Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditST. PAUL – Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will on Wednesday night deliver the most anticipated address to a national party convention in decades.
And Mary Buestrin can't wait.
"Our people are pumped," says the Republican National Committeewoman from Wisconsin, the state that former White House political czar Karl Rove this week described to delegates as the most evenly divided along lines of red and blue in the country. "This is Sarah Palin's introduction to America. If she gets it right, and I think she will, her speech will give Republicans the boost we need to win this election. This is such a big deal"
Buestin is right about Palin's speech being a big deal.
In America's rigidly choreographed politics, it is rare indeed that an individual leaps from obscurity to a primetime speaking slot at a national political party convention. And it is rarer still that the individual is put in a position to make or break a presidential campaign.
But that's the position into which Palin, who most Americans had not heard of a week ago, and whose name is still being mispronounced by top McCain aides, has been thrust.
Never before has the address of a vice-presidential pick mattered so much – not merely to the party faithful who will enthusiastically nominate a governor who speaks their social-conservative language but to the broader contest that will begin Friday morning.
If Palin delivers a brilliant speech, the sort that electrifies the convention and draws praise even from cynical pundits, she will be the fresh face of a Republican party that, after eight years of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay, needs nothing so much as an image makeover.
If the governor stumbles, even if she simply gives an O.K. address to delegates who do their best to cheer her on, Palin will open up a long and potentially disqualifying discussion about the judgment of the man who selected her as his running-mate: presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
McCain's selection of Palin has electrified grassroots Republicans, especially social conservatives who share the hard-line anti-abortion rights, anti-gay rights, anti-stem cell research, anti-immigration stances taken by their presumptive vice-presidential nominee. Party activists who were skeptical about McCain – a man whose deviations from Republican orthodoxy had inspired distrust and disenchantment among the faithful -- are flooding party phone-banks with offers to volunteer for the campaign, giving money at unprecedented rates, showing up at rallies in numbers that rival those of events for Democratic nominees Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and generally breathing life into a Grand Old Party that until last week was looking old and bitter.
Mary Verich, a Republican volunteer sporting a big "I Vote Pro-Life" pin, bluntly declared that Palin had renewed her party.
"I'll be honest with you: I wasn't energized until he picked her," said Verich. "Now, I'm ready to get out and work for the ticket. That's how important she is."
Statements like that of Verich are typical on the floor of the Xcel Center where, in almost every sense, this has become Sarah Palin's convention – not John McCain's.
Don't get these Republicans wrong. They were going to try and elect McCain, if only because to prevent Barack Obama from occupying the Oval Office. But McCain, whose maverick" reputation was earned by breaking with GOP orthodoxy on issues ranging from immigration to gay rights to taxes, was never a favorite of the faithful.
Palin closed the enthusiasm gap.
"We needed a push. And, oh my gosh, did we ever get it," says Buestrin, a key player in national Republican politics for many years, who huddled with Rove Tuesday morning to discuss electoral strategies for fall contests in Midwestern battleground states that she now thinks are "winnable."
"It's mind-boggling what Sarah Palin has done for the party," says the woman who was in charge of the logistics for this year's convention. "Now, she just has to give a great speech."
Will Palin do it?
Alaskan delegates were confident.
"She's actually a great public speaker, and she's a great debater – Joe Biden should be scared," says Pat Fink, a delegate from Fairbanks. "I don't know who all will contribute to it, who all the speechwriters will be. But I know she will deliver it well. She always does."
Gene Brokaw, a delegate from Anchorage, who like Fink was wearing a white hard hat with a map of Alaska and the words "Drill Here!" printed on it, chimed in. "The country doesn't know Sarah Palin yet. But they will after tonight. Sarah Palin's going to be star of this convention."
That's no understatement. Palin is already the rock star of this convention -- at least for the delegates, alternates and acolytes gathered inside the hall. And, beyond the hall, she is the only story of this convention.
For the first time in history, the biggest speech of a national party conclave is not coming on the last night when the presidential candidate takes the podium.
It is coming on the night when the vice-presidential candidate, a woman far more in tune with the party base than the presidential nominee, will speak to her frenzied followers and to a nation that tonight begins the process of deciding whether it wants to place the favorite contender of the most conservative Republicans ever to gather in convention one heartbeat away from the presidency.
Share this article
News & Analysis »
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on the political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
trot out a VP candidate who promptly sucks up all the oxygen in the room, the entire hullabaloo rendering the pres candidate invisible.
a candidate under ethics investigation? just a brilliant move.
and the spectacle of the pregnant teen, which would have brought fire and brimstone from the fundy taleban, being peddled as a badge of honor, THAT would have made Lewis Carroll proud.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/03/2008 @ 09:47am
Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought -- So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy.
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/03/2008 @ 09:53am
The modern left did not become instantly energized by Obama and they waited until they got to know him better before becoming energized by him.The modern right,on the other hand,became instantly energized by a VP choice that the vast majority have never even heard of and know nothing about.It's obvious that most still know little about her and,yet,are energized.Of course,the only ones who have been energized are those who were going to vote for McCain anyway,but,now,they will vote with enthusiasm.I've,also,noticed that the modern left disagrees with one another,but the modern right pretty much all sound like Rush and have no thoughts of their own.The modern right,back in 1999,trashed the war hero,McCain,and went with the one who refused to fight and the war hero,McCain,isn't the one who energized them,now.Someone that most never heard of energized them.Those are some of the reasons that I identify with the left even though I have a fair number of conservative views.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 09:55am
Speaking of "McCain as a spectator"...
pay close attention to Maverick's EYES in this video-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qUVQDmLf7s
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 09:57am
for any scandalmongers:
http://cajunboy.tumblr.com/
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 10:04am
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 09:57am
Mask, That was a riot!!! I think McCain was admiring her "qualifications" up close and personal like. LOL
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 10:08am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 10:08am
They can't deny it. He's not that much taller than Palin, so it's not like he's "looking down at her face".
He's DEFINITELY staring at her breasts.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 10:11am
"Give it up dems."
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 10:07am
That speaks volumes. I believe FG has left the party.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/03/2008 @ 10:11am
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 10:07am
Again, unless you fear "Ultimate Sanction" (aka FRANK putting you on Ignore, or claiming to)...
somebody ask FG "Who after 4 years as Vice-President, would be more qualified to become President in 2012...Palin or Hillary?"
After he has a conniption...he'll try to split a VERY fine hair!
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 10:13am
Frank, in all seriousness, what is it that makes you a Hillary supporter?
Cheers
Posted by BlueSpark at 09/03/2008 @ 10:17am
That speaks volumes. I believe FG has left the party.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/03/2008 @ 10:11am
I think he's left the planet never to return.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 10:22am
John Rambo and Annie Oakley are coming. Ther's going to be a new sheriff and deputy in town and they are going to clean out that pig's trough with all that pork.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 10:07am
holy fuck, frank.
that's the stupidest, most idiotic nonsense you've ever written.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 10:25am
I believe FG has left the party.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/03/2008 @ 10:11am
frankgrunts has left the galaxy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 10:26am
He drank a little two much beer....and then went for a little drive.
Frank, There's a hell of a difference. Obama wasn't arrested for possesion of cocaine nor was he arrested for driving under the influence of cocaine. Big big difference wouldn't you think?
So, if someone goes out with just a few drinks and kills someone, is it okay then Frank?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 10:27am
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 10:24am
Now you are watching Fake news? This can't be Frank. This has to be Rio, Ponti, Frankshits or one of the others. I don't think even the original Frankgrits would be quoting a Faux comedy report.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 10:28am
Fox News is the only cable news network that is actually, well, 'fair and balanced.' It's stunning.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 10:22am
quite stunning, frank.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 10:28am
Aren't you ashamed of the attacks on Sarah Palin and her family, especially her family? I know America is.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 10:27am
sarah palin is an asshole.
her family should be left alone.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 10:30am
that's the stupidest, most idiotic nonsense you've ever written.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 10:25am
I don't know Frosty, he's written a lot of idiotic nonsense lately that is comparable.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 10:30am
Seriously, FROSTY, WOLF
Ask FRANK who'll be more qualified to be President in 2012....VICE-PRESIDENT Palin or Hillary.
Guarenteed, he'll contradict himself on SOMETHING!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 10:34am
FrankGrits-Had Hillary won you would still be referring to the GOP as the fascist party and would be attacking the Palin choice.It is Sarah Palin, and Sarah Palin only, who is to blame for anything that her daughter goes through because mom put her political ambitions before her family.America is not ashamed that people mentioned the fact that we have a family values candidate with an unwed pregnant teenage daughter, as recent polls show.America knows that is politics and our enemies don't care if Hillary and Palin are women and will attack them.Our enemies won't play nice just because Palin has family problems.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 10:39am
FrankGrits-One should not vote for someone simply because they have a penis or vagina and the fact that Hillary lost to a half black person rather than your usual white male makes your whine that much more ludicrous,but having a tantrum always makes people look ludicrous.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 10:45am
FrankGrits-These days you,simply,repeat what Rush says.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 10:50am
Guarenteed, he'll contradict himself on SOMETHING!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 10:34am
<<<<<>>>>>
Coward. Yeah, that's right Brownie, you're a coward. I never had you or Mask or Zero on ignore, ever. I saw every single backstabbing, childish attack on myself when you all didn't think I was looking. It shows your true character and it shows what immature children you really are. I tried to educate here and I hope that some people learned some valuable things about politics. If you really care about the democratic party, you all need to do some reading. A lot of it. That's my final warning.
NOW I'LL SAY GOOD-BYE TO THIS SITE FOR GOOD. This is amature [sic] land. Way to many republicans here trying to come off as concerned democrats. I hope the Nation editors understand this. It's been fun and enlightening but there's just too much ignorance and cowardice on this site. I won't miss it. Now, go ahead and take all the shots you want. See ya.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/18/2008 @ 11:46pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 10:52am
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 10:41am
This election for most women is not about seeing how far a woman can go in politics, it is about promoting PRO-WOMAN policies.
Sarah Palin is ANTI-WOMAN in her policies, so who care whether she has a vagina?
She is AGAINST a woman's right to control her own body, even in cases of rape and incest. She is AGAINST equal pay for equal work (and so is McCain). She is AGAINST universal healthcare, and women, especially middle class and working class women are the usual victims of HMO helathcare that focuses on what is most profitable to the HMO rather than the healthcare women need.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/03/2008 @ 10:52am
You're partly right. I will hold John McCain's feet to the fire and if he doesn't come through on winning the war in Iraq and getting OBL, plus making a dent in the deficit, I will be all over him. He'll have four years. IF THE RACE IN 2012 COMES DOWN TO MCCAIN VS. HILLARY, I WILL SUPPORT HILLARY.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/01/2008 @ 7:08pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 10:54am
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 10:41am
FRANKGRITS,
What you are suggesting is what Republicans have done with Clarence Thomas - that blacks should support Thomas even though his ideology is ANTI-BLACK.
Women are not as stupid as Republicans think they are - they are not going to vote for and anti-woman candidate just because she is a woman. In this election you are going to get a crude lesson in just how intelligent these women actually are.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/03/2008 @ 10:57am
The divine Sarah, as guv, addresses her local church ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k
Quite recent.
Quite enlightening.
Biden has little to fear on debate night.
Posted by sloper at 09/03/2008 @ 11:11am
Oh my goodness! Did anyone click over to see the Republican convention?
What a contrast. You had to squint your eyes and search for ten minutes to find a minority in the crowd! IT WAS SO HILARIOUS! I don't know about you, but that crowd didn't look anything like the America I see when I step outside my front door. It's actually quite sad.
They were all clearly grateful that Hurricane Gustav allowed them to keep George Bush in his cage and off center stage. What a lucky break, huh! And not one word about the last 8 years of misery! Not one word! No one mentioned $4 gasoline; the credit crunch; home foreclosures; 3,000 dead soldiers; our oil dependency; torture; the rape of the environment; illegal wiretaps; the politicization of the Justice Department or any other Bush tragedy. Is anybody, aside from Bushes oil buddies, better off than they were 8 years ago? Seriously...is anybody better off?
If Sarah Palin supposedly "energized the Republican base", I'd hate to see them get sedated! Oh my God! It was like the county morgue on a Tuesday night! ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz...ZZzzzzz...
The entire crowd looked like it was paid to show up and cheer on queue! They even had defibrillator-carrying paramedics checking vital signs at the door, just to make sure the audience members were in fact alive. Sadly, a few mummies were actually turned away, pacemakers in hand. "Gotta have a pulse to get in folks. Sorry." It was really something to see.
Then, get this, Joe "Sleepy-Speech" Lieberman walks out and does his best Ben Stein impression! Three minutes in to his...Uh? I don't know...I guess you could call it a speech. Anyway, three minutes in, an old woman in a red, white and blue blouse near center stage quietly collapsed into a deep snore, right there on live televis
Posted by CrushInfamy at 09/03/2008 @ 11:12am
It's quite interesting how republicans are saying that it's okay for them to attack the democrats candidates and it's okay for them to spread rumors and say vile things about the democrats two candidates,but it isn't okay to attack McCain or Palin because one is a former POW and the other is a woman.Our enemies won't care that McCain is a former POW and won't care that Palin is a woman and will attack us,anyway, so if you believe that McCain and Palin are too sensitive to be attacked then you'd better come up with some new candidates.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 11:17am
Frankgrits, first you supported Hillary. Now you support Sarah Palin, the anithesis of everything Hillary Clinton stands for. Do issues matter to you at all, or are you just anti-Obama? I can't imagine reversing all of my political views in a matter of months. To reiterate Palin is the ANTI-HILLARY! You can't logically support both.
Posted by Be Good at 09/03/2008 @ 11:18am
Hello Metteyya,
When you say anti-black, what you really mean is anti-liberal.
When you say anti-woman, what you really mean is anti-liberal.
You on the left do this all the time.
You automatically confer that your liberal belief is the "black belief" and that your liberal belief is the "woman belief"
You on the left are the ones who continually overlook that people are individuals, and have this obnoxious bent that one either does or should believe in liberalism just because of their skin color or gender.
I do not know why you think you can impose your political belief like a rubber stamp on entire groups of people, and attempt to speak for others rather than letting them speak for themselves.
African-Americans who are not liberals or Women who are not liberals do not like having the left put words in their mouths.
You say that FRANKGRITS is going to get a lesson in how intelligent women are.....it will be you, Metteyya that gets a lesson instead.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/03/2008 @ 11:26am
Frank, who'll be more qualified to be President in 2012....VICE-PRESIDENT Palin or Hillary Clinton?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:35am
Posted by sjchermak at 09/03/2008 @ 11:26am
"You on the left are the ones who continually overlook that people are individuals..."
The irony of this statement defies comment.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/03/2008 @ 11:35am
Quite enlightening.
Biden has little to fear on debate night.
Posted by sloper at 09/03/2008 @ 11:11am
Sloper, She's scary. She'll bring down the wrath of God upon Biden when he destroys her in the debates.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:37am
As far to the left as I am, I have to say that once again, I am witnessing a rather LARGE anti-feminist, sexist tilt to the coverage of Sarah Palin.
I used to like Keith Olbermann, but in the last couple of days, he's made some remarks that irk me. Not because I'm a Repub. I'm not. I'm voting for either Nader or McKinney.
I have a suspicion that if a largely inexperienced male VP candidate were handed the reigns, a lot of the timbre of the pundits would change. I hear these guys say certain things that are indeed subtle, but mark a drastic sexist tilt that is ever present this campaign, and I fear, ever present in American culture.
I wouldn't support the McCain/Palin ticket if I was paid large sums of money to do so, but some of us on the left are walking a VERY fine line with our criticism of Palin - things about her personal life that would NEVER be mentioned if she were a man. And honestly, things that have no bearing at all on her capacity to hold that position.
Not to mention, we should be careful, because we've been saying for a LONG time, that we need people in Washington, who are complete outsiders. If we're not careful, we unknowingly debunk our own argument about the need for freshness in D.C.
Posted by DJGoody at 09/03/2008 @ 11:40am
djgoody-Everything being said about Palin would be said even if she was a man and I can state numerous examples, if you need me to.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 11:43am
Posted by sjchermak at 09/03/2008 @ 11:26am
So, SJ...can a person be a "real" Christian...
and be a liberal?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 11:44am
that's the stupidest, most idiotic nonsense you've ever written. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 10:25am | ignore this person | warn this person
no, it isn't
Posted by emile duBois at 09/03/2008 @ 11:45am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:35am
I'll go $20 he doesn't even answer the question directly.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 11:45am
"One should not vote for someone simply because they have a penis or vagina"
I won't vote for someone who doesn't have at least one of the above.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/03/2008 @ 11:47am
The best part about Sarah Palin is that conservatives think that she's the face of the party. Right-wing, religious, "attractive", yadda, yadda yadda.
When McCain gets his head handed to him at the election, conservatives will think that the lost because John McCain was too "liberal". Not because the gun toting, cowboy "Bring 'em on!" management style is one that generally leaves someone with some buckshot in the face.
So, they'll try running someone more "right-wing" next time around who'll get their head handed to them again by the incumbent and by the following election everyone should be fetishizing George Bush's "leadership", how the "liberals" just didn't know how to wait for "victory" in Vietnam or Iraq, and putting him right next to Ronald Reagan and Roosevelt.
People like Ron Paul will try to save the Republican party, but it's on a decades long swirl that might see Republicans back in power in maybe 30 years or so.
Thanks for all the memories, guys.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/03/2008 @ 11:48am
emile-We need a candidate with a penis and breasts.That will confuse everyone.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 11:51am
You wouldn't be supporting Barry, would you? Aren't you ashamed of the attacks on Sarah Palin and her family, especially her family? I know America is. Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 10:27am
Funny. Weren't the McCain and Hillary campaigns attacking Barack's wife. Including Frankgrits saying she was a America hater?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:55am
We need a candidate with a penis and breasts.That will confuse everyone. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 11:51am
I'd vote for him....her....whatever.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:56am
have a suspicion that if a largely inexperienced male VP candidate were handed the reigns, a lot of the timbre of the pundits would change. I hear these guys say certain things that are indeed subtle, but mark a drastic sexist tilt that is ever present this campaign, and I fear, ever present in American culture.
Posted by DJGoody at 09/03/2008 @ 11:40am
DJ, Evidently you haven't been watching what has been going on lately. Obama has been attacked for his lack of experience to the nth degree by McIdiot and company and then they choose Palin, who's experience is non-existent.
That isn't sexist. If they were saying, Olympia Snow wasn't deserving to be considered for the position, I'd say, yes, they are being sexist, but people like Olympia were passed up for this fruitbasket McIdiot picked.
Her public service record is lame. She hasn't even finished her first term as governor and you think she's qualified to be within striking distance of being the president of the United States?
If she's qualified for the job, there's probably about 50 million people out there as qualified or more so.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:58am
Ccc-It would eliminate the sexist thing.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 11:59am
"There is no longer any grey area. Ironically, Fox News is the only cable news network that is actually, well, 'fair and balanced.' It's stunning.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 10:22am | ignore this person | warn this person "
Speaks volumes about your grip on reality.
"John Rambo and Annie Oakley are coming. Ther's going to be a new sheriff and deputy in town and they are going to clean out that pig's trough with all that pork.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 10:07am | ignore this person | warn this person"
Would that include the prodigious earmarks she got for her town and the bridge that she was for before she was against it?
"Actually, the party that I've seen since the nomination of Sarah Palin is something anyone with an ounce of decency would want to run from. I've never seen such panic in a Presidential campaign than that that the dems are exhibiting now."
Pointing out her extremism and hypocrisy is neither indecent nor evidence of panic.
"The larger message is that if you are a woman, you will only be allowed to go so far in America. I think that is the larger threat to dems. They thought they were home free in defeating Hillary"
No, the message is that an unqualified candidate who is only picked because she is a woman (there were plenty of better qualified religious rightists out there--Pawlenty or Huckabee come to mind) won't get a pass because of her sex.
"Piece of advice. Learn to think for yourselves. I did and it's rejouvinating. The truth shall set you free.
Later.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 10:48am | ignore this person | warn this person"
Piece of advice. Learn to think. Your thought processes are as sloppy as your spelling.
Posted by brunowe at 09/03/2008 @ 11:59am
Sloper, She's scary. She'll bring down the wrath of God upon Biden when he destroys her in the debates. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:37am
Joe ain't worried. He's Catholic.
Posted by sloper at 09/03/2008 @ 12:05pm
emile-We need a candidate with a penis and breasts.That will confuse everyone. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 11:51am | ignore this person | warn this person
a Tranny in the white house. I imagine there are websites devoted to that possibility.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/03/2008 @ 12:18pm
emile-A tranny would not need to have an opposite sex VP choice and could run by themselves.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 12:21pm
Posted by brunowe at 09/03/2008 @ 11:59am
FRANK is this (two fingers very close together) far...
from saying "You know, Rush (Limbaugh) is the only one on the radio who's doing a good job telling folks what Obama is all about!"
and thus completing his voyage to the Dark Side!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 12:25pm
Happy-The only time that Palin has gone outside of the party box is when she supports Alaskan independence.Otherwise,she is a typical republican.Someone who admits to knowing nothing about Iraq,but supports the war.Typical modern republican.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 12:41pm
hmmmm .. shooting animals from aircraft strikes me as a bit "environmentally irresponsible"
As to her extreme religious beliefs ...don't belong in the WH. Dumbo's have been bad enough. Don't need even more of the same.
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/03/2008 @ 12:44pm
""The larger message is that if you are a woman, you will only be allowed to go so far in America. I think that is the larger threat to dems. They thought they were home free in defeating Hillary""
Since to Frank anyone who opposes Palin or Hillary is a sexist does that make Frank a racist?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 12:57pm
Ccc-By Frank's logic, it does make him a racist.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 1:00pm
As long as she doesn't collapse on stage tonight, her speech will be hailed as a triumph.
Ditto for POW tomw night.
But just wait for the debates ... when the whole world is watching ... how many times will POW refer to his prison time? how many times will she invoke her lord?
The only suspense.
As for the actual outcome, it's now predictable.
Posted by sloper at 09/03/2008 @ 1:07pm
Palin wanted to ban books. That means she has disqualified herself from higher office. She is a bully AND an idiot.
dm - Librarian
Posted by dunvegan at 09/03/2008 @ 1:08pm
She is such a Babe!!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/03/2008 @ 1:12pm
Ccc-By Frank's logic, it does make him a racist. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 1:00p
Good point. Franks logic isn't logical.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 1:17pm
BTW JOHN NICHOLS, you should probably save yourself some time and not bother with watching the speech tonight. After all, I know what you will write tomorrow before you even put finger to keyboard, and so do you, know matter WHAT the woman says. So take some time off. Watch Family Guy instead. C'mon, It'll do y some good.
Chip
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/03/2008 @ 1:19pm
Regardless of whatever missteps she MAY have committed at an earlier stage of her remarkable life, short of outright corruptions (bribery, embazzlement, etc.), she fits my Dream Girl mold just fine!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/03/2008 @ 12:28pm
It wasn't an earlier stage of her unremarkable life it was during her governorship. She has been governor for 2 years. Which means it happened in the last two years. Jesus Happy drinking the PALIN Kool-aid apparently.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 1:19pm
The party of personal responsibility wants to blame the media and democrats for what Palin put her daughter through because,of course,Sarah Palin knew exactly what was going to happen when the news about her daughter came out,but,obviously,did not care.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 1:29pm
>>>When you say anti-woman, what you really mean is anti-liberal.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/03/2008 @ 11:26am<<<
No! I mean ANTI-WOMAN!
Palin is AGAINST a woman's right to control her own body, even in cases of rape and incest. She is AGAINST equal pay for equal work (and so is McCain). She is AGAINST universal healthcare, and women, especially middle class and working class women are the usual victims of HMO helathcare that focuses on what is most profitable to the HMO rather than the healthcare women need.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/03/2008 @ 1:31pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/03/2008 @ 11:26am
And how many blacks ended up supporting Clarence Thomas? 10%?
I think it is down to 3% now after we see what a disaster he has been for the issues blacks care about.
Palin will have the same low level of female support. She will get some of the hardcore female evangelicals and that is about it.
These hardcore female evangelicals were NOT Hillary voters, so this stupid appeal to Hillary voters by Palin is completely misguided.
Hardcore evangelicals think they can FORCE their right-wing religious views on everyone else, and this is Palin's base.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/03/2008 @ 1:36pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/03/2008 @ 12:28pm
Okay, so again, YOUR (and the GOP and Rush and Sean's) theory is....
women who support a right to choose, are going to be so enamored and so enraptured at the idea of a "woman Veep"....that they're going to vote AGAINST their own political interests to put an ARDENT "pro-lifer" a heartbeat away from the Presidency?
So in addition to being rather stupid, they'll have this "cult-like" support of Palin....consider her a "Messiah" or something....right?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 1:40pm
Palin is a caricature of the well-to-do woman, dedicated to her children, sportive, and intentioned to her darling; what an appalling caricature of a fundamentalist housewife. Maverick media say of them, hum…, I didn't know that being conformist has turned to be a rebel attitude to the public.
Posted by yanovsky at 09/03/2008 @ 1:41pm
Seems to me that the tooth gnashing and garment rending by the republics over the treatment of Palin is fairly hypocritical.
According to these types, there is only the result of one's own work; there are no "ism's" (except, of course, anti-christian ism), never was a glass ceiling, blah blah blah. Yet they rant about the treatment of Palin, whining about all the isms they deny.
To suggest that SP is first among equals who could have been chosen for the VP slot is to require a willing suspension of disbelief.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/03/2008 @ 1:57pm
HEY EMILE, I wanna see a candidate with BOTH organs! I may be sexist, but no one can accuse me of being Hermaphroditeaphobic! :)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/03/2008 @ 1:58pm
I'm looking for a place to post/publish the rhyming piece which is excerpted below. Fuller version has been snailmailed to the Nation.
The Nomination of Sarah P. (excerpt: with apologies to Robert W. Service, "The Cremation of Sam McGee"
There are strange things done in the midnight sun By Republicans seeking votes; The campaign trails have their secret tales -- Indeed their own "Deep Throats." The Northern Lights have seen queer sights, But the queerest they ever did see Was that night in the hall in old St. Paul When they opted for Sarah P.
Now Johnny McCain, of Vietnam fame, was handed his hat by the Bushes. His gang changed their game, became the same -- and tried to save their tushes. Exxon John was dragging on, his campaign was as dull as Nebraska. For Hillary's votes, they donned fur coats and off they flew to Alaska.
The economy tanks, while old John banks -- on beer and big cuts in taxation. As the gas price soars, the corporate whores are buying and selling the nation. Georgia's got oil, attractive spoil; John's guy knocks down hefty fee. They need to look clean, know what I mean? Voilà: there she is, Sarah P!
Posted by virginia27 at 09/03/2008 @ 2:14pm
Aren't we at a point yet that having five kids is nothing to brag about?
Posted by Brillig at 09/03/2008 @ 2:19pm
HEY EMILE, I wanna see a candidate with BOTH organs! I may be sexist, but no one can accuse me of being Hermaphroditeaphobic! :)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/03/2008 @ 2:20pm
Posted by virginia27 at 09/03/2008 @ 2:14pm
Only complaint...the spacing.
Otherwise, pretty funny.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 2:26pm
I too see the hypocrisy with the GOP. Normally they would come down hard on teenage girls having children out of wedlock. Also, it is very irresponsible to not acknowledge the idiocy of having unprotected sex. Like another poster stated, what about HIV/AIDS or herpes? Hell, those are just the ones that are incurable. What message does that send to America's youth? It's okay to have unprotected sex if your parents can afford to take care of you and your baby? That's bullshit. Any other teenager, who's not from a somewhat well-to-do family, would be villified.
Also this pick wasn't just for the woman vote but also for the party to finally get behind McCain. The pick as utterly trasparent. He kills two birds with one stone(or a AK-47. They're great for hunting).
Posted by k330k at 09/03/2008 @ 2:30pm
for those that like to use the phrase "Her family should be off limtis for the pundits."
For 16 years we have listened to the right/republican machine tell us that FAMILY VALUES are the key to America. The nookyular FAMILY, consisting of a mother and father is the BEST way to raise our children, that a strong family is one of the keys to stopping teen pregnancies..
We have also heard ad-nauseum that abstinence-only is the way to go, but now we have a visible display of that theory in practice...
NOW, when we have a VP candidate whose daughter is pregnant, all of a sudden her FAMILY VALUES (reality, not theory!) are "off the table"??????
Please care to explain this to me, anybody?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/03/2008 @ 2:37pm
jomamma-I'm not seeing panic mode and suspect that you aren't,either.It appears that most on the left are thrilled by the choice.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 2:55pm
from saying "You know, Rush (Limbaugh) is the only one on the radio who's doing a good job telling folks what Obama is all about!"
and thus completing his voyage to the Dark Side!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 12:25pm
I think Frankshitz morphed into Frankgrits.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 3:20pm
jomamma-Palin brought her kid into it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 3:21pm
But just wait for the debates ... when the whole world is watching ... how many times will POW refer to his prison time? how many times will she invoke her lord?
The only suspense.
As for the actual outcome, it's now predictable.
Posted by sloper at 09/03/2008 @ 1:07pm
Sloper, Glad you brought the debates up. I think this year, the people taking part in the debates should be searched in front of the audience before the debate. McIdiot can't think on his own and he'll probably be wired just like W was. If they can't debate on their own, they sure as hell can't make decisions to run the country on their own.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 3:25pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/03/2008 @ 2:48pm
MAASCH, does that theory work in reverse?
Was the RIGHT so panicked that "that OBAMA must be doing well and has struck a fear chord in the hearts of all laissez-fairers"?
Or just one way?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 3:29pm
Posted by virginia27 at 09/03/2008 @ 2:14pm
Not bad.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 3:31pm
If she's qualified for the job, there's probably about 50 million people out there as qualified or more so.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:58am | ignore this person | warn this person
Right. That's my point. There are 50 million just as qualified, and honestly, that's a good thing. I think we may in fact be much better off with people who have less of the D.C. experience, that has done us so much good over the last 50 years, eh?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she's qualified. For me, unfounded belief in god disqualifies any candidate immediately. Not to mention her other destructive, and frankly, evil positions.
That being said, guys like Olbermann and Blitzer, and even Fox's Britt Hume have made statements that subtly imply that she must've gotten favors to get where she is, because there's no way a lady could go from mayor of 5,000 to governor, then to VP pick overnight.
Frankly, if we just pull off the mask of Obama-mania for just an objective second, we'll see that his trajectory (politically - NOT socially/activist) has been somewhat akin. However, nobody implies that he has shifted behind the scenes to rise faster than the norm, although he likely has.
My point is that it seems, because she's a woman, people advertise their suspicion of foul play in her trajectory- because according to them, it's impossible for a woman to be so politically adept that she rises so quickly. Whereas Obama has been questioned very little on this very same point. Yes, McCain has hit on the experience thing, but I don't hear pundits implying that his meteoric rise was somehow furthered by favors, posturing, etc....
Avoid it all, and vote NADER/GONZALES. At least you'll pick someone who believes in helping people. Isn't that really the point of the presidency?
Posted by DJGoody at 09/03/2008 @ 3:32pm
I think Frankshitz morphed into Frankgrits.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 3:20pm
crazy frankshitz arrived using that moniker to mock the loonylefty frankgrits.
i hope he comes back soon to see how his inspiration has morphed into frankgrunts.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 3:36pm
"Alaska's first female governor has at times benefited from Alaska's entrenched political system.
For one thing, Palin accepted at least $4,500 in campaign contributions in the same fundraising scheme at the center of a public corruption scandal that led to the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens.
The contributions, made during Palin's failed 2002 bid to become Alaska's lieutenant governor, were not illegal for her to accept. But they show how Palin, who has bucked Stevens and his allies, is nonetheless linked with Alaska's old guard."
___
Associated Press Writer Ron Fournier contributed to this report.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/03/2008 @ 3:39pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 3:20pm
Not quite...but getting VERY close.
Again, I see where FRANK's mind (what's left) is going. He's lost all support and credibility among former friends and political allies here. The Right is offering to embrace him (LL and him getting real cozy, as are HAPP and PONTI...though THEY know he'll turn on them if McCain is elected).
So...as he seeks to make himself more and more relevant (as he becomes less and less so)....he's embracing the Right-wing talking points, even falling in love with Fox News....OF WHICH he once said-
"Legitimate news networks like CNN and mSNBC know full well that the Faux News Channel is full of crap and lies but they get away with it because the other networks don't hammer them.
Here's a good tag line for CNN. CNN, the real news, not Faux News."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/07/2006 @ 01:25am
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 3:39pm
Aren't we at a point yet that having five kids is nothing to brag about?
Posted by Brillig at 09/03/2008 @ 2:19pm
It would not surprise me at all to learn that SP is an adherent to the "quiver" ideology - that the responsibility of the faithful is to make "arrows" for the quiver of God.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/03/2008 @ 3:40pm
Please care to explain this to me, anybody?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/03/2008 @ 2:37pm
Do as I say, not as I do.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/03/2008 @ 3:40pm
(or a AK-47. They're great for hunting).
Posted by k330k at 09/03/2008 @ 2:30pm
Hey, hey, hey now.
It's one of my God-given rights as an Amurcin to own a military assault rifle manufactured in the former Soviet union.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/03/2008 @ 3:43pm
five north american kids is like 200 people in many countries.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 3:43pm
The left is in such a panic mode that Palin must be doing well and has struck a fear chord in the hearts of all socialists.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/03/2008 @ 2:48pm
The right is in such a panic mode that Obama must be doing well and has such a fear chord in the hearts of all nationalists.
A word or advice, chumly, regarding Palin. Don't conflate notoriety with efficacy. Although sometimes related, they are not equivalent concepts.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/03/2008 @ 3:48pm
Sure...
Leave the kid out of it..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/03/2008 @ 3:18pm
Uhh, sorry, isn't "the kid" part of the FAMILY, which is the core of the moral structure of Americas FAMILY VALUES, and a plank in the platform of the republican party?
this is your party that set this up, not me. Why is it that the values of the VP's family are off limits, but the values of, say, gay parents with no pregnant teens are a federal issue?
Is this anything like the "experience" thing you harped on for months, now are able to set aside because, like John Edwards in 2004, she will be a heartbeat away from dealing with Mugtada al-Sadr, al Maliki, Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Raul Castro, Usama bin-forgotten, Achinijaed, Putin and the leaders of the 'Stans. Does getting 114,697 votes give her some sort of status with you?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/03/2008 @ 3:52pm
Oh, I forgot...
a celebrity said last night that she can field dress a moose.
what more do we need to know? Right person for the job
didja get that cons? you had a celebrity speaking at your convention!! A hollywood actor. Like Paris, or Brittney, according to R. Nixon, dumb as a stump celebrity. would it be appropriate for Obama to run an ad comparing Phred Thompson to Brittney to Palin?
I think so, now.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/03/2008 @ 3:55pm
Posted by crabwalk at 09/03/2008 @ 3:55pm
I can see the joke now...
McCain/Palin wins (no, that's not the joke).
As a "get to know each other", Dick Cheney takes Sarah out hunting. During the hunt, she accidentially shoots Cheney and with no Secret Service around, has to load him herself onto a jeep....drive sixty miles into Casper to a doctor....totes his still body to a clinic...and with her bare hands lays him on the gurney...
later she asks the doctor, "Doc, how is the Vice-President?"
"I'm sorry, Governor, he's dead"
"Wasn't there ANYTHING you could have done?" she says.
"Well, maybe....but it didn't help that you field dressed him!"
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 4:56pm
Palin is AGAINST a woman's right to control her own body, even in cases of rape and incest. She is AGAINST equal pay for equal work (and so is McCain). She is AGAINST universal healthcare, and women, especially middle class and working class women are the usual victims of HMO helathcare that focuses on what is most profitable to the HMO rather than the healthcare women need.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/03/2008 @ 1:31pm
You are such a lost mind.
Palin is not against a woman's right to control her own body. She is against murdering the child in her body.
Cite anything she has said that states she is against women receiving equal pay for equal work? did she say she wasn't entitled to the same pay when she became Governor?
Universal Health Care
She is in favor of the constitution from which you will not find any authority in article 1, section 8 to intrude on what is a states rights issue (10th Amendment).
But not surprising since you find your inspiration from the least qualified candidate for either President or VP in our nation's history.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/03/2008 @ 5:16pm
lvliberty-Palin puts Alaska's constitution above Americas and is not one of you, except with the religious extremist thing.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 5:26pm
1. Palin and her husband flirts with succession from the United States.
2. Palin attempts to ban library books she doesn't like and fire the city librarian if she doesn't go along.
3. Palin fires police chief of Wassila because he wants the bars to close at 2am rather than 5am and this upset Palin's bar owner campaign contributors.
4. Palin fires her chief public safety officer, the former police chief of Anchorage, because he doesn't want to be used in her family feud in firing the ex-husband of her sister.
5. Palin skipped out of paying her taxes and fees on her car wash that she owned, and failed to file required financial statements.
6. Palin's pastor of 30 years thinks political opponents of Bush won't go to heaven and that Jesus is some kind of war general that kills people that don't believe in him.
7. Palin voted to strip funds from a group that helps teen moms, LIKE HER DAUGHTER, get skills and lead productive lives after pregnancy.
8. Palin hired an Abramoff lobbyist to get earmarks that even McCain objected to
9. Palin inflates her foreign policy experience by claiming a refueling stop as a "visit to Ireland".
Posted by Metteyya at 09/03/2008 @ 5:27pm
lvliberty-Palin puts Alaska's constitution above Americas and is not one of you, except with the religious extremist thing.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 5:26pm
She has done no such thing. Not ever. It has been proven that she never has belonged to the Alaska Independence Movement. The NY Times has made a retraction of their story on this.
Alaska Party Official Says Palin Was Not a Member
By The New York Times
The chairwoman of an Alaskan political party that advocates a vote on the state's secession from the union said Tuesday that she had been mistaken when she said Gov. Sarah Palin was a member of the group.
http://tinyurl.com/6cbvzg
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/03/2008 @ 5:48pm
Then, get this, Joe "Sleepy-Speech" Lieberman walks out and does his best Ben Stein impression! Three minutes in to his...Uh? I don't know...I guess you could call it a speech. Anyway, three minutes in, an old woman in a red, white and blue blouse near center stage quietly collapsed into a deep snore, right there on live televis
Posted by CrushInfamy at 09/03/2008 @ 11:12am | ignore this person | warn this person
Did ya catch all those delegates from Texas slobbering over Miss Texas and standing in line in get a photo op with her? Geezzz, wonder what the wife back home will say when hubby gets back home from the convention. These characters were more concerned with accumulating another conversation piece for the old office back home than any of speechmaking. Pretty pathetic....but totally predictable I guess. God help us.
Posted by OneVote at 09/03/2008 @ 6:06pm
Palin is not against a woman's right to control her own body. She is against murdering the child in her body.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/03/2008 @ 5:16pm
Huh, after the stork drops it in-- right!?!?!
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/03/2008 @ 6:17pm
Did you catch the repub commentators off camera talking about what a joke Palin is and that it's all over?
http://tinyurl.com/5ghaxe
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/03/2008 @ 6:20pm
Speaking of honest:
"But records show that Palin -- first as mayor of Wasilla and recently as governor of Alaska -- was far from shy about pursuing tens of millions in earmarks for her town, her region and her state.
This year, Palin, who has been governor for nearly 22 months, defended earmarking as a vital part of the legislative system. "The federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship," she wrote in a newspaper column.
In 2001, McCain's list of spending that had been approved without the normal budget scrutiny included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla. The Arizona senator targeted $1 million in a 2002 spending bill for an emergency communications center in town -- one that local law enforcement has said is redundant and creates confusion.
McCain also criticized $450,000 set aside for an agricultural processing facility in Wasilla that was requested during Palin's tenure as mayor and cleared Congress soon after she left office in 2002. The funding was provided to help direct locally grown produce to schools, prisons and other government institutions, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group.
Wasilla received $11.9 million in earmarks from 2000 to 2003. The results of this spending are very apparent today. (The town also benefited from $15 million in federal funds to promote regional rail transportation.)"
NOT.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/03/2008 @ 6:33pm
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 7:01pm
Again Frank, I warned you a long time ago that these people would turn on you. Their hatred is for anyone that doesn't want a socialist US. I come here because someone has to confront their marxist BS. I never expect converts. These are die hards. They will even deny they are marxists (see Mask, or CCC, or even IM). However, they cannot deny they want the Fed govt to take over more and more of what is now in private hands in the country. They cannot deny that they want to come against religous freedom in the country. They cannot deny that they hate the idea of the US winning in Iraq or Afghanistan (IM possibly excepted). They hated Hillary because she was too far to the right for them, even though most Americans would think of her as liberal-moderate.
So welcome to reality Frank. We will probably always disagree on a number of issues, but it's nice to see you having the veil lifted concerning this website.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/03/2008 @ 7:27pm
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 7:01pm
Why I can agree that media coverage of Palin is rife with sexism, I can also see why people are having a field day with this because of how the right seems to set aside it's so called values whenever convenient. The presumptive VP's child having a child out of wedlock is one illustration among many.
But pointing out some of the other examples of conservative hypocrisy is less striking and for most Americans less interesting. Can you imagine the yawns that would come from trying to get the media to cover Clarence Thomas as an "activist judge" when conservatives seem to only object to liberal activism? That doesn't get eyeballs because that kind of hypocrisy doesn't sell. Sex sells. See all the comments about her being "easy on the eyes" from conservatives here for a gut-wrenching example.
But all that aside, the reason you are getting dumped on is because you've got an agenda. You want to talk about executive decisions and Obama. Yet don't apply the same criteria to McCain. Who, as far as I can tell, has never made an executive decision either. You're trying to have it both ways and people, rightly, are calling you on that line of BS.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/03/2008 @ 7:27pm
And you, silly man, are you back to talking about hate again? Why do they hate America? Why do you hate George Bush? Why do you hate Christians? Can't argue against ideas so you make emotional appeals and talk about "victory".
What is it that makes YOU hate logic so much? What is it about making a rational argument that is beyond your capabilities?
To claim Mask is a marxist is disingenuous, at best. Either you don't bother reading his posts, you are willful mischaracterizing them or you don't understand what marxism/communism means. I'll go for option 3.
You also paint with a rather broad brush here, my friend. I'm not interested in expanding federal government. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'm not interested in limiting religious freedom.
However, you are correct that I am against "victory" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only place the U.S. should be spreading freedom is in it's own borders. If you'd like, why not take a look at your beloved Constitution and the discussions the Founding Fathers had regarding a standing army as to why these kinds of "victories" are not only un-American, they're unconstitutional.
You are also right that I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she represents the same kind of unconstitutional foreign policies that both Obama, McCain, and YOU support.
So, how about we inject a little reality into the discussion. Try to use a few facts. Make a few arguments rather than try to make emotionally charged words like "victory" make it look like you are saying something when you aren't.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/03/2008 @ 9:02pm
But not surprising since you find your inspiration from the least qualified candidate for either President or VP in our nation's history.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/03/2008 @ 5:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Actually Lincoln was less qualified. Four terms in the Illinois State Legislature and one term in the House of Representatives.
"She is in favor of the constitution from which you will not find any authority in article 1, section 8 to intrude on what is a states rights issue (10th Amendment)."
Last I checked, health insurance was very much in the stream of interstate commerce.
"You may not have seen where I've said, a couple of dozen times now that this election is a win/win for me. If McCain wins, we'll win the war and he will have to deal with a democratic Congress. If Barry wins, then most of the policies that I support will pass easier. This has been my position right along."
Which is pure crap. You've embraced McCain's position on oil drilling and you've largely denounced Obama's positions with Limbaugh-like language.
"Hillary. She's already been co-president for eight years.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/03/2008 @ 6:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person "
Rubbish. She never attended a cabinet meeting, she was never given the intelligence briefing, her one big project was to head the health care task force and that was a total wash-out.
"This savage attack on a mother of five who did nothing wrong but accept John McCain's offer to run as his running mate. "
And be a partisan of the intolerant religious right and have ties with a dubious political party. The "attacks" are also because her designation undercuts McCain's argument that experience is an important issue.
Posted by brunowe at 09/03/2008 @ 9:42pm
And indeed, LL, painting us with such a broad brush is hardly a credible argument. However, it isn't surprising given your obvious assumption that everyone to the left of Goldwater is a Marxist.
However, srjenkins take on our being in Afghanistan as being unconstitutional is incorrect. Afghanistan isn't primarily about spreading freedom but about disrupting a network of terrorists that based there. We had a legitimate casus belli and proper Congressional authorization. Iraq, of course, is a different story.
"and the discussions the Founding Fathers had regarding a standing army as to why these kinds of "victories" are not only un-American, they're unconstitutional."
Nevertheless, the made provision for a standing army in the Constitution.
Posted by brunowe at 09/03/2008 @ 9:48pm
"Afghanistan isn't primarily about spreading freedom but about disrupting a network of terrorists that based there. We had a legitimate casus belli and proper Congressional authorization."
permit me to disagree.
you must be joking. the terrorists were long gone by the time we sent a few thousand troops to a country larger than Texas. I think it was 15, 000 troops.
New York City, which is, as you know, smaller than Texas, has 30,000 cops to assure security. so there was never a realistic war plan, and the results certainly show it.
we had no casus belli against the Taleban. they did not attack us. what we did instead of hunting down our very real enemies, we got involved in the civil war between the Taleban and the war lords/ northern alliance. this war has gone on for years now, and the Taleban are not losing. quite the contrary.
while provisions were made for a standing army, very few imagined a standing army during peace time. and they certainly never dreamed of permanent war.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/03/2008 @ 11:58pm
Try to use a few facts.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/03/2008 @ 9:02pm
why don't you run for president?
you seem reasonable.
FACTS -TRUTH '08
SRJ Knows Their Power!
*say hi to gandhi for me.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 12:34am
"we had no casus belli against the Taleban. they did not attack us. what we did instead of hunting down our very real enemies, we got involved in the civil war between the Taleban and the war lords/ northern alliance. this war has gone on for years now, and the Taleban are not losing. quite the contrary."
The Taliban provided sanctuary for the people who did attack us. In return, they got bin-Laden's money and the service of his followers on the front-lines against the Northern Alliance.
Posted by brunowe at 09/04/2008 @ 04:53am
Brunowe, you are oversimplifying.
the Taleban got money from us too. other countries provided sanctuaries for islamic extremists. there is no evidence that they had any prior knowledge of 9/11.
the US provided sanctuary and much more to the Nicaraguan contras, terrorists.
would Nicaragua been justified in invading the US?
let's judge the Afghani war by its results. did it accomplish its mission? it did not. Bin Laden is chuckling in safety.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/04/2008 @ 09:08am
In return, they got bin-Laden's money and the service of his followers on the front-lines against the Northern Alliance. Posted by brunowe at 09/04/2008 @ 04:53am | ignore this person | warn this person
the second part of this is unsubstantiated.
you seem to have this bizarre notion that the Northern Alliance were/are the good guys. nothing could be further from the truth. they were/are druglords, while the Taleban fought drug cultivation, which is why they received a 50 million dollar payment from the US.
both our wars were/are inept meddling in other countries' affairs.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/04/2008 @ 09:12am
Posted by brunowe at 09/03/2008 @ 9:48pm
The stated objective of the War in Afghanistan was "to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda."
Your argument is easily proved false by the fact that much of the al-Qaeda terrorist network now operates in Pakistan, with impunity.
But your argument is also false on Constitutional grounds. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists is an abdication of Congressional responsibility to declare war - meaning to define the enemy and the scope of engagement. This vagueness is precisely why the Bush administration bolstered their arguments to attack Iraq by claiming al-Qaeda was in Iraq and that Iraq was a sactuary for "terrorists" broadly defined. These authorizations were also used to provide justification for military commissions, electionic eavesdropping on American citizens, etc.
If these authorizations did all the things the Bush administration has claimed for them, they are most certainly unconstitutional. Even as they are, they allow the President to conduct war anywhere he sees fit so long as he can make a convincing claim that the action is against "terrorists".
And since you bring in moral claims with casus belli, how exactly does 9/11 justify the killing of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions? There's no moral leg to stand on here.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/04/2008 @ 09:38am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 12:34am
Oh, and Frosty, I'm now back in the U.S. - which explains why I'm posting here.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/04/2008 @ 10:03am
"But your argument is also false on Constitutional grounds. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists is an abdication of Congressional responsibility to declare war - meaning to define the enemy and the scope of engagement. "
No it isn't. The declaration of war clause in the Constitution doesn't require that the words "declare war" actually be used. The purpose is to leave Congress with the decision-making authority. In the case, the AUMF was an exercise of that and it did mention the targets, those responsible for 9/11 and those who help them (clearly aimed at the Taliban).
"Your argument is easily proved false by the fact that much of the al-Qaeda terrorist network now operates in Pakistan, with impunity. "
But it wasn't in Pakistan at the time we went in. Further, that network is in Pakistan precisely because our force in Afghanistan chased them there.
"These authorizations were also used to provide justification for military commissions, electionic eavesdropping on American citizens, etc."
Which could also have been done if the actual words "declaration of war" had been used. The issue there is Bush unconstitutional use of power, not the AUMF.
"And since you bring in moral claims with casus belli, how exactly does 9/11 justify the killing of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions? There's no moral leg to stand on here."
It didn't justify the invasion of Iraq, it did justify the invasion of Afghanistan. However, there is jus in bello as well as jus ad bellum. The fact that a war is legitimate doesn't legitimize every action contained therein, for example if insufficient care is being taken not to kill civilians.
Posted by brunowe at 09/04/2008 @ 10:25am
"the Taleban got money from us too. other countries provided sanctuaries for islamic extremists. there is no evidence that they had any prior knowledge of 9/11."
No, but they were certainly aware that al-Qaida hit our embassies and the USS Cole. They were certainly aware that al-Qaida had specifically committed itself to going after American targets wherever and whenever they could. They were certainly aware of UN Security Council resolution 1267 which explicitly called for the Taliban to
"cease the provision of sanctuary and training for international terrorists and their organizations, take appropriate effective measures to ensure that the territory under its control is not used for terrorist installations and camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts against other States or their citizens, and cooperate with efforts to bring indicted terrorists to justice"
and
"turn over Usama bin Laden without further delay to appropriate authorities in a country where he has been indicted, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be returned to such a country, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be arrested and effectively brought to justice;"
As to the Arab Afghans on the front lines, Brigade 055 certainly existed--
http://www.time.com/time/magazine /article/0,9171,1101011105-181591,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/ 2001/oct/27/afghanistan.terrorism6
Incidentally, I never said that the Northern Alliance were good guys. However they weren't the ones allied with the people who committed 9/11.
Posted by brunowe at 09/04/2008 @ 10:33am
No, but they were certainly aware that al-Qaida hit our embassies and the USS Cole.
they were? our own gov't wasn't aware who hit them.
you're oversimplifying the political situation then and now.
anyway nothing has been accomplished in six years of war. that should give you a clue.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/04/2008 @ 11:20am
there are two countries which provided support for Bin Laden. Saudi and Pakistan. we invaded neither.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/04/2008 @ 11:32am
we chased Al Qaida into Pakistan. what an accomplishment. six years of war, you must be so proud.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/04/2008 @ 11:33am
I'm not oversimplfying this at all. al-Qaida wasn't physically present in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, it didn't have an infrastructure of bases there.
Our own government certainly was aware that it was al-Qaida. To argue that the Taliban weren't on notice of this, especially after UNSC 1267 doesn't hold up.
Incidentally, the first year of the war in Afghanistan disrupted al-Qaida quite a bit, killing of some of their leaders and gaining intelligence. The problem with the time after that inheres in the diversion of resources to Iraq. That failure doesn't invalidate the fundamental justification for the war.
Incidentally, driving al-Qaida into Pakistan permitted the capture of Khalid Mohammed in Rawalpindi and Ramzi bin al-Shibh in Karachi.
Posted by brunowe at 09/04/2008 @ 1:34pm
if your casus belli was to drive Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, what have we been doing there for the subsequent five years?
you oversimplify the political situation in Afghanistan, it's certainly not as bipolar as you seem to believe, and it is by no means clear that the majority of Afghani, (never Afghans, those are the dogs), don't prefer the Taleban.
the events on the ground there refute you far better than I can, though I try.
you never responded to the fact that the whole thing was futile and cynical to begin with, a mere overture to the really desired war in Iraq. No afghanistan war, no Iraq war. you don't influence events in a lasting way with 15,000 soldiers and many suitcases of cash.
this also applies to Iraq. what pacified the Sunni in Iraq was not a surge of troops, it's was a surge of cash, as we put tens of thousands on the payroll. turn off the spigot of cash and the Shia and Sunni there will again be at each other's throats.
we should perhaps have started with this. just give each Iraqi and each Afghani a lot of cash. far cheaper in terms of dead troops too. those were 4,000 plus Americans, we squandered in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/04/2008 @ 2:17pm
Incidentally, driving al-Qaida into Pakistan permitted the capture of Khalid Mohammed in Rawalpindi and Ramzi bin al-Shibh in Karachi. Posted by brunowe at 09/04/2008 @ 1:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
insurrections and terrorist cells are Hydra like. those are dubious accomplishments you cite, as another will just take their place.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/04/2008 @ 2:19pm
"I'm not oversimplfying this at all. al-Qaida wasn't physically present in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, it didn't have an infrastructure of bases there."
they didn't exactly have military bases there, the way WE have military bases in most of the world. they are not exactly an army.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/04/2008 @ 2:33pm
I didn't say military bases. But they did have training camps, barracks, supply areas. They had set themselves up as a paramilitary.
Experience leadership and intel doesn't get replicated that easily. If we had done Afghanistan properly it would've been more difficult for them to recuperate.
"you never responded to the fact that the whole thing was futile and cynical to begin with"
I have repeatedly said that going into Afghanistan was justified. It was not futile and the fact that Bush chose to go into Iraq later doesn't change that.
" it's certainly not as bipolar as you seem to believe, and it is by no means clear that the majority of Afghani, (never Afghans, those are the dogs), don't prefer the Taleban.
the events on the ground there refute you far better than I can, though I try."
I have never said that it was bipolar. The Taliban were the faction that controlled most of the ground at the time and they were the ones allied with al-Qaida. Thus they were a legitimate target.
Having said that, we should've help Afghanistan build an army from scratch rather than let the local warlords run things; we shouldn't have gamed the loya jirga to bring in Karzai when the former king seemed a more popular choice; hell, a lot of things were done badly.
None of that changes the fact that al-Qaida had its center of operations in Afghanistan and was there with Taliban suffrance.
Posted by brunowe at 09/04/2008 @ 2:39pm
it was futile to go in there with 15,000 troops. it is futile now six years later.
you did say bases, when they were training camps, which were more often than not ad hoc.
"they were the ones allied with al-Qaida."
that is misleading. they were not allies in that they did not attack us, and most certainly had no knowledge prior. that is very different from allies in the sense of Japan and Germany for instance.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/04/2008 @ 8:10pm