Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSpiro T. Palin
Forty years ago, mounting a comeback campaign after losing a presidential race eight years earlier, Richard Nixon secured the Republican nomination and then selected as his running-mate a former local official who had served a scant twenty months as the governor of a small state.
The choice was questioned by pundits and mocked by Democrats. They called the vice presidential nominee: "Spiro Who?"
But when Maryland Governor Spiro T. Agnew hit the campaign trail, he did so as "Nixon's Nixon" - the attack dog the party needed to take the opposition apart while making the Republican presidential nominee look presidential.
It was the same role that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin assumed Wednesday night at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.
In her speech accepting the Republican nomination for vice president, Palin did a full Agnew.
Like that other Republican vice-presidential nominee in that other time, the newly-minted Republican nominee defended herself against unsettling revelations with regard to her personal and political missteps by attacking the messengers.
"I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone," she announced with a sneer in her voice. "But here's a little news flash for those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this great country."
The "average hockey mom" from Wasilla was devoted most of her first real speech to the American people to the serious political work of tossing verbal brickbats at the men who lead the Democratic ticket.
Palin barely even mentioned Barack Obama or Joe Biden by name. But everyone knew who she was talking about when she picked up her party's new theme of belittling Obama's experience as a community organizer working with laid-off steelworkers in Chicago.
The former mayor of the small city of Wasilla, Alaska, turned questions about whether her tenure in that position qualifies her to be second in line for the presidency into a populist defense of small-town America that highlighted an embarrassing off-the-cuff comment made by Obama at a San Francisco fund-raising event with regard to "bitter" rural voters that embarrassed the Democratic candidate during his Pennsylvania primary campaign.
"(Since) our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves," said Palin. "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco."
Sarcastic, bombastic, at times witty, at times savage, Palin ripped and ridiculed Obama with an eye toward challenging the common sense, logic and patriotism of the Democrat.
I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.
Maybe you have, too.
We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.
And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform -- not even in the state senate.
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.
Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.
Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?
Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.
Congress spends too much ... he promises more.
Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them.
Never mind the conflicts between reality and Palin's over-the-top mischaracterizations of Obama's record and positions. The governor of Alaska was not about to be constrained by the facts.
The point was not to debate the Democrats.
The point, as in Spiro Agnew's day, was to destroy the opposition. "(Though) both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, ‘fighting for you,' let us face the matter squarely," shouted Palin. "There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain."
This is the Sarah Palin America will hear in the fall of 2008.
Those who listen closely will hear echoes of 1968.
The echoes will not be precise.
John McCain is not Richard Nixon.
Barack Obama is certainly not Hubert Humphrey.
There is no George Wallace dividing the Democratic vote.
But there is a Spiro Agnew, and her name is Sarah Palin.
330 Comments so far
Show AllKeLeMi
Make that Zero T. Agnew.
Agnew was on the take. What about Palin?
It sure seems like a 1984 world. Sarah also misrepresented the Democratic
tax plan, saying small business taxes would increase. Of course the faithful mainstream media don’t question the lines such as ‘We should have won in Vietnam’. ‘The war in Iraq is a just war that we need to win.’ Big government taxes and more regulations are the Democratic mantra’ etc, etc, ....All this while appealing to the evangelical right.
Who are the real power players? Does profit trump reason?
Bring America Back !!!! WOW=== 330 thirty posts on this. Say John Nichols, since you quoted Sarah Palin's convention speech exactly, with all the barbs, red meat, and exagerations, are you sure you are not a paid member of the McCain advertising campaign ????
***So , how come you-- John Nichols, claiming to give us the history of
Spiro Agnew, fail to remind us that Spiro Agnew was forced to resign his
Vice Presidency during a scandal, but not before calling the Democrats
effete intellectual snobs !!! He was an attack dog to the end !
Such a freudian mistake leads me to think Mr Nichols knows in his
political heart that Sarah Palin was a Repubby stroke of Genius ! She and
McBush are riding high waves of excitement, change, family values, and
crushed glass ceilings. They smartly waited until they saw Biden, then they pounced with Palin, and a whole new world of possibles opened for them.
Meanwhile, our Obama guy meets with O'Reilly last nite on FOX TV, and
gets to praising "The Surge" as brillant, courageous military tactic !!!!
With that kind of electioneering by the Obama Team, Sarah Palin does not even
have to pull off a Spiro Agnew.
Democrats are now Desperate, backpeddling, and Team Obama has no clue !
Don't forget, "Nattering nabobs of oysterheads." Or something to that effect.
Thats "Nattering Nabob's of Negativity"
Oh, duh.
I just prefer oysterhead. It slides off the tongue without all the forced alliteration. But it may be a little creative for some.
Believe me, I have not forgotten Agnew, nor his literary aspirations.
Thanks for your good-hearted intent.
"I have not forgotten Agnew"
Lets do.
Women have been terminating pregnancies since medicinal herbs were discovered. Perhaps why so many "witches" were burned and drowned. Or perhaps because the women owned land and were somewhat literate and had control of their lives, "witches" had to be terminated.
In another thread I read how Pallin's shot to that Caribou was a coward's kill. The shot she lodged did not kill the animal immediately, but it suffered in pain before it died.
Sycophant: a servile self-seeking flatterer
Pallin and her admirerers are sycophants. It is a growing problem in America.
We are in deep. The hypocisy could choke a person. Pallin will do Nothing to help anybody but herself - and those loyal to HER. This is what she has a proven track-record of. NEPOTISM. at the expense of for example: the father of her sister's children. She wanted him to lose his job and all respect. In fact, she fired the man who would not fire him for such very personal reasons! What kind of a man or a woman would vote for this? What kind of person would be so selfish and heartless to have anybody lose their livelihood and standing? I have worked for hags like this. Yes, Hags, and I am a woman. THEY DECIDE what is best for everyone around them. They know absolutely nothing about the individuals they target. They can only see what is best for themselves.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." George Orwell, 1984
Well, Freeze's post was a little heavy with the judgement, but neverthess had many very well stated points. For time being I'll stop there.
Schorr sez her speech was dynamite, in so many words. Lakoff has laid on us the heavy tasks. Heavy but they do indeed need to be implemented.
Then too, it is my view that the Dems should have been going over the entire history of what the US has done to secure access to oil. The Marxists'll say we're to blame for everything. Versus Biden wants to stand up to Russia...or something to that effect. Where's the middle ground? Palin's already preach'n bout we need the Caspian pipeline. When have Obama or Biden even mentioned it? She's not gonna get us any significant amounts of oil, but if she and McCain want the pipe as bad as say Charlie Wilson would want it if he were in office...what kind of ops are we gonna have going down? War eventually?
"One might suppose that, as Putin seeks to link Chechen rebels to al-Qaeda, the U.S. would support the Russian leader in his moves against Chechen separatism, rather as it endorses every single move the Likud regime in Israel takes against the cause of the Palestinians (a 'terrorist' cause to the Likudists in the Bush administration), or that President Arroyo in the Philippines takes against the Moro. But no, not quite. Just as Washington found it useful to validate Bosnian and Kosovar nationalism in the Balkans (entrenching its expanding NATO-self into what was once proudly non-aligned European territory), so it has (under the Clinton and Bush administrations alike) found it useful to promote Muslim separatisms in southern Russia, to better destabilize the Russian Federation. Why? Because Russia seeks to thwart U.S. oil pipeline ambitions and the U.S.'s general pursuit of geopolitical advantage in the Caucasus."
Gary Leupp
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp09142004.html
Yep, 60 days away but neither Obama or Biden will put the whole picture together. Obama talked a long time at the convention, but proper treatment of how we got where we are needs a focused, honed, fireside chat on exactly how far we ARE up the creek (along with instructions on how to make a paddle). Perot, for example, had the right idea with intent [the intent and the good well to explain]. Only, what he intended to convey was flawed. True, that would earn Obama even heavier castigation, but it would seem to me it's the only sure way to keep the lead (big enough to offset election fraud). If Biden would quit doing that schtick and help him out maybe they both could pull it off. YEA of course to all "change" heretofore mentioned, but how bout we change the talking points too along with all that?
Well, when all has been said and done, as it appears to have been here,
I cannot help but think of that book written by Jack London, "White Fang,"
one of my favorites as a child, loved all of those books, "Gentle Ben" by Walt Morey. Etc. Etc.
But anyone else who can recall it, there is this scene where Judge Weedon Scott saves White Fang, a wolf domesticated by an Indian tribe and then sold into slavery with a cruel master. So anyway as the story goes this new cruel white master puts White Fang into dog fights which he handily wins until he is in a dog fight with a pit bull. It is able to conquer the previously untouchable White fang because White Fang is unfamiliar with it's strategy of fighting. You see it sits low to the ground and rather than try to attack viciously and quickly, it methodically strikes and then retreats wagging it's tail the whole time. Eventually it exhausts White Fang and gets a lock jaw hold on White Fangs throat and starts to throttle him.
I can't remember what technique Judge Scott uses to get the pitt bull off of White Fang as he lays at the edge of death gasping for his last breath, but it saves White Fangs life.
Anyways the book is set in Alaska of course, hmmmmmm.
Well I guess I'll have to read it for reference, seems pertinent for some reason.
Excellent job, all the trolls who hijacked this thread and drew in lots of honest people. Excellent job. Let's see... atheist, Leea, of course the obvious and inevitable Thomas More and Snow wolf...
What the hell are we talking about here?
RichM and Frederick Johnson (and some others), thanks for some intelligence.
God what a stupid horrific thread. Pay no attention to actual reality on Earth people, let's fight ridiculous fights over image and stereotyping.
Thanks again, trolls.
Darn, a troll all this time and didn't know it.
And poor old atheist, Leea, of course the obvious and inevitable Snow wolf. How liottle they know to disagree with those in the know.
Ummm, I don't know about any one else but I haven't been fighting, I've been sharing my thoughts, I'll save fighting with my enemies as a last resort.
Oh actually there are a few who seem to consider me their enemy, but so far all they've done is say so. It makes me a little uneasy, but you know what they say about words.
Sticks and stones.........
Besides, I think everyone is extra edgy since the CD handlers put us in this cage out in the back forty so as not to irritate their big donors.
Heh, heheheheheheheh.
Sigh
Wow Webwalk....
I am a bit dumbstruck at this Post...
I mean I KNOW I am a Rightie...a Wingnut...whatever you want to call me
I have been on this forum a bit over a month and have gotten to read a lot of Posts and gotten a feel for most of the regulars...
Thomas More, Atheist and Leea strike me as reasonable people with left of center views...but I suppose when you're locked over to the Left as far as most here everyone else must seem like Curtis Lemay...
I only see 2 right of centers here...Myself and jakenewton...perhaps truthteller although he (she?...I've already made that mistake once) seems pretty centrist mostly
Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago? If so, prove it.
Frederick, you shouldn't be talking to us Troll's.
Was I the one calling you a troll? NO. And I'll bet you can't even say yes to the following question I challenge you or Snowwolf to:
Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago and if so prove it?
Actually I am...we ratified a new Labor Contract this year with a 10% pay raise year one and 3% annually for the next 2 years then we go to negotiations again...
So the simple answer is yes...I am better off
(I bet that Frosts your Balls too, don't it?)
Consider yourself "lucky", sir/ma'am. I doubt that Labor Contract will hold as contracts can be cancelled/changed at any time. Besides, if it weren't for labor unions fighting for ignorant assholes such as yourself, you wouldn't have even gotten this far. And you have the nerve to vote for pols who are against labor unions? Pay increases don't mean squat as the costs of living outstrip any small pay increases from oil to homes. Besides, there's no such thing as perpetual growth and that's already been showing for the past 8 years as the dollar has been on a long term decline and is continuing.
Lets see Frederick, eight years ago........
Hmmmm........I didn't think I should vote as a form of protest against status quo,
today I understand that voting is a part of what makes a difference in the world.
Yup, better off.
Excellent job, all the trolls who hijacked this thread and drew in lots of honest people. Excellent job. Let's see... atheist, Leea, of course the obvious and inevitable Thomas More and Snow wolf...
What the hell are we talking about here?
RichM and Frederick Johnson (and some others), thanks for some intelligence.
God what a stupid horrific thread. Pay no attention to actual reality on Earth people, let's fight ridiculous fights over image and stereotyping.
Thanks again, trolls.
Excellent job, all the trolls who hijacked this thread and drew in lots of honest people. Excellent job. Let's see... atheist, Leea, of course the obvious and inevitable Thomas More and Snow wolf...
What the hell are we talking about here?
RichM and Frederick Johnson (and some others), thanks for some intelligence.
God what a stupid horrific thread. Pay no attention to actual reality on Earth people, let's fight ridiculous fights over image and stereotyping.
Thanks again, trolls.
Republican Torture-Pigs and Perverts
Palin/McCain are going for the jugular, and Obama/Biden are responding like a couple of nuns on a picnic. It's time to get down to the nitty-gritty of who the Republicans really are.
We beat the Nazis without torturing prisoners, but Bush/Cheney decided that a few raggedy Taliban in caves were more terrible than the enormous German Army, and they disgraced the United States with crimes against humanity that Eisenhower and Roosevelt and Patton and Abraham Lincoln and Washington and Grant and even William Tecumseh Sherman would have condemned as contemptible sub-human perversions.
Palin and McCain want to continue these perverted crimes against humanity.
Sarah Palin is just another Republican torture-pig and pervert.
John McCain is just another Republican torture-pig and pervert.
A vote for Palin/McCain is a vote to disgrace the United States and all the generations of our brave soldiers who rejected torture as a perversion unworthy of even the lowest human garbage.
I think it's easy for civilians (like me) to look at war and let everything merge into a very dark gray. With so much killing going on, what's so abominable about a little torture?
But for most of the military for most of our history, killing and being killed were just part of the job. As long as the other side is shooting at you, killing them any way you can is totally okay.
This obviously isn't a code that applies off the battlefield, but it defined war in a way that preserved a remnant of humanity for combatants.
But when the shooting stops, when somebody surrenders, you're in an entirely different situation, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing lower than abusing prisoners, without even thinking about torture.
The psychology of professional soldiers has always been that war is something like a sport, and as crazy as that sounds to everybody else, it still imposed some definite rules about treatment of civilians and prisoners.
For a soldier in a war-zone, there's no dishonor in killing other soldiers. But torture turns war into a total senselessness, and it leaves our soldiers with nothing to hope for except survival. No sort of honor is possible when the last vestige of human consideration has been lost: When our enemy is nothing but a thing that can be brutalized without limit, then we have also ceased to be human.
Our refusal to mistreat prisoners saved thousands and tens of thousands of lives, well illustrated in the story of a German soldier whose father gave him three bits of advice before he went to war: "Never volunteer, always do your duty, and surrender to the first American soldier you see."
Jacob Freeze
You have hit on a very fascinating point. Yes, we must remember this. But more, John McCain's experience of his torture turned into a trial in courage and commitment to country which he survived with the help of his fellow soldiers and God.
What might this say about his feelings on torture, which is a real issue for this election.
What is John McCain's record on the use of torture? Obama's?
Leea September 6th, 2008 8:18 am
"What is John McCain's record on the use of torture? Obama's?"
I don't want John McCain as president for a multitude of reasons but his stand on torture isn't one of them. He is definitely against it. He has tried multiple times to get anti-torture bills passed under Bush, which btw has been thwarted each time by the torturer in charge, Bush
As for Obama, I don't know, he hasn't spoken on the issue that I know of, and even if he did I would have a hard time believing him because of all of his other changes of postion on other issues.
Lobo Gris
"The Senate voted 51 to 45 on Wednesday afternoon to ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency against high-level terrorism suspects.
Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon."
That "no" vote was a vote against banning torture by the CIA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/washington/13cnd-cong.html?
Jacob Freeze
Jacob,
Thanks. Bush may veto but the Democrats should never back down from being this courageous and using this to demonstrate that they will stand up for justice. Caving in simply because the president will veto is NOT courage and that's what the party needs to keep in mind if they're going to expect to win over and win back voters in the long run.
You can sum up Sarah Palin in two words: Not qualified.
If you want the long answer, you could point out the many negatives that would disqualify her: Member of a secessionist political party in Alaska; key member of a 527 political fundraising group for Ted "bridge-to-nowhere" Stevens; embroiled in an investigation (2 of them) over abuse of powers; doesn't know what the "VP does on a day-to-day basis"; hasn't "thought much about Iraq"; wanted to ban books in Wasilla; hired a Washington lobbyist to snare millions of dollars in pork barrel spending; doesn't believe in evolution and wants "intelligent" design taught in school. Many of the above make her a liar when she states she's out to change Washington, and she was opposed to the bridge to nowhere (after she was for it), and that she is a loyal US citizens who puts America first (is that until Alaska secedes?).
None of the above is pertinent to gender. And, as a woman, I think it is insulting that anyone would think that a woman would judge Palin's qualifications and disqualifications by a metric less than a male candidate would be judged.
Rest assured JH I have only just begun considering her qualifications as a woman.
I simply started my critique with her with the fact she is a woman. I'm not done with the shocker for me on this one.
My brain seems to be very nuanced and complex. I wish it was as simple or experienced and therefore easily made up as some of the posters here seems to be, it's exhausting to consider all these ramifications and layers of reality to try to get to where the picture of what is, is complete so I can get to what my choice is, based on a real process of consideration rather than knee jerk reaction.
I guess with my age I am getting really cautious about charging in where angels fear to tread. etc.
But then again, procrastination based on self defined moral perfection will suffice...
I defer to your expertise on the subject dogleg.
:)
Before you sum up Sara Palin in two words, remember that she endorses the entire Republican agenda, including torturing prisoners, and instead of "not qualified," two words that sum her up more appropriately are...
Sadistic pervert.
Jacob Freeze
well, God had his son tortured and killed to save the world.....blame him.
And who might this 'God' be? And the relevance here, beyond peanut butter and jam sandwiches?
After reading the comments on this page (and other CommonDreams pages) I now believe that John McCain will be elected the next President of the United States. You are so divided.
Just an observation from outside the United States.
Please prove me wrong in November.
I'm afraid you and Bryan D are correct....I feel this starting to slip away. Lets hope its just a passing thing.
No, you don't understand, the "division" here comes from people who do not actually belong here, but come here to create the appearance of division. Trolls.
You actually believe that people come here, posing as CD posters who "belong" just to advance the nefarious agenda of the evil empire?
You know your kind of response amounts to a sort of a virtual witch hunt, if someone has different views than you.........dismiss them as evil agents, and conclude that they "don't belong"
I wonder how far you are going to virtually take this?
If you are a big donor to CD you might leverage your power and not only insist we have a different section of the web to live in (segregation) but that we are reminded who we are by actually creating a special section of the bus for us. (humiliation)
Soon we will become so demoralized and disempowered that Bush and his ilk will be the least of your worries.
KKKarl Rove sent me here
Booga Booga!
(Scary part is he probably will believe that...*LOL*)
snicker,
when I said you ain't seen nothing yet about Sara Palin, I obviously misunderstood the depths of delusional irrational fear swirling around the CD 'progressive' web site. He will not only believe it but wait and see what his belief leads him to type.
My new mission is to save America by exasperating the paranoia that is on the rise here, thanks to Obama's fall.
Get ready for the back of the bus SnowWolf.
If you want to win this endless race to the White House, forget Sarah Palin, don't get distracted by the sideshow freak, and beat the hell out of the Repubs everyway and all the time for the way they have squandered the wealth, good will, and treasure of this country.
Remind the half-listening public that the very ones who now speak of change, are the ones who created this disaster.
Anything weaker will not work.
The Dems are asking this country to elect a black man, and, sad to say perhaps, that is a lot to ask, considering the rascist history of the continent.
It can be done. But, as FDR liked to say, only by calling out the opposition, again and again and again.
palin has energized the base, she even seems to have lit a fire under mccain and she has knocked the chip off of obama's shoulder
in her wake mccain does look like a maverick and obama seems to have peaked about three months too soon
this election is slipping away
btdubs: has anyone even seen nader lately
cheers, b
Atheist: you may not support Palin but when you vote for McCain you vote for her. If you actually are an atheist how can you do that? They want a theocracy.
peacegurl says "Atheist: you may not support Palin but when you vote for McCain you vote for her. If you actually are an atheist how can you do that? They want a theocracy."
peacegurl, you've misread her handle. It's not "atheist" but "a theist."
Mr. McGreenScreens and Mrs. Moose
I liked Gidget and the Geezer better.
I don't know if its Democrats, journalists, media, or who, but the attack on Palin so far has been relentless, slimey, personal and where it keeps touching her family disgusting is the way I'd describe some of the attacks.
Whoever is doing it, they are doing a lot of it and I'd like to say again....big mistake. Too politically stupid for words.
I don't believe Palin made her daughter a public spectacle, I'm faily sure it was the gutter press.
Gidget and the Geezer?...That is TOO funny
Now Thomas don't go losing your head on this issue!
For Thomas or any of others who have not seen it, a critique of Palin's public career from a real Wacissa neighbor can be found at:
http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/about-sarah-palin-a-letter-from-anne-kilkenny/741/
Most disturbing to me are her penchant for:
lowering taxes on businesses and raising them for private individuals
partisan firings of those she doesn't like and no other reason.
redistributing budget surpluses to tax-payers while financing public works projects through borrowed money from bond issues.
All of the above criticisms reflect on an ability to govern in a just, fair, and competant manner and none of them constitute personal or family smears.
Poet
I don't think I'm losing my head.....
It is how this is being percieved, forget the truth for the moment, think of the perception. How it looks to the average voter. Thats what I'm talking about.
I'm waitng for the truth to emerge for sure. Just think about the early reports that turned out to be complete bogwater....the claim that she cut funding to pregnant teens, that she was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, that her baby was really her daughters, etc.
"lowering taxes on businesses and raising them for private individuals
partisan firings of those she doesn't like and no other reason.
redistributing budget surpluses to tax-payers while financing public works projects through borrowed money from bond issues.
True "All of the above criticisms reflect on an ability to govern in a just, fair, and competant manner and none of them constitute personal or family smears." But I believe we need to make absolutely sure , absolutely sure before attacking.
O.K. everybody!!
On the count of three, everyone hold their breath until blue in the face...:)
How about this for a theory Thomas... the Media relentlessly goes after Sarah Palin... trashing her as a mom, as a woman, as a wife, as a person... now, how does the average citizen react to that? With SYMPATHY. They'll start seeing Ms. Palin as a victim, thereby voting for McCain/Palin ticket out of "Look what the dirty liberal media is doing to that nice woman".
As a theory pretty good my friend, because I think that is exactly what is happening.
If I were a Republican strategist I would be rubbing my hands and saying "Thank you Father Christmas!" We couldn't have planned it better.
Perhaps .........
It's an attack on hypocrisy. Palin's been brought in as a sop to the extreme right-wing fringe.
Be disgusted if you like, but this is the campaign style the Republican's have perfected.
And you want to copy their style? Be like them? Lets talk this over.....
There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death.,"
Does this mean the country has to be facing that kind of perilous, menacing situation for McCain and Palin to be effective? I think I'd rather have a guy who has experience helping laid-off steelworkers organize. Imagine those values guiding foreign policy.
This Republican ticket basically concedes that they are more comfortable in a world of extreme, violent tension. McCain as Rambo? Palin posing in a beauty pageant in an american flag bikini with a gun?
Victory for these people is clearly not just a means to to some larger virtuous end. It is a virtue in itself, which means it will continue to seek out, if not create, the competitive, even violent, conditions that make it a constant necessity.
I think I'd rather go with leaders who want prosperity through peace and cooperation, not through domination and violence. Therefore, I've decided to vote for my grandparents.
Since I'm in Utah, and our electoral votes are going to reactionary fascists anyway... again... and again... ad nauseum, My vote for my grandparents won't hurt Obama/Biden.
"Since I'm in Utah, and our electoral votes are going to reactionary fascists anyway... again... and again... ad nauseum, My vote for my grandparents won't hurt Obama/Biden."
So why not vote for a true progressive like McKinney or Nader so that mabe they can get the percentage of votes they need to get matching funds and get into the presidential debates in 2012.
Then we might see some real change rather than the pseudo change we are seeing this cycle.
Lobo Gris
I was on our state steering committee for Nader-LaDuke in 2000.
After that nightmare (not the Nader/LaDuke part of it, but the pathetic and impossible ballot-access barriers for our Green Party, the Boston presidential debate/arrest threat fiasco, the Florida "Bush cheated, Gore conceded", bullshit, and the fact that myself and another campaign worker were prepared to lock down the Utah Republican Party headquarters if Nader went to jail at the Chicago debates, and Nader didn't push it), I had a hard time holding down my lunch every time I even though about electoral politics.
In 2004, I just went straight for my conscience and wrote-in Leonard Peltier and Winona LaDuke. This year, I will probably vote for Cynthia McKinney, mostly because my grandparents wouldn't actually take the office if their lives depended on it.
Good call though on the third party vote in the midst of this electoral college wasteland.
Blugie and Leea: Here's one female you don't speak for! She's got it right for all women...what? She represents repression and regression. Having a high powered position does not make you a feminist.
What she got right is the pit bull hiding under the saccharine hockey mom persona.The only thing she, and her party, inspire in me is abject fear.
I am a working mother and when my teenage daughter got pregnant I did not make her a public spectacle nor suggest that she compound things with a teenage marriage.Of course I put family, not country, first.
I am a Catholic who believes that faith is a personal matter and certainly does not belong in government.I don't impose my faith on anyone and don't expect the faith of others to be imposed upon me.
Palin will be the ultimate power grab for the very frightening right wing religious fanatics and we may never get our country back. Palin is no more historic than a Black man in this racist country; in fact the moment is ruined for me because of who she is and what she represents.
Vote for McCain to please Hilary, I don't think so!
I agree with Peacegurl! For any woman considering voting for McCain & Palin because she's a woman I have two words: SUPREME COURT. Just imagine what would it would look like if McCain can appoint the next two or three judges. If that's not enough to scare you, remember Roe vs Wade. Whether you believe in abortion or not -- the women who will follow us deserve the right to decide for themselves. This is even more desperately true in the case of rape or incest. Palin does not even believe in the right to choose under those circumstances and she would be one heartbeat from the presidency of a 72 year old man who has had four bouts with cancer.
P.S. I am many years past reproduction -- not an issue with me or my daughter. However, some day it may be an issue for my grand daughter.
SUPPORT OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!
.
The Republican Convention was like some warped kids TV show from the past:
Mr. McGreenScreens and Mrs. Moose
.
"I also believe that abortions have helped to create a pathologically promiscuous culture."
What should being promiscuous have to do with abortion? Ever hear of contraceptives and sex education?
Make love not war.
Sexually dysfunctional conservatives enslave women and repress men. We know how that turns out.
Our ape cousins, bonobos, prevent conflicts with by having sex liberally. They may be smarter than we are.
"A person who is sexually satisfied cannot possibly be neurotic"
Sigmund Freud
And,
"...pathologically promiscuous culture."
I like that defining adverb of a psychology term used to qualify her authoritative voice on the sexual nature of human beings. However, I must take issue with the quantitative inference. Primarily, on the basis of individual freedom and the enjoyment of a natural act without the interference of frustrated beauty queens.
I am sorry, but did you forget how Hillary Clinton was treated exactly HERE on CD? Hitlery and Hellary being the most benign things she was called????
She sure would have wished to be treated like that Palin woman is being treated in her circles!!! But no, these "progressive circles" were giving her a really hard ride because they had already settled on another candidate.
"We" had opted for Obama, so forget the rest, right??
The sexism of THIS lot seems to outdo the sexism of the other lot, quite frankly.
At least the Reps know when they've got a winner.
Hillary Clinton would have been able to make mince-meat of this basically ignorant right-wing wannabe politician without anyone having to watch out for being sexist.
Biden and Obama will have to tread really carefully vs. Palin, OTOH. And that's exactly what the Reps wanted to achieve.
Thank you all, all you silly Hillary-bashers for months, for having made it SOO easy for the Reps!!
I, personally, did not 'bash,' Ms. Clinton here. The posters who did were based on the reality of her voting record. There were individuals here, are here, that delight in smearing their political feces all over this sight for obvious reasons. Of course, HLS has identified and removed their enlarged spleens, so I doubt we will see much more of that ilk. Except for the nagging questions of future White House hot tub parties Ms. Palin might encourage to increase dollars for 'abstinence before welfare' in Africa.
But, hey, who knows? Right?
Vote your sexual identity, not boring principles, I always say.
Repugs had the advantage of waiting for the Dems to pick their VP first. If Obama had picked Hillary, they would have picked somebody else instead of Palin, a black woman maybe.
Hillary did this to herself. Don't blame men. Pay attention to the working class issues and maybe she'd have won ! DUH !
It wasn't just men, it was Obama, his handlers (women and men), and his groupies (women and men) who lashed out at Hillary with the most sexist and misogynist attacks I have ever witnessed. Despite their 18 million votes, Obama and his handlers chose to ignore Hillary's supporters and chose a-hole Biden as his VP pick. (You'll ASSume I think he should have picked Hillary, but that's not what I think.)
Now you are all going to pay for your transgressions.
no expert here.. but I will hazard a guess that obama's people carefully thought out what their VP options were. The idea of electing a black person is emotionally/ unconsciously (word?) scary for a lot of people. A woman is too much change for the majority of the undecided/ swing voters to get their minds/ votes around. I will guess that in the end, for all the competent women out there, or for all the non-insiders that were options.. when it came down to it.. they had to run the numbers and the electoral math. I am guessing that Barak needed to be backed up by something that felt politically and socially safe.. much the same way that McSame is crafting the unconscious look and feel of the family, by choosing a conservative and semi subservient woman VP..
not well worded here. sorry.. hopefully you get what I am trying to say.
You just nailed it !
Well, *I* have heard of contraceptives and sex education, but apparently millions of other women haven't. There is a lot of careless casual sex going on, no protection. Millions of women seeking the "morning after" pill because they were careless the night before. Millions more having abortions because they were SO careless they didn't even have the foresight to get the morning after pill.
Of course I'm not saying that all abortions are due to such carelessness, but apparently most are. Read this from the Alan Guttmacher Institute:
• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]
• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended.
• In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.[2]
• Each year, about two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 47% of them have had at least one previous abortion.[3]
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
I think this has a lot to do with the American "hang-ups" on sex. Sex is very taboo, and therefore, I think many people are not getting contraceptives out of embarrassment. That's just my opinion though.
Well, if you love Palin, you love it that she plans to ensure more unintended pregnancies and in the process more unsafe abortions and get ready for contraception hell. When people are miseducated, unintended consequences go haywire. Of course, Palin would much prefer to blame the victims as would the rest of the rightwing gang. Is that what you want?
By the way, are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?
Are you an idiot or can you not read for other reasons ? I don't support Palin. You ASSumed I did, because your reading comprehension is poor.
"I don't support Palin. You ASSumed I did, because your reading comprehension is poor."
Oh really ??? Then explain THIS:
----------------------------------------------------------
atheist September 5th, 2008 2:12 pm
What ? She might not be Governor of AK because she's a woman, but she's McCain's VP pick because she's a woman. And you know what ? I like it. I LIKE IT ! Sometimes a little affirmative action is necessary to make things right. Obama's handlers should have know that this was coming and cut the Republicans off at the pass. But nooooo, they had to pick dumb*ss Biden. So much for change.
Hillary 2012. I'm voting for McCain in 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------
atheist September 5th, 2008 2:30 pm
Politico made an excellent comparison between Palin and Edwards ...
Palin has been attacked for being Governor and now being the VP pick while having a child less than a year old. Some so-called pundit asked a ridiculous question like "If the phone rings at 3am and her child is ill, where will her priorities be ?" HOW OBNOXIOUS !
And yet when Edwards wife was diagnosed with cancer, nobody expected him to stop what he was doing and take care of her. That is a far more dire situation, at least Palin has a husband and kids who can help take care of the baby, who was going to take care of Elizabeth Edwards ??? And now that we know Johnny boy had an affair while his wife was ill, where is the outcry about him being a bad husband ??? Nobody gives a crap unless it's a woman.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here. Read this for a change from someone who actually knows that weasel !
http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341
You ASSume that I support Palin. I do not, and the comments you grabbed don't show that I do. Again, your reading comprehension stinks. You are full of ASSumptions when you read and it clouds your objectivity.
I'm guessing you're an Obama groupie. ASSumptions and poor reading comprehension seem to be a common problem among them.
"You ASSume that I support Palin. I do not, and the comments you grabbed don't show that I do."
But you yourself admitted that you like Mccain's pick of Palin.
"Again, your reading comprehension stinks. You are full of ASSumptions when you read and it clouds your objectivity."
Oh really ??? So does yours for sucking up to the "female victimization" game. Listen, missie. If HRC had gotten her fucking priorities straight by not supporting the war in Iraq and "free" trade scams though she did vote against CAFTA for once, she wouldn't have been a FUCKING LOSER ! And if HRC had actually stood up to Big Media and spent more time building long term support in all 50 states all the way up to and through the primaries, she wouldn't have LOST. You're the one whose comprehension is PISS POOR.
"I'm guessing you're an Obama groupie."
Did you even read the posts in this topic? If you had, you would have found out who I'm actually supporting. Nader was correct that there was no difference among Mccain, Hillary, and Obama and he still is ! So go right ahead and vote for Mccain/Palin but don't complain when you're economically RUINED.
if having women as leaders is enslavement, where are my cuffs?
I wonder if once discovering this weakness the Republicans will have a female nominee for the next presidency?
The Democrats will...Her name is Hillary
And I am sure she won't hold any grudges against all the ex-Clintonista's that turned on her and endorsed Obama ...*Cough*
Awwww....see?...she just appointed Bill Richardson Ambassador to the Taliban
Wait...Oh Shit!...They're cutting his Head off with a Ginsu Knife!...Hillary?...Hillary...Please Stop Smiling...you're scaring Me...
*ROFLMAO*
Thanks to the CIA, the Taliban is alive and doing well. That and the wars for oil in Iraq.
well we gotta get oil somehow...nobody wants to drill our own
*Sarcasm off*
Tell you what. Donate your big fat blubber towards oil production. We can save our taxpayer money from Iraq.
how about.. just using LESS.. global warming aside.. war aside..
being responsible both financially and morally.. by.. umm.. what's that word.. conserving.. isn't a bad thing...
"being responsible both financially and morally.. by.. umm.. what's that word.. conserving.. isn't a bad thing..."
No conserving isn't a bad thing, but by itself it won't solve the problem. There are the expanding economies of China and India to name just two that are increasing their use of oil also.
Lobo Gris
but china and india aren't as relevant to drilling our own oil- which was what the comment was referencing/ responding.
agreed.. other countries are growing into more oil use. however.. that shouldnt change our need and desire to become oil INdependent.. meaning.. OFF of oil.. which.. regardless of any arguments for or against peak oil and foreign politics etc.. is NOT unlimited.. and is harmful for the environment.. and btw- does anyone out there have geological expertise...
one question I have always had.. is what is the role and function of all that crude in the ground/ earth's crust...? chances are it is playing some relevant role to the planet-body.. and we are tampering with that delicate balance. does the heavy viscosity help cushion tectonic plates? thereby minimizing earthquakes? absorb temperatures both from the interior of the planet and other geological phenomena...? I really don't know.. and am not espousing that it does perform these or any functions.. but generally speaking.. no living organism has useless organs/ parts..
even the appendix, has a function ( surprise:).. it just took us until this last year to discover what it is.....
TeriD September 6th, 2008 10:29 am
"but china and india aren't as relevant to drilling our own oil- which was what the comment was referencing/ responding."
Sure they are. Unfortunately we can't untie our domestic demand for oil from global demand because we import something like 50% to 70% of the oil we use.
We can neither drill nor conserve our way out of the coming crisis although both need to be done to give us time to convert to alternative energy which will have to come from multiple sources, hydrogen, solar, wind, geothermal, and wave, to name some of the most promising
Lobo Gris
lobos-
agreed. no single solution is a silver bullet.. well, not quite.
the silver bullet will come when everyone starts to accept the facts on the ground and become self-aware, both about global and environmental realities ( most of which are experienced in the rest of the world, rather than here.. the worst impacts that is).. and after becoming self-aware/ globally aware and awake.. as in beyond a nod and lip service.. the question to address is.. what is each individual's part in it and what steps can each take to change that.. in order for our grandchildren to inherit a safe and healthy planet.
if that happens.. we will see change at all levels in a very quick turn-around.
and those changes do not need to be life-altering.. many changes are little.. like.. checking air pressure in your tires..
it's the awareness part that counts.. from there the rest flows freely.
Bashing intellectuals has a history. In Europe, it was famously used by the Nazis. They portrayed themselves exactly like Sarah Palin was trying to portray herself. As In: We are just these ordinary people, not like these high-faluting intellectuals who went to fancy universities..
I am very unhappy to see that you STILL can score brownie points in the USA by bashing people who have decided to educate their brains, despite humble backgrounds.
This is particularly ironic and cynical because the Reps definitely represent the moneyed class in America. Not necessarily the educated ones, though. But they are nevertheless responsible for the plight of those who aren't that well-off.
It beats me how they can manage to pull it off every four years: To convince the disadvantaged ingnorant people that THEY are the ones who represent the interests of Main Street, USA. I give them credit for achieving something akin to selling fridges to Greenland inuits in winter!
But why are Dems not more hard-hitting????
The Palin woman strikes me as intellectually challenged. Whoever claims to be a believing Christian and uses her Jesus to justify ANY war can't be anything else. VICTORY in Iraq? Give the world a break! And what does victory mean in an illegal war in the first place?
What's frightening, though, is the fact that this goes down well with all those other insufficiently educated people who equally claim to be true Christians. I.e. whoever lives between the coasts. I wonder what kind of New Testament THEY are reading over there.
A heartbeat away from the presidency: As European media keep pointing out, that woman only got her first passport only last year. So much for knowing the world. Something a prospective US commander-in-chief ought to know like the back of her hands. We've had to deal with far too many who didn't have a clue about anything but their backyards lately, and it definitely showed. Otherwise, the rest of the world, like me, wouldn't care about who is US president.
Anybody feel like a Titanic experience? Palin on that ticket gets us all closer to it.
Btw, if you all think Palin is the only god nut, check this out from July of this year. Among other freakish verbage, Obama wants to use $500 MILLION of taxpayer money to send kids to religious camps and he plans to expand Bush's faith-based lunacy:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4281940.ece
Christian radio stations are broadcasting adverts in which Barack Obama describes how he let Jesus in his life as he knelt before a cross in a Chicago church 23 years ago.
"I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me," the Democratic nominee says, "I submitted myself to his will, and dedicated myself to discovering his truth."
The adverts are being funded by an organisation called the Matthew 25 Network, named after a biblical passage in which Christ promises redemption for those who care for the least and the lost.
Although not formally linked to Mr Obama's campaign, the network is part of a concerted effort to prise off a chunk of a Christian vote that has long been regarded as the more or less exclusive preserve of Republican presidential candidates.
On Saturday, he wrapped up a week in which he had focused on faith, patriotism and service by telling thousands of black Methodists in St Louis: "I won't be fulfilling the Lord's will unless I'm doing the Lord's work". He set out about plans, first unveiled on Tuesday, to expand the federal subsidies of President Bush's faith-based programmes with a $500 million fund for sending disadvantaged children to religious summer camps.
"It is not part of a political strategy," he insisted. "I say it because I believe it - I've always believed it. This is the work we are called to do as Christians."
Mr Obama, who recently held a private meeting in Chicago with almost 40 evangelical and Catholic leaders, is also planning to launch the Joshua Generation Project to attract the votes of evangelicals. This group, like Matthew 25, takes its inspiration from the Bible by putting Mr Obama in the role of Joshua who did what Moses could not by leading his people into the Promised Land.
His strategists acknowledge many Christian voters will still oppose Mr Obama because of his support for abortion and gay marriage. But they also point out that Republican nominee John McCain is struggling to convince the Religious Right of his credentials. They say there is untapped support among those who care about poverty, the Iraq war, climate change and Darfur.
Shaun Casey, a religious adviser to the Obama campaign, says the "moral basket" is now wider than the narrow issues on which many Christians have voted over the past 30 years.
In 2004, Mr Bush took 78 per cent of the evangelical vote - which accounts for at least a quarter of the electorate - and a narrow majority of Catholics. Mr Casey predicts that if Mr Obama can move these margins even by a small fraction then he "will be the next president of the United States".
But he still has an uphill battle. When Mr Obama found his faith in 1985 it was thanks to the Rev Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons - both in style and substance - are anathema to most white Christians.
Although Mr Obama has since quit that church, his exotic background and internet smears have persuaded more than one in ten Americans that he is Muslim. Talking about faith at the very least reminds voters he is a committed Christian.
Social conservatives, of course, remain sceptical - even hostile - towards Mr Obama's "confused theology". James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, last month accused him of deliberately distorting the Bible "to fit his own world view".
But it was a sign of the times that the Rev Kirbyjon Caldwell swiftly leapt to Mr Obama's defence.
He is best known as the pastor who introduced Mr Bush at the 2000 Republican convention and recently officiated over the wedding of the president's daughter, Jenna.
So what's your point? You can't defend Palin by making a big deal out of Obama. Both Obama and Palin are BAD BAD BAD ! Now quit your complaining. Geesh !
I'm not defending Palin. I am pointing out that both Obama and Palin suffer from the god delusion, so it's not proper to bash Palin for being a god nut but not do the same to Obama.
They're not "god nuts" in the same sense at all.
I don't support Obama at all -- so don't think I'm defending him for that reason. But he is religious only in a traditional sense. He's not a fundamentalist zealot. And yes, he is indeed pandering to evangelicals, with his Saddleback appearance & coming out for "faith-based initiatives," etc.
Palin however is very different. She's a hardcore rightwing fundie, a Christian-warrior-fascist type, whose religion merges "God" with US militarism. She probably believes in the Rapture & End-Times, the type that whoops it up over that Turner Diaries drivel.
These are two very different things.