location: France
PhantomPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:52 pm
Side by side comparision, Palin vs Obama
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
Need2KnowPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:55 pm
DocTar wrote:
I have seen more hatred spewed discussing politics than any other topic on this board.
Hatred towards who? It can get lively, but I see no hate towards any poster in here.
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8941
paxPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:04 pm
PerryPeabody wrote:
As have I--each thread begun by one of the same five people. Over and over and over and over.
Same here, and I'm one of the five.
Do you have any suggestions for improvement?
Anyone?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16089
Location: Wish You Were Here
DocTarPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:11 pm
Need2Know wrote:
Hatred towards who? It can get lively, but I see no hate towards any poster in here.
I didn't say that, doofus.
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 1936
Location: one toke over the line
PerryPeabodyPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:18 pm
pax wrote:
Same here, and I'm one of the five.
Do you have any suggestions for improvement?
Anyone?
No you're not, pax.
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 1093
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:18 pm
pax wrote:
Same here, and I'm one of the five.
Do you have any suggestions for improvement?
Anyone?
I think, Pax, that your thread citing the sites where issues are discussed is great. We need discussion, not mocking graphics.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6605
Location: France
Need2KnowPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:20 pm
DocTar wrote:
I didn't say that, doofus.
Doofus, Oh NO you didn't
Who knows what you mean when you say what you say Clarity goes a long way, try it sometime.
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8941
PhantomPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Well, I find it kind of difficult to have a civilized discussion when all you get in return is, that's a POS" or "this is a POS" I think you get the idea.
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
dithersPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:29 pm
I don't think any of us has anything to apologize for. Compared to other vicious and vile things I've seen people post elsewhere online, I'd say we're all pretty civilized in our debates. Not much worse than many "discussions" we've had standing around the island in the kitchen when family from liberal California visits. Political discussions by their very nature are volatile. We may argue but at the end of many days we all kiss and make up.
There may be five who are guilty of overposting (I'm sure I'm among them) but I don't see the complaining party contributing much other than to diss us.
But fine then. I'll opt out. Hope the resulting non-discussion is fun to those who find a good heated debate to be offensive.
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
billybobPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:34 pm
dithers wrote:
I don't think any of us has anything to apologize for. Compared to other vicious and vile things I've seen people post elsewhere online, I'd say we're all pretty civilized in our debates. Not much worse than many "discussions" we've had standing around the island in the kitchen when family from liberal California visits. Political discussions by their very nature are volatile. We may argue but at the end of many days we all kiss and make up.
There may be five who are guilty of overposting (I'm sure I'm among them) but I don't see the complaining party contributing much other than to diss us.
But fine then. I'll opt out. Hope the resulting non-discussion is fun to those who find a good heated debate to be offensive.
Dithers I do not see how you can possibly think that you are in any way overposting. I see you as one that is actually posting and discussing and even if I did not agree with your political views I would still say this.
You are not posting about 100 posts and threads in a 24 hour period overwhelming the board. You are finding posts that actually interest you and logically debating them in your own words, and doing a fine job. Please don't stop - you have about 70 days to go then you can take a break!
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 2608
DocTarPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:41 pm
DocTar wrote:
I have seen more hatred spewed discussing politics than any other topic on this board.
OK, Mr.N2K, my friend,( but doofus, too), you quoted me and said you did not see hatred towards other posters. And I said I did not say that, and I did not say that! The hatred I have seen spewn here is towards the candidates, their parties, and their ideology. OK?
Some posters are more cut throat than others, and some are rude, IMO, and some would not admit they might be wrong if they were offered money. I have only been passionate about a candidate once in my entire life, and it ain't now.
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 1936
Location: one toke over the line
PhantomPosted:
Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:16 pm
McCain VP Pick Exposes Dems As Elitist
When John McCain named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, as his vice presidential running mate, I was sitting at the bar of New York City's oldest saloon, Pete's Tavern, watching the event with my 81-year-old father and four of his long-time friends.
The initial reaction of these retired city cops and longshoremen to Mrs. Palin was positive. A gun-toting beauty queen, mother of five, married to a blue-collar union member and small business entrepreneur, who by hard work and a touch of audacity beat a corrupt political establishment - what's not to like? They'd all be proud to have a granddaughter with half of these achievements.
While the octogenarians were nodding approval, I heard snickers from the white-collar lunch time crowd. One woman said, "A mother of five? Guess there's nothing else to do in Alaska besides making babies." There were other snide comments about her hairstyle, eyeglass frames and her lifelong membership in the NRA.
The loudest snicker in the aftermath of the McCain-Palin rally came from the Obama camp. Spokesman Bill Burton, delivering the immediate official Obama reaction said, "Today John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency."
I was not surprised by the remark, after all, Mr. Burton was in sync with his candidate, Barack Obama, who, during the primary season, complained that small town Americans were bitter folks driven to guns and religion.
Mr. Obama and his inner circle are prone to these gaffes because they suffer from the same infection that has plagued their party for half a century - elitism.
The Democratic Party that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s was dominated by social engineers who embraced Adlai Stevenson because he was, in Michael Barone's judgment, "the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class culture - the prototype of the liberal democrat who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting." Stevenson's cultural elitism and contempt for the blue-collar worker engendered a new generation of politicians whose roots were grounded not in the "fragmented local politics, which Franklin Roosevelt and his contemporaries had grown up with, but instead in the "centralized national politics which had grown up with the large central government produced by Roosevelt's New Deal and wartime politics."
Blue-collar workers, mostly Catholics, fled the party in droves because, as Mario Cuomo put it, they "felt alienated by a new Democratic Party which [they] thought neither understood nor related to [them]."
The new generation of Democratic elites may underestimate the power Gov. Sarah Palin brings to the Republic ticket - particularly among blue-collar pro-life Catholics in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio and pro-gun folks in the western states.
One person who grasps the significance of the Palin candidacy is the last woman nominated for vice president, Democrat Geraldine Ferraro.
The daughter of immigrant blue-collar parents, Ms. Ferraro was born in the small town of Newburgh, N.Y., moved to a Bronx neighborhood at age eight after her father died, and worked her way through college and law school. When nominated for vice president she was 48 years old, the mother of three and was married 24 years.
Like Sarah Palin, Ms. Ferraro is a product of a parochial upbringing.
Was Ms. Ferraro's political resume a little thin when she became the Democratic nominee? Yes. Previously, she worked for her cousin, Queens County District Attorney Nick Ferraro, as an Assistant D.A. and served only three terms in Congress representing "Archie Bunker" neighborhoods.
This modest background did not stop Walter Mondale from praising Ms. Ferraro as being highly qualified. In fact, he boasted that "she had a strong family life, deep religious convictions and working Americans of average income will find her a vice president who knows them and will fight for them.
And it didn't stop the editors of the New York Times from making this pronouncement:
"Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become president? ... Or where is it written that mere representatives aren't qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens? ... Where is it written that governors and mayors, like Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco, are too local, too provincial?... Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy. ... On occasion, Americans find it necessary to rationalize this rough-and-ready process. What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. This rationale may even be right, but then let it also be fair. Why shouldn't a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow? We may even be gradually elevating our standards for choosing vice presidential candidates. But that should be done fairly, also. Meanwhile, the indispensable credential for a Woman Who is the same as for a Man Who - one who helps the ticket."
This is one time I side with the Times.
There is, however, one big difference: Mrs. Palin is pro-life while Ms. Ferraro is pro-choice. (In 1984, she said, "I don't believe in abortion, but I can't impose my belief.") Yet, Ms. Ferraro, in a New York Post interview, not only brushed off the claim that Palin was unqualified, but "reject[ed] the idea that all the so-called Hillary voters would be repelled by Mrs. Palin's staunch anti-abortion views. These voters know the Senate will have a veto-proof Democratic majority, so that lessens the potency of that issue."
During the remainder of the campaign, Mr. Obama must be vigilant that neither he, his loquacious running mate Joe Biden, or his arrogant handlers make condescending remarks about Mrs. Palin's abilities. An off-comment can easily backfire and shine the spotlight on Mr. Obama's scant qualifications and experience to hold the nation's highest elective office.
I have no doubts Sarah Palin is up to the job of vice president. When State Sen. Obama was, only few years ago, sheepishly dodging sensitive votes in the Illinois State Legislature to avoid political setbacks, Sarah Palin, unconcerned with the political fall out, was fearlessly taking down Alaska's corrupt Republican establishment and Big Oil. And when Mr. Obama was sitting around the fashionable Hyde Park section of Chicago, philosophizing with the 1970s underground Weather terrorist, William Ayers, Mrs. Palin was in the rough Alaskan outdoors working with her hands, hunting bear and fishing salmon to feed her family.
Mrs. Palin will succeed because unlike the vainglorious Mr. Obama, she has true grit.
Average Americans will realize, just as my father and his buddies did at Pete's Tavern, that Mrs. Palin is that rarity in politics - a real person, just like us. John McCain has hit a home run with his surprising selection of a representative of the silent majority, Sarah Palin.
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
PhantomPosted:
Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:43 am
Smackdown of MSNBC by Newt
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
PhantomPosted:
Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:06 am
The Case Against the Case Against Palin
A very good friend, who is a lifelong Alaskan and one of the smartest people I know, offers this word of caution to those (yes, like me) inclined to take Sarah Palin lightly:
At the end of 2005, a close friend called to say that he begun writing speeches and talking points for a certain gubernatorial candidate.
"Remind me," I asked. "Who is Sarah Palin?"
I was dismayed at my friend’s choice of political entree. Why was he wasting his time on a relative nobody, trying to beat an incumbent governor (and former three term senator) in the Republican primary? It was utter folly. "Wait until the big money starts coming in for Murkowski," I said. "Wait until the party machinery goes to work on Palin. They will eat her for lunch."
Murkowski, for his part, expressed a similar view. "If I decide to," he said, "I will run and I will win. It's that simple."
The folly, of course, turned out to be my own (and Murkowski's), as Palin slaughtered the incumbent in the primary--posting a 30 point margin of victory--and went on to win the general (over a former Democratic governor) without seeming to break a sweat. She then quickly fulfilled an implicit campaign promise by slapping down ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips in negotiations over a proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline, even though they, too, by all accounts, were well prepared to dine on her tender little frame. Not bad for a lightweight.
Listening to the Democratic leadership respond to John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, one hears echoes of the Alaska Republican leadership from just a few years ago. Barack Obama’s spokesman, Bill Burton, put it this way: "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." Former mayor? If you're going to skip over her job as governor and, before that, her job heading the commission that oversees production of the largest petroleum reserves in America, why not "former high school student"? Bah, what does it matter: She's just a small town mayor, just a hockey mom, just a beauty pageant queen. Palin has never shunned these belittling monikers, in part, I imagine, because the camouflage has served her so well. Soothed by the litany, her opponents tend to sleep too late, sneer too much, and forget who it is that hires them.
Watching Palin operate over the past few years has been like witnessing a dramatic reading of All the King’s Men. In 2002, Murkowski had interviewed but passed over Palin in selecting a replacement for the senate seat he vacated to become governor. In a grand act of nepotism, he chose his own daughter instead. Palin was tossed a bone: She chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which oversees the production of petroleum in Alaska. When she reported conflicts of interest and other ethical violations by another commissioner, she was ignored by Murkowski’s chief of staff and ultimately resigned in frustration. One can imagine how the quick double dose of corruption--insiders having their way with the polity and its resources--sickened the young Palin. It also fired a savage competitiveness that is not, perhaps, apparent at first glance.
What the Republicans missed about Sarah Palin then--and what the Democrats seem poised to miss now--is that she is a true political savant; a candidate with a knack for identifying the key gripes of the populace and packaging herself as the solution. That keen political nose has enabled her to routinely outperform her resume. Nearly two years into her administration, she still racks up approval ratings of 80 per cent or better.
One might reasonably ask to what extent her local popularity is buoyed by the high price of oil (and thus, a budget surplus, and thus, the ability to carry a stick into meetings with big oil). One might speculate about the durability of her anti-corruption stance in light of her conflict of interest in the dismissal of her director of public safety. And only the truly feckless would not concern themselves about her dearth of foreign policy experience. But in probing this candidate, it would behoove the Democrats and the pundits to shed the notion that they are dealing with some dimwitted bumpkin (Dan Quayle seems to come up a lot lately) who’s going to start crying when they ask her to name the president of Azerbaijan; or that Palin is the townie who was brought into the Skull & Bones initiation night for the amusement of all; or that somehow the prom queen ballots got mixed up with the Alaska gubernatorial poll. Trivialize her at your own peril.
Sarah Palin is a living reminder that the ultimate source of political power in this country is not the Kennedy School or the Davos Summit or an Ariana Huffington salon; even now, power emanates from the electorate itself. More precisely, power in 2008 emanates from the working class electorates of Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Sooner or later, the Obama camp will realize that the beauty pageant queen is an enormously talented populist in a year that is ripe for populism. For their own sake, it had better be sooner.
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
yankee-in-francePosted:
Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:03 am
dithers wrote:
I don't think any of us has anything to apologize for. Compared to other vicious and vile things I've seen people post elsewhere online, I'd say we're all pretty civilized in our debates. Not much worse than many "discussions" we've had standing around the island in the kitchen when family from liberal California visits. Political discussions by their very nature are volatile. We may argue but at the end of many days we all kiss and make up.
There may be five who are guilty of overposting (I'm sure I'm among them) but I don't see the complaining party contributing much other than to diss us.
But fine then. I'll opt out. Hope the resulting non-discussion is fun to those who find a good heated debate to be offensive.
Why opt out? There is no rule at RU on the number of posts a poster can make. I may not often agree with you, Dithers, but if some posters don't want to post here, they don't have to, but it doesn't mean because one remark is made that you have to stop posting.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6605
Location: France
apodixisPosted:
Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:31 am
“Is it over for McCain ?”
Right wing talk radio host Micheal Savage condemns Palin choice as Veep.
Can a pol from the boonies handle the job of leader of the free world ?
The Republicans are in trouble when the best speech at their convention is by a registered Democrat
Excerpts from Sen. Lieberman’s Tuesday night speech:
Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record — not in these tough times.
In the Senate he has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party.
Contrast that to John McCain's record, or the record of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who stood up to some of those same Democratic interest groups and worked with Republicans to get important things done like welfare reform, free-trade agreements, and a balanced budget.
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3233
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
dithersPosted:
Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:33 am
yankee-in-france wrote:
Why opt out? There is no rule at RU on the number of posts a poster can make. I may not often agree with you, Dithers, but if some posters don't want to post here, they don't have to, but it doesn't mean because one remark is made that you have to stop posting.
Frankly, I don't think the Dems deserve to have a debate with me any longer.
The unwarranted attacks on this woman's young teenage daughter who is going through a very trying personal trial are breathtaking to say the very least. It is totally repulsive and revolting -- with even the MSM news babes sitting on air sanctimoniously passing judgment and clucking about it like a bunch of old biddie crones gossiping over the backyard fence. And others, like Juan Williams, practically sniffing smoke from his nostrils over the outrage of this young woman's pregnancy. GMAFB! (And that's not even touching on the disgusting frenzy over when Sarah Palin might or might not have been leaking amniotic fluid, etc! Good grief! Is this how far political discourse has fallen in this country?!?!) I am so ashamed of my fellow Americans who are spouting this stuff that I can barely see straight.
The one thing I have discovered in this (although it had been made pretty clear already during the Clinton days) is that not only is the feminist movement dead - it never existed and was a crock all along. What a sobering awakening. Where is Hillary? Where is Chelsea? Why aren't they denouncing this attack on this young woman? Are we that far gone that we accept this simply because it's being done to someone who's comes from the other side of the political aisle?
I'm done wasting my time debating with people who would throw a young woman to the sharks in order for power and political gain. There is no excuse, no argument, no scenario, no crying the blues, nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada that you can throw back at me that can in any way, shape or form excuse this outrage. Shame, shame and triple shame on anyone who accepts this or takes part in it.
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
PhantomPosted:
Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:44 am
dithers wrote:
Frankly, I don't think the Dems deserve to have a debate with me any longer.
The unwarranted attacks on this woman's young teenage daughter who is going through a very trying personal trial are breathtaking to say the very least. It is totally repulsive and revolting -- with even the MSM news babes sitting on air sanctimoniously passing judgment and clucking about it like a bunch of old biddie crones gossiping over the backyard fence. And others, like Juan Williams, practically sniffing smoke from his nostrils over the outrage of this young woman's pregnancy. GMAFB! (And that's not even touching on the disgusting frenzy over when Sarah Palin might or might not have been leaking amniotic fluid, etc! Good grief! Is this how far political discourse has fallen in this country?!?!) I am so ashamed of my fellow Americans who are spouting this stuff that I can barely see straight.
The one thing I have discovered in this (although it had been made pretty clear already during the Clinton days) is that not only is the feminist movement dead - it never existed and was a crock all along. What a sobering awakening. Where is Hillary? Where is Chelsea? Why aren't they denouncing this attack on this young woman? Are we that far gone that we accept this simply because it's being done to someone who's comes from the other side of the political aisle?
I'm done wasting my time debating with people who would throw a young woman to the sharks in order for power and political gain. There is no excuse, no argument, no scenario, no crying the blues, nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada that you can throw back at me that can in any way, shape or form excuse this outrage. Shame, shame and triple shame on anyone who accepts this or takes part in it.
BRAVO DITHERS! BRAVO!
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
apodixisPosted:
Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:47 am
dithers wrote:
The unwarranted attacks on this woman's young teenage daughter who is going through a very trying personal trial are breathtaking to say the very least. It is totally repulsive and revolting --
The incident raises a legitimate political discussion issue over whether the Republican social conservatives are in error over their moralistic condemnation of sex before marriage; and opposition to sex education in schools.
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3233
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
billybobPosted:
Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:51 am
I agree Dithers, I have never ever been so ashamed of the Americans that apparently support this sort of attack. This is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen and I have seen a lot in the many years I have focused on politics.
Every single Democratic leader in the party should be on every network denouncing this attack - most especially Hillary.
I absolutely do not agree with Sarah Palin on every issue, nor did I agree with Hillary but damn it I support the females that are willing to throw themselves into this insanity known as politics.
And of course the left wing has only gotten worse with the attacks by today releasing Sarah's social security number - my God people, how can you be a party to this kind of personal smear?
I personally do not know why anyone would ever want to run for an office today - which is probably why we end up with some of the questionable candidates we do - all the truly honest admirable ones would have more sense than to throw themselves into the Lion's Den!
But then one truly honest woman finally comes along ready willing and able to serve her country and she gets slaughtered by the Left Wing Lunatics that still seem to control the Democratic party.
How pathetic - I could never ever support anyone that is party to this sort of despicable behavior. Dems you should be ashamed of yourself!
The only thing that should be on the table for discussion should be the ISSUES - not ones personal life.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
but that's OK, it is a beautiful evening here. Have a good one, everyone.
Clarity goes a long way, try it sometime. 
