Apparently John McCain’s campaign manager is contending that Palin is being shielded from the media, not because she can’t handle an interview, but because they’re gonna be mean to her:
“Why would we want to throw Sarah Palin into a cycle of piranhas called the news media that have nothing better to ask questions about than her personal life and her children?” he asked. “So until at which point in time we feel like the news media is going to treat her with some level of respect and deference, I think it would be foolhardy to put her out into that kind of environment,” he said.
Three things occur to me:
1) If McCain’s people were taking this position with a male candidate, the perception would be that he’s weak and inept. So McCain’s people are banking on the concept that her being a woman will preclude that criticism, because anyone who says that will be tagged as being insulting and anti-feminist.
2) This sounds unbelievably patronizing to her and monumentally arrogant to the media. They’re saying she can’t handle tough questions, or at least shouldn’t have to, and they are endeavoring to dictate terms as to how the media has to treat her in order to rate an interview.
3) Someone who needs this much handling and protection doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in contemplating her being toe-to-toe with various foreign dictators and strong men, particularly if a stilled heartbeat thrusts her into the presidency anytime after January 2009. Golda Meir didn’t need insulation. Neither did Margaret Thatcher, to whom Palin has ludicrously been compared. Well…NOW Thatcher needs insulation, because she has dementia. So basically Sarah Palin needs as much protection as a former world leader who has trouble recalling her husband is dead. Make of that what you will.
PAD
• 
That’s a shame. I was hoping for AT-ATs, speeders, etc.
Jerome Maida: “And you still did not answer my question, namely, if the Obama story by the columnist in the New York Post was indeed true, would you consider that a significant issue? And would that affect your vote for him?”
Jerome,
If you are referring to the above linked NYT piece provided by Timothy Butler:
1- It was less an actual news story and much more an opinion piece.
2- It was a very slanted opinion piece.
3- The opinion story the writer was trying to paint was not accurate when all the facts were examined.
These being the facts; you may as well be asking if it would matter at all if all the lies that Hannity and Corsi have been pushing were true. Yeah, if the scurrilous lies were actually dámņìņg facts it might make a difference I’m sure. However, your question is about as productive as one of us asking you if you would suddenly stop supporting McCain if the lies, distortions and half truths told by some of the more nutjob left about McCain were all true.
The NYT opinion was not accurate and painted a false picture of what Obama actually did. Is there really anything else that needs to be said about it?
Posted by: Micha at September 20, 2008 10:12 AM
That’s a shame. I was hoping for AT-ATs, speeders, etc.
See, whereas I would be hoping for long ago crashed alien spacecraft or a thawed out giant lizard, praying mantis and a caveman.
Neither the New York Post or the NY Times pieces I referenced were opinion pieces. They were news articles. However, the author of the NY Post piece did write an editorial the next day in which he tore apart the Obama campaign’s dismissal of their candidates reported interference in troop level negotiations.
Timothy Butler: “Neither the New York Post or the NY Times pieces I referenced were opinion pieces. They were news articles.”
Point out where you linked a Post in this thread article as I really can’t find one anywhere above.
As to the Times write up:
Gee Tim, you’re right. I should have double checked that. The Times’ piece was just a quick news blip that said that Obama was headed to Iraq and that he felt that we needed to start pulling the troops out now, that the troops needed to be completely out in 16 months and that he hoped that Iraq wouldn’t cut any long term, binding security accord before the election. Oh, and it certainly backed none of the specific claims that you were making that lead you to post it as supporting the idea that “Obama seems to confirm much of the report in this NY Times story.”
It was the laughable National Review link that I was thinking of that you posted that, like you, leaned on a factually challenged Amir Taheri hatchet piece from the Post that took simple facts and a few out of context, single word quotes by Obama and bent them into the warped world view that Obama was cutting backroom deals during his Iraq trip to delay troop withdrawals until after the election and, presumably, his taking office.
Since all of them were posted to back the otherworld view you were promoting; I simply mixed the one article up with the other in my memory. My fault, I should have checked them.
Still, Jerome is barking up a strange tree since all the Times said was that Obama was headed to Iraq, he wanted the troops out in about 16 months and that he wasn’t a big fan of a last minute deal by Bush to lock us into years worth of Bush’s brain dead agenda. Not exactly new “news” or some big, secret Obama scheme being exposed since Obama has been pretty up front about all three of those things himself.
“Point out where you linked a Post in this thread article as I really can’t find one anywhere above.”
Should read:
Point out where you linked a NY Post article in this thread article as I really can’t find one anywhere above.
See, whereas I would be hoping for long ago crashed alien spacecraft or a thawed out giant lizard, praying mantis and a caveman.
Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT7AH4JyuNs and watch that video. I’m tempted to make my next movie entirely with GI Joes now.
Ok, that was cool. Sean, you looking at this yet???
If you ever decide to greenlight that idea, you can barrow mine. I’ve still got every one of the 80s Joes I ever had stuffed away in boxes along with more than a few custom Joes I created. I even have two of the Joe bases and the aircraft carrier. Imagine the sets you could have at your disposal.
[Owner’s Note]
Mr. Mulligan is not allowed to mutilate, disfigure are cut into pieces any Joe figures. No Joe toys are allowed to be smashed, set on fire or subjected to explosions. All of the owner’s Joe toys reside in Virginia and use of them is dependent on traveling to Virginia.
Mr. Mulligan is not allowed to mutilate, disfigure are cut into pieces any Joe figures. No Joe toys are allowed to be smashed, set on fire or subjected to explosions
What the hëll kind of movie is it gonna be if we don’t do any of that. Ok, fine, fine. We can have Sean’s Micronauts figures serve as stunt dolls.
I didn’t say I linked to the Post article. I said that I referenced it. If you go to the NY Post web site and search on “Obama Iraq”, you find both the news article and the editorial piece that cover Obama’s questionable behavior while he was visiting Iraq.
Well, unless they’re more factual and less speculative than the ones you did link to; it’s not really worth the effort to go digging to find stuff to back statements you made that have already been undercut by facts.
How about, if you know where they are and you think they back this notion you presented that Obama was cutting deals with Iraq to delay troop withdrawals until the the election, you dig ’em up and link them.
Geez. The Post article contained direct quotes from Iraqi officials. The NY Times article contained quotes from Obama indicating that a) he did discuss troop pullouts b) he did undercut the Bush administration’s efforts to negotiate troop withdrawal timelines and c) he asked the Iraqis to not follow any agreement with the current administration in favor of working with the next president.
Oh what the heck. I will link to the article. Then you can read it before you dismiss it.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
Here’s the follow up piece blasting Obama’s excuses:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_objects_129453.htm
Man, and you guys expect conservatives to get upset about the jet not being sold on eBay or some of the other smears being thrown at Palin.
If this is true, it pretty much constitutes treason in my book. Obama actually tried to stall negotiations to remove our troops and keep soldiers in harm’s way for his own political advantage. (Note that I said, “If this is true…” Nothing’s been proven yet. But there should be a mighty big investigation into this. But there won’t be.)
BTW – I see that both articles are op-ed pieces. My apologies for saying that the first report from the Post was not an op-ed column. I was wrong. My bad.
Obama didn’t provide any “excuses”. He said that the op-ed piece was filled with distortions. Given Obama’s record of character, and the record of Rupert Murdoch’s news sources to outright distort and lie, I’m inclined to treat the latter with skepticism, unless they can be corroborated by an independent source.
As for the ebay issue, I personally have no interest in that issue.
Tim,
Obama, in all of the news sources used to pluck out of context quotes from for these Taheri posts you’re linking to, said that he wanted troop withdrawals to continue. And troop withdrawals have in fact continued.
Amir Taheri has charged that Obama was trying to cut deals to get troop withdrawals delayed. Not true. Every quote, when sourced properly, leads back to a news report where either an Iraqi official or an Obama spokesperson clearly explains that Obama discussed the fact that he didn’t think that it would be a good thing to have Iraq make any long range comments with Bush on full security accords. They are not, no matter how many ways Taheri tries to spin it, the same thing.
This would be like you asking if you could use my kitchen to fix your kids some roast beef sandwiches, my agreeing but asking that you not use the oven and then you claiming to others, based on my oven request, that I tried to refuse to let you feed your kids. It’s intellectually dishonest at best and flat out telling lies at worst.
And you really should do some research on Amir Taheri before sourcing him so much. His reputation as a credible news source is, to be kind, questionable. He has a long history of distorting facts and making up stories with them that push the view he wants.
“Man, and you guys expect conservatives to get upset about the jet not being sold on eBay or some of the other smears being thrown at Palin.”
Yeah, you’re going to resort to claiming that factually backed statements about flat out lies said by Palin or on behalf of Palin by the McCain campaign are “smears” despite the fact that you can’t find so much as one fact to refute them.
If any of the above things that I’ve criticized Palin for or that others here have said about Palin are lies, smears or falsehoods then prove it. If all you can do is cry about the things said about Palin being smears without actually bothering to prove it, throw out weak smears of your own against politicians you don’t care for and source them with flimsy opinion pieces from less than credible sources; you’re not really going to be worth discussing much with over the long haul here.
Have a nice weekend.
~8?)`
“Yeah, you’re going to resort to claiming that factually backed statements about flat out lies said by Palin or on behalf of Palin by the McCain campaign are “smears” despite the fact that you can’t find so much as one fact to refute them.”
Haven’t seen any of those, Jerry. At least not here. All I’ve seen are accusations, charges, and (yes) smears with no facts backing them up. Just demands that I prove that the smears are false. Well, that’s not the way it works. But by all means, keep throwing the crap. Some of it might stick. (And the eBay thing – Just plain silly. Kid’s stuff. But Obama’s attempt to delay troop reductions and his connections to Fanny Mae – Now those are VERY interesting.)
I will have that nice weekend. You, too. Looking forward to more election fun next week. But not here. I think I’ll take Bill’s advice and just reconcile myself to the fact that politics isn’t a good thing to discuss here. At least for me.
Back to lurk mode.
All I’ve seen are accusations, charges, and (yes) smears with no facts backing them up.
Then you haven’t actually been reading anything that we’ve been saying. Go on, I’ll give you a few minutes to go back and look over some of the links that have been posted lately.
Okay, Timmy, here’s another documented fact for you. It’s just liked the sourced and linked facts above, so I’m sure you’ll just skip right past it with your hands over your eyes.
abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=1
GIBSON: “But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?”
PALIN: “But it is about reform of government and it’s about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.”
That’s a claim she’s made a number of times now. Problem is that she’s either woefully ignorant of the subject she’s holding up as one of her credentials or she flat out a liar who thinks she can say anything and get away with it. Alaska produces a mere 2.4% of all energy consumed by the US.
She got called on it and kept saying it as well. When the lie started cracking really bad she changed the lie to saying that Alaska produced 20% of the nations consumed oil. Again, not true and either ignorance or a lie on her part. Alaska produces only 14% of all oil produced by the US and it only produces a mere 4.8% of all the oil supplied to and consumed by the US.
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_crdsnd_adc_mbbl_a.htm
This lie got exposed and she has this weekend started saying that Alaska produces a “large amount” of the oil used by the US. Not the blatant lie that her faked figures were, but still a lie to any person who can’t swallow the idea of less than 5% of the oil used by the US being a “large amount” of oil.
Feel free to refute any of that without leaning on slanted editorials and hatchet jobs. If you can we’ll move on to the next one. But since you can’t; I guess this is where I bid you adou.
~8?)`
Haven’t seen any of those, Jerry. At least not here. All I’ve seen are accusations, charges, and (yes) smears with no facts backing them up. Just demands that I prove that the smears are false. Well, that’s not the way it works.
Luigi Novi: Right, the way it works is, if someone wants to prove the positive, the burden of proof is on them to do so. And people here have done so by citing sources for their statements (at least those whose posting habits or debating skills are more intelligent and responsible). And if said sources serve to establish the assertion made, then that burden has been met. It is therefore on you to elaborate on your assertion that they are “smears” by showing how the evidence/reasoning/sources provided do not support that conclusion. Unfortunately, you haven’t done so, preferring to cop-out by saying “Oh, if I thought the concerns being expressed were legitimate issues about “methods of governance and fitness for the job,” I’d be interested in spending more time. But they’re not. Honestly, they read like a list of petty complaints about a popular governor who’s had an excellent record of reform over the past couple of years.”, and by claiming not to be interested in “mainstream media sources”–which is exposed as a blatant hypocrisy when you subsequently cite The New York Post and The New York Times for your assertions, a contradiction you have refused to explain when challenged on it.
If the assertions about Palin were truly not relevant to the campaign, and/or unsupported by cited evidence, then yes, it would be reasonable to write them off as smears. But the truth is that you simply refuse to respond to this information, just as you cannot respond to charges of double-standards on your part, because you know you cannot refute it.
Luigi,
Re: Obama’s “character”
1.) He pledged that he would take public financing. When it turned out he was enjoying a tremendous fundraising advantage, he reneged. McCain actually, to my dismay, has kept his word. I feel the huge fundraising discrepancy as a result of one man keeping his word and one man not could swing (or even “buy”) the election for Obama. He claims he went back on his word because “the system is broken”. That is so much bovine excrement. Candidates from Carter, Reagan, Mondale, Bush 41, Dukakis, Clinton, Dole, Bush 43, Gore, Kerry and now McCain have used public financing. But because Obama is enjoying an advantage, he chose to break his vow to adhere to the restraints that every othe Presidential nominee since the current public campaign finance system was enacted. Because it benefited him. I don’t think that shows tremendous character.
For the record, I don’t personally believe in campaign donation restrictions. I feel it was something McCain was dead wrong on. But the fact remains Obama broke his word. I didn’t break mine.
2.) After bashing NAFTA publicly in Ohio on a continual basis he told Canadian representatives in Canada he was basically playing politics and would pretty much leave the agreement in place. To win votes, he basically lied to people who (mistakenly I believe, for the most part) feel NAFTA is costing their livelihoods. He lied to hurting and in some cases scared and desperate people while having no intention of revising or rejecting the agreement that HE is telling them is causing them so much pain. This is great character?
3.) He and McCain agreed to ten Town Hall-style debates to be held across the country where they could go beyond the ads, the networks and the spin and take their cases to the American people. Obama bailed. I guess when you have a ton of money for ads and the media basically swooning over you, talking to the American people in a joint setting with your opponent doesn’t seem to be to your advantage. this shows character?
4.) His campaign distorted a McCain remark about staying in Iraq for 100 years – if we were taking no casualties – into an endorsement of endless war. The media dutifully tsked-tsked the McCain’s claims that this was a cheap shot. Obama’s campaign got as much mileage of the blatant lie/distortion as humanly possible. This shows character?
5.) He refuses to support our troops in Iraq.
BTW, Amir Taheri, the Post columnist who wrote the Obama piece in question, has cited the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, an Iraqi media source, to corroborate his claims. Does this not count?
Jerome,
On points 1 and 4, I completely agree with you. Obama’s no saint, despite what some of his most fervent supporters paint him to be. That doesn’t significantly alter my support for him, but he’s not by any means perfect.
For point 2, is it possible he was lying to the Canadians rather than in Ohio? You’re dead on that he could not have been telling the unvarnished truth in both places, but you seem to be making an unwarranted assumption about which statement is true.
For point 3 — I’d like evidence that he ever agreed to the ten meetings in the first place, as I’ve not seen any.
For point 5 — this is nothing but a smear in and of itself, and it’s undermining your point. As I have asked you variants of in the past, define “support.”
The fact that you are so quickly willing to head into point 5 suggests that rather than an even-handed debate, you’re just looking to have the smears and rumormongering play in YOUR candidate’s favor rather than Obama’s.
TWL
Jerome Maida: Luigi… And you still did not answer my question, namely, if the Obama story by the columnist in the New York Post was indeed true, would you consider that a significant issue? And would that affect your vote for him?
Luigi Novi: Sorry I missed that question as the George Takei thread began to steal the traffic from this thread. Sure, it would affect it.
Jerome Maida: Luigi, Re: Obama’s “character”… He pledged that he would take public financing. When it turned out he was enjoying a tremendous fundraising advantage, he reneged…For the record, I don’t personally believe in campaign donation restrictions. I feel it was something McCain was dead wrong on. But the fact remains Obama broke his word. I didn’t break mine.
Luigi Novi: I remember a brief mention of the financing issue some months ago during the primaries, but I don’t have a good command over that issue. What reasons did Obama give accepting public financing, and why is it bad that he doesn’t? Can you cite sources for his position and yours?
Jerome Maida: After bashing NAFTA publicly in Ohio on a continual basis he told Canadian representatives in Canada he was basically playing politics and would pretty much leave the agreement in place. To win votes, he basically lied to people who (mistakenly I believe, for the most part) feel NAFTA is costing their livelihoods. He lied to hurting and in some cases scared and desperate people while having no intention of revising or rejecting the agreement that HE is telling them is causing them so much pain…This is great character?
Luigi Novi: I haven’t heard about his position on NAFTA, but again, if you can point me to references, I’d read it. But right off the bat, something with your description of this issue seems a bit off: He told Canadian reps that he was basically playing politics? I’m a bit skeptical that any candidate, even if they were playing politics, would outright say this, so I’m guessing this is a bit of hyperbole/paraphrase on your part? I am, however, familiar with his position on outsourcing (which is somewhat related), and I completely disagree with it.
Jerome Maida: He and McCain agreed to ten Town Hall-style debates to be held across the country where they could go beyond the ads, the networks and the spin and take their cases to the American people. Obama bailed.
Luigi Novi: Sorry to sound like a broken record (and an ignorant one), but can you cite this? Why is a town hall-style debate better than the traditional moderator-oriented one? I’ve heard the opinion that Obama excels in the latter, and McCain in the former. Is this part of it?
Jerome Maida: His campaign distorted a McCain remark about staying in Iraq for 100 years.
Luigi Novi: I’ve seen the video of McCain making the statement in question, and I see no distortion. What I find amazing about this lie is not only that people keep trying to propagate it, but do so even in the fact to of the evidence that it’s plainly true. Someone on YouTube calling themselves PresJPolk, in fact, posted a video of Obama insisting to Meredith Vierra that his statement is true, and that video of McCain saying this can be found on that very site, tried to edit the video to cast Obama in a suspicious light (showing the clip of Obama’s insistence four times during the clip), but PresJPolk actually includes the clip of McCain saying outright that he has no problem with troops staying there 100 years! I wanted to post a comment asking how this constitutes a lie on Obama’s part, given that the video itself provides evidence that McCain actually said this, but unfortunately posting was disabled for that video. (Gee, I wonder why?) ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acy28CuLKiQ )
If we’re generous, and try to grasp at straws to try and figure out how PresJPolk thought Obama’s assertion was untrue, we can speculate that he thought McCain’s inclusion of the qualifier “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed”. The fact that he repeats that clip may bolster this. But how does this qualifier make Obama’s statement a distortion or lie? McCain said he has no problem maintaining a presence in Iraq for 100 years, and all Obama did was repeat that fact. How is this is a lie? The exclusion of that qualifier does not change the meaning of McCain’s statement, because our presence in Iraq is indeed the focal point of Bush’s years in office, and of the campaign. Including that qualifier changes nothing, because the fact of the matter is that if soldiers remain there, they are going to be wounded and killed. Merely hoping that they’re not isn’t going to change that, and the American people know this. This is precisely why they want us out of there. Thus, that qualifier is meaningless, because it describes a hypothesis that’s completely untenable, and therefore, Obama’s relation of that statement is completely accurate.
Jerome Maida: He refuses to support our troops in Iraq.
Luigi Novi: How so? He wants a phased withdrawal of them from the region, leave a residual force in Iraq to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda and protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel, and provide the necessary armor and other provisions that are currently lacking among some of those already there. Sure sounds like support to me. ( http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ ; http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga )
Jerome Maida: BTW, Amir Taheri, the Post columnist who wrote the Obama piece in question, has cited the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, an Iraqi media source, to corroborate his claims. Does this not count?
Luigi Novi: It might if I can read about it. 🙂
In my opinion, Obama has taken the high road in this campaign. Rather than appeal to the most conspiracy-minded, Afro-centric or anti-American among African Americans, he has appealed to feelings of unity. He has not falsely accused anyone of being a Muslim. He has preferred not to make race or gender an issue. He tries to ignore the smear attacks by others, preferring to respond only when he may feel he has to clarify his feelings, as with the Reverend Wright issue. He did not lose to Hilary, refuse to pull out when he should have, and then fail to support her vigorously when it was clear he lost. He has not expressed ignorance of Bush’s policies. He has not attempted to argue living in a state close to a foreign country constitutes his foreign policy experience. He is not guilty, that I know of, of cronyism, or using his office for personal vendettas. He has not ever shown any possible tendencies toward banning books from public libraries. He has not engaged in criticism of others for things that he has subsequently engaged in himself. He has not mocked his opponent for statements and positions that he was later forced to accept for himself. He has not mocked community organizers. He has not attacked anyone’s wife, and even opined that family members were off-limits. He is an educated man who criticizes ignorance, rather than elevate it as some type of virtue to which he will appeal in others. He doesn’t resort to use 9/11 as a fear-mongering tactic. He doesn’t hide from the media, but talks to reporters and critics, including harsh critics like Bill O’Reilly, whose tough questions and criticisms he answers directly. He picked his running mate for his experience and ability, and not for political reasons. He is not guilty of trying to use federal funds to build a useless bridge in his home state, nor of lying about it afterwards. He did not welcome, at his party’s convention, members of an anti-American group who advocate secession from the Union, much less thank them for their work. He doesn’t speak as if the “under God” clause in the Pledge of Allegiance was a part of the original Pledge, or as if the Pledge was written during the time of the Founder Fathers. He has not used cheap attack ads against his opponents, lied about them growing up on “private beaches”, falsely accused them of being “elitists”, etc.
Every candidate can be criticized for something. Despite his flaws, and the positions on which I disagree with him, Obama has been the class act in this campaign. I can’t easily say that for McCain/Palin, Hilary Clinton, or their supporters.
Jerome, I just posted a response to your post, but it’s being held for approval, presumably because it was about four url’s in it. So if you see this post, sit tight, and it’ll eventually appear here (hopefully). 🙂
For what it’s worth (and probably very little to those on the right), a memo was sent out months ago from McCain’s campaign saying that they wanted to run a ‘respectful’ campaign.
How’s that working out, Jerome? Timothy?
“2.) After bashing NAFTA publicly in Ohio on a continual basis he told Canadian representatives in Canada he was basically playing politics and would pretty much leave the agreement in place. To win votes, he basically lied to people who (mistakenly I believe, for the most part) feel NAFTA is costing their livelihoods. He lied to hurting and in some cases scared and desperate people while having no intention of revising or rejecting the agreement that HE is telling them is causing them so much pain. This is great character?”
I saw yesterday on CNN one of Obama’s guys — I don’t remember the name — who denied that this actually took place, and said that the Canadian government confirmed what he was saying.
Maybe Governor Palin won’t come out to play because of this: Sandra Bernhard: Palin Would Be Gang-Raped By Blacks in Manhattan
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/sandra-bernhard-palin-would-be-gang-raped-blacks-manhattan.html
Maybe Governor Palin won’t come out to play because she’s afraid that her husband is having sex with their children.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/22/snl-palin-incest-joke-falls-flat-in-sketch-lampooning-new-york-times/
I saw that info about Sandra Bernhard on a very liberal site (Shakesville) that cast her comments as hateful, racist and sexist. But if the words of a washed up comedian who is looking for attention in a very negative way is keeping her from doing press conferences, how is she going to be able to withstand the pressures of the vice presidency? She can’t be a “pit bull with lipstick” and be afraid to answer questions from the press.
Too many hers in my comment above. For the sake of clarity I will do a little edit:
I saw that info about Sandra Bernhard on a very liberal site (Shakesville) that cast Bernhards comments as hateful, racist and sexist. But if the words of a washed up comedian who is looking for attention in a very negative way is keeping Palin from doing press conferences, how is she going to be able to withstand the pressures of the vice presidency? She can’t be a “pit bull with lipstick” and be afraid to answer questions from the press.
Craig,
Went to go see McCain at a Town Hall in Scranton today, and it seems his pledge to be “respectful” is being kept.
How about a campaign that promised a “different kind of politics” that, in addition to the incidents mentioned above, has:
A.) Aired campaign ads in Spanish, accusing McCain of being “two-faced”, using one set of words to Hispanic audiences and another to fellow Republicans?
“They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with…the intolerance…they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much”, a narrator says, as the screen flashes some pretty nasty comments by Rush Limbaugh.
So the Obama campaign is trying to tie McCain to Rush Limbaugh! And stirring up resentments, real or imagined, in Hispanic voters! You’re right, Craig, that’s the epitome of high class!
Never mind that what almost doomed McCain’s candidacy and alienated him from his party a great deal was the fact that he was one of the most liberal Republicans you could imagine on the issue of immigration reform. Yes, he endorsed a plan crafted by Bush, but also supported by right-wing nuts from Ted Kennedy to Geraldo Rivera. In fact, in one of those self-righteous moments that infuriate me in regard to him, he called those who disagreed with him – like Rush Limbaugh – as “agents of intolerance”.
Ever since, Limbaugh has been one of McCain’s most outspoken critics.
Throughout the primary season, Limbaugh excorciated John McCain on the topic of immigration reform. To try to tie McCain to Limbaugh is about as dishonest as it gets. But even the Limbaugh quotes (“stupid and unskilled Mexicans”, “you shut your mouth or you get out”) turn out to be misrepresentations.
Limbaugh uttered the first words back in 1993, when he was supporting NAFTA. Stupid and unskilled as his comments might have been, Limbaugh’s point was that NAFTA would send unskilled jobs to Mexico while creating more high-skilled jobs in the US. And the second quote was a parody of MEXICAN immigration law.
When it come to lies, the media get far more exercised over unflattering truths about Obama’s record – like the Illinois bill which he supported that mandated comprehensive sex education for children in kindergarten – than they do about distortions of McCain’s.
So Palin and he are hitting back. Or are they supposed to silently accept lies and smears against them in the name of acting respectfully?
But this is the way it works. Lies are told about Republican candidates. They hit back, and when they do, they are portrayed as the “attack machine”, the bullies. Their victories are “tainted”. As if James Carville and paul Begala played pattycake with Bush 41 and Dole.
In the end, that is what has Democrats and the media so upset with campaign: Instead, of being a lovable, nostalgic, toothless and therefore “respectful” candidate in their oppoents eyes, McCain actually has the fire and the AUDACITY to be trying to win in a year the Democrats feel entitled and Obama is seen in some quarters as a Savior.
Well, let’s see, are you trying to tell us that Limbaugh is not currently supporting John McCain? So far that I know, he is. And you don’t seem to mind misrepresenting Obamas position on “sex education” for kindergartners. He supported age appropriate education to help protect the children from predators. Here in Washington state, if a person convicted of abusing a minor is released into your neighborhood, we get informed and are invited to a sheriffs meeting on how to deal lawfully with a possible danger in our midst. My daughter was in kindergarten when one moved in our neighborhood. At the meeting a book “The Right Touch” was recommended as an age appropriate way to talk to her about it. The book does not go into detail but warns a child that there are bad people out there and lets them know what to do if approached. This is a bad thing? If you don’t want your candidate misrepresented, maybe it would be a good thing for you to find out that the commercials he is airing are not completely truthful and are misrepresenting Obama. Before you believe all you hear about McCains “high road” you might want to check out factcheck.org to see that he has been smearing Obama since the start.
,i>Well, let’s see, are you trying to tell us that Limbaugh is not currently supporting John McCain? So far that I know, he is.
It’s just not a legitimate argument to use. It’s one of the reasons McCarthy and Nixon are not held in high esteem. And if it is legitimate then is it equally valid to find some left wing yahoo that Obama doesn’t know or like and claim that their support is a reflection on him? Should he be on the defensive because Sandra Bernhard is a vulgar racist?
Of course not! Linking Limbaugh to McCain is laughable; before the Palin pick Limbaugh sounded like he would have been perfectly happy to see McCain lose.
And managing to use incorrect quotes is just mind boggling. Limbaugh has said many things worth criticizing and they couldn’t find one to use?
I think this add and the one about McCain’s typing skills illustrate the danger in running a nationwide campaign for the first time–a lot of stuff must be left up to hired guns. Biden just said he thought the ad was “terrible’ and it would not have run had he known about it. Biden can be tone deaf at times but he’s correct about this.
Of course, McCain can’t blame inexperience for his bad ads. Had the Obama campaign not replied with equally bad ones he would have had a killer issue to bring up at the debates. Now, when he gets justifiably indignant about he “sex ed for kindergartners” ad McCain will have something to throw right back in his face. Elections are too chancy to let opportunities slip by.
Ah, spoke too soon. Biden just took back his statement.
initial statement: from the Today Show
Couric: And you guys haven’t been completely guilt-free, making fun of John McCain’s inability to use a computer.
Biden: I thought that was terrible, by the way.
Couric: Why’d you do it then?
Biden: I didn’t know we did it, if I’d have known we did we’d have never done it, I don’t think Barack, you know, I just think that was, ah
Couric: Did Barack Obama approve that ad? He said he did, right?
Biden: Yeah, the answer is, I don’t, I don’t think anything was intentional about that, they were trying to make another point.
New official statement from Joe, somewhere in a woodshed I suspect:
I was asked about an ad I’d never seen, reacting merely to press reports. As I said right then, I knew there was nothing intentionally personal in the criticism of Senator McCain’s views which look backwards not forwards and are out of touch with the new economic challenges we face today. Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Senator McCain’s ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize, especially when they continue to distort Barack’s votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators.
I thought Biden’s statement was the campaign pulling back on the ads but I guess they are committed to them. A mistake, IMO.
Jerome Maida said:
“…like the Illinois bill which he supported that mandated comprehensive sex education for children in kindergarten…”
Jerome, continually repeating this statement will not make it true.
The part of the bill affecting kindergarten kids was an explanation that strangers should not touch children in the bathing suit areas.
Kindergarten students were not to be informed about contraception, mášŧûrbáŧìøņ, abortion, nor anything else that might be proper for High School students.
Alan, can anyone provide a link to the actual legislation? I was under the impression that it never actually passed so there may be more than one version around. The one I read did say that lessons should be age appropriate but did not go into detail as to what that meant. I think arguments made at the time support the idea that younger kids would be mostly taught about avoiding molesters but that wasn’t explicit in the bill I read.
I think Obama has a legitimate gripe that saying he was for sex ed for kindergarten kids leads to a false perception, but it’s possible that the bill itself was so vague that McCain can argue that he wasn’t telling a whopper. Still a sleazy tactic, in my opinion.
Went to go see McCain at a Town Hall in Scranton today, and it seems his pledge to be “respectful” is being kept.
Yeah, well, his ads on tv are very much disrespectful. Trying to tie Obama to teaching sex ed in kindergarten, when the bill voted on was about sexual predators?
Or how about the McCain campaign trying to confuse voters in Florida (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94818483)? Approved by McCain, apparently. Also very disrespectful.
How many more examples do you want?
So Palin and he are hitting back. Or are they supposed to silently accept lies and smears against them in the name of acting respectfully?
This would be funny if not downright insulting of people with an IQ higher than a grapefruit. McCain is the one who outright said that he wouldn’t have gone to smear tactics if only Obama had agreed to the Town Hall meetings. What a crock of @#$%.
Lies, smears, and bs. All are standard tactics of the right-wing, and McCain even hired somebody on to his campaign that worked for Bush in 2000… a man who’s job was to use said tactics against McCain!
As for Palin hitting back… yep, she’s doing so by once again not showing her face to the world.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/palin_leaders
What a great choice by McCain! A VP who hides from public view. How dumb do they take the American public to be?
Me: Well, let’s see, are you trying to tell us that Limbaugh is not currently supporting John McCain? So far that I know, he is.
Bill Mulligan: It’s just not a legitimate argument to use.
I wasn’t really using it as an argument. I was just trying to say that Limbaugh is endorsing McCain now and is currently using his soapbox FOR McCain. I’m sorry I didn’t make that plainer.
It’s a little more unfair for you to compare the vitriol of Sandra Bernhard to the bile of Limbauugh. Bernhard is trying to use shock to jump-start her dying career, but it has actually been quite detrimental to it. Limbaugh has a large following and is on everyday to spout his views and is quite a bit more influential.
Well there’s no argument that Limbaugh is far more influential than Bernhard could ever be (and I was once a big Sandra Bernhard fan but it’s another case of someone who tries to be avant-garde for too long and just ends up garde).
But while it’s true that Limbaugh now supports the McCain/Palin ticket (mostly because of Palin) it remains true that he is no fan of McCain and using him as an example of what a supporter of McCain is like makes as much sense as using Randi Rhodes or Naomi Wolff as a stand in for Obama. Add to that the fact that they deliberately misquoted Limbaugh (and it boggles my mind that they couldn’t find a legit quote to use) and you have a pretty bad ad.
Looking at factcheck.org, neither of these guys should be overly proud of themselves.
This thread has been incredibly active and I’ve been incredibly busy, so I haven’t had time to read many of the posts over the last several days. So if I touch on something someone else has already covered, I apologize.
Sarah Palin’s snubbing of the media reminds me of something Hillary Clinton did early on in her husband’s first term. She tried to create a “zone of privacy” by moving the press corps from the White House to the Old Executive Office Building. The result was a very pìššëd-off group of reporters who decided to teach her a lesson. So they made a huge issue out of Clinton’s campaign promise to end discrimination about gays in the military. It took the entire administration off-guard, and off of their message of focusing on the economy.
Hëll, even before that, Hillary Clinton was a lightning rod. When Bill Clinton acknowledge that his wife’s opinions were influential to him, the press went bonkers. The New York Post went so far as to call Ms. Clinton “a buffoon, an insult to most women.”
Clinton famously told an interviewer, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.”
A lot of housewives, apparently, got in a wad about that. So Clinton provided Better Housekeeping or some similar magazine with a cookie recipe to prove that, you know, she really is a woman. Because baking cookies is part of the definition of being a woman, apparently (that was intended as sarcasm to those of you who are tone-deaf to sarcasm).
I find the parallels interesting. Hillary Clinton took a lot of crap for being a strong and ambitious woman, as has Sarah Palin. Hillary Clinton tried to snub the media, as has Sarah Palin. One difference: when the media was pounding on Ms. Clinton, no one complained about the conservative bias of the “MSM.”
As an aside, I used to work as a reporter for a public radio station affiliated with NPR, which has been called “National Pinko Radio” by some… opinionated… conservatives. I wonder what they’d think if they knew that NPR’s audience skews center-to-right?
I doubt any of this will sway those who cling to the belief that the “MSM” has a liberal bias. As David Brooks said so eloquently, that’s the narcissism of the partisan. The media is always unfair when it criticizes your guy, and speaks truth when it criticizes the other guy.
But the real truth is that the media are run by corporate interests who want to make money, and to do that you need to get ratings. The media’s real bias is toward sensationalism. Which is why on the day Russia invaded Georgia the dominant story on CNN was John Edwards’ affair. Not because the latter story was more important — it absolutely, positively, unquestionably was infinitely less important — but because it was sexier and therefore more likely to bring in the ratings.
I can’t wait for Friday nights debate. hopefully we’ll get questions and answers of substance and not softballs and attacks.
Anybody catch Ahmadinajad’s speech to the UN? What did you think?
And now, for the really important thing I have to say—
“Sean, you looking at this yet???”
Yes. Now I have to get back the crate of Joe stuff I gave Brian. And I don’t have any Micronaut figures anymore, more’s the pity. Got three more crates of Joe stuff and a bunch of Star Wars stuff in the storage compartment, though….
Bill Myers,
The mainstream media is incredibly biased and slanted in favor of the Left. I work in it, and have seen it firsthand.
Bill Mulligan,
The McCain ad turns out to be factually correct. The bill was Illinois Senate Bill 99, which Obama supported in 2003, and mandated “each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”
The bill’s chief purpose was to lower the age requirement to kindergarten ( it had been sixth grade) and to remove what supporters considered judgmental language on “monogamous heterosexual marriage” from existing law.
So much for McCain’s “lies”.
Karen,
Let me say I do hope the debates are of real substance. It’s a great way to get past the hype, pundits, spin, etc. and get a better idea of what each man believes and would do. That’s why I was extremely disappointed when Obama turned down McCain’s offer to hold ten Town Hall meetings. To get questions from the “real folks” in most of the swing states. I think it would have been revealing and refreshing and an opportunity for each man? What a shame. Doesn’t that bother you?
Also, I have listed previously some of the reasons Palin is qualified to be Vice-President and President some day if need be. But to briefly touch upon it:
She is the Governor of a major state who took on two of the most powerful political families in the state to do so. IN HER OWN PARTY. It would be like a Democrat beating Ted Kennedy AND John Kerry in a primary in Massachusetts.
She has an 80+ approval rating. So obviously a lot of the “little people” Democrats are supposed to represent and stand up for like her. there must be a reason for that – and wouldn’t it be great if she brought that type of unity to the nation?
She IS one of the “little people”. She’s not a Kennedy, Edwards, Kerry or even Bush. She does not have to pretend she likes the Red Sox or U2 to appeal to people because she already does. She does not have to down a shot in a bar like Clinton did or bowl badly like Obama did to show she relates to people. Because she IS one of those people. And that’s why so many of the elites hate her. And why so many others simply don’t understand her.
She is one of the little people, but Obama, who was raised on food stamps,is not? What is your definition of elite? Someone who can’t remember how many houses he owns? Someone who was raised in a life of privilege? Both Bush and McCain are elites, then. Are you talking about education level? Again Bush, McCain and Obama all went to “elite” schools. So what exactly do you mean by elite?
I can’t answer why Obama didn’t go for the town hall meetings. I’m sure there is a nice political answer as to why he thought it wasn’t the wisest choice. What bothers me more is that Palin refuses to talk to the press. She’s interviewing for the second highest position in the United States, but no one can ask her any questions? I don’t care what her reasons are. As one of her future employers, along with the rest of the “little people” I would like some answers. If she is as qualified and knowledgeable as you say, why won’t she do a press conference? Perhaps she might surprise a few of us who think she’s not up to the job.
I see in discussing the Illinois bill 99 you conveniently left out the part about age appropriate. Here is the relevant the portion of the bill copied and pasted (See line 12):
All sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or
8 behavior intercourse shall satisfy the following criteria:
9 (1) Factual information presented in course
10 material and instruction shall be medically accurate and
11 objective.
12 (2) All (1) course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate.
14 (3) Course material and instruction shall include a
15 discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent
16 unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections,
17 including HIV.
Jerome: “Also, I have listed previously some of the reasons Palin is qualified to be Vice-President and President some day if need be. But to briefly touch upon it:
1. She is the Governor of a major state
Micha: I think part of the debate is about whether being the governor of a state like Alaska — which is not a usual state, being at the one hanf very large and with many resources, on the other not very populated — for two years, is really enough to prepare her for the job.
2. who took on two of the most powerful political families in the state to do so. IN HER OWN PARTY.
Micha: That’s pretty nice.
3. She has an 80+ approval rating. So obviously a lot of the “little people” Democrats are supposed to represent and stand up for like her. there must be a reason for that – and wouldn’t it be great if she brought that type of unity to the nation?
Micha: Her popularity might be a reflection of Alaska than of the union as a whole. Considering her position on the political spectrum on many divisive issues it is hard for me to think of her as a unifier. It argued Obama suffers from a similar problem being pretty liberal. But his rhetoric has tended tobe unifying as far as I could tell.
4. She IS one of the “little people”. She’s not a Kennedy, Edwards, Kerry or even Bush. She does not have to pretend she likes the Red Sox or U2 to appeal to people because she already does. She does not have to down a shot in a bar like Clinton did or bowl badly like Obama did to show she relates to people. Because she IS one of those people. And that’s why so many of the elites hate her. And why so many others simply don’t understand her.
Micha: But is this a the quality you lookk for in a VP and a potential president? Should it have much weight?
——–
I think in order to attribute to Obama some nefarious intent with regard to sex education and kindergartens you either have to be willing to believe terrible things about him that go beyond political disagreement, or not care about the truth and believe that there are others who will be willing to believe terrible things about him.
———-
I’m no expert, but I think that many in the media have a center left point of view. This is not a deliberate bias like Fox, but this is the kind of POV they come with. and the initial attitude they will on issues that come before them. So, the further you are from the center left, whether to the left or right, the more unfair the media will seem to you. If you are a communist, the media’s point of view will seem to you to be biased toward capitalism. If you’re a liberterian, it would seem biased toward statism, if evangelical, it will seem too secular, if a fanatic atheist you will might feel it is not aggressive enough on religious issues.
Personally I think complaining aboutthe media is a waste of time. It can be manipulated to promote your goals no matter who you are.
Karen, although I think the kindergarten ad was a bad one, it sin’t because anything in it was false. Yeah, the bill says “age appropriate” but what does that mean? Would you and I agree on what constitutes “age appropriate”? More importantly, would your kids teacher?
I’d probably tend to be more detailed and specific in sex ed than most parents would want, but at least I recognize that. Nothing in the bill parts quoted above would stop a teacher from arguing that almost anything they do is “age appropriate” and the last part could be used to claim that even kindergartners should be told about AIDS, STDs and abstinence. Personally, I have no problem with that, if it’s done well, but that does not seem to be Obama’s opinion.
Which is why I think McCain’s ad was misleading. Not because it was untruthful. But “the truth that’s told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.”
She is the Governor of a major state
Of a major underpopulated state for two years. Amazing how short time in service is a liability for Obama but okey-doke for Palin.
who took on two of the most powerful political families in the state to do so. IN HER OWN PARTY.
As opposed to knuckling under to the party chiefs and being willing to toe the party line in order to win an election…like McCain.
It would be like a Democrat beating Ted Kennedy AND John Kerry in a primary in Massachusetts.
Impressive how she’s willing to take on powerful parties on a statewide scale and yet is afraid to take on the press on a nationwide scale. That’s just what you want in a president: Someone who is terrified of looking stupid globally and allows herself to be dictated to by people running a political campaign who are afraid her callowness and inexperience will be laid bare.
She has an 80+ approval rating.
So, at one time, did Bush. How’s he doing lately?
So obviously a lot of the “little people” Democrats are supposed to represent and stand up for like her.
And Dewey defeated Truman and Gore won Florida.
there must be a reason for that
Limited polling samples? Misplaced priorities by the voters? There’s a sucker born every minute?
and wouldn’t it be great if she brought that type of unity to the nation?
As Bush did, united 70 percent of the country in the opinion that he’s an idiot.
She IS one of the “little people”.
You know what? There’s some great guys in my bowling league. Down to earth. Great to throw back a beer with. Little people. I wouldn’t want them running the country.
We once had giants as president. Great people. Majestic. Big. Nothing “little” about them. That was what the office demanded.
Whatever happened to that? I’ll tell you what happened: Television. Everything became about who people feel comfortable with letting into their homes. The same criteria that was applied to decide what sitcom to watch is utilized to pick the command in chief. It’s no longer about who’s best for the job; it’s about who Americans feel most comfortable with, typically using the criteria that became frozen into place circa high school. They don’t want the lecturing teacher; they want the class clown. Why learn from Mr. Hand when you can hang with Jeff Spicoli?
Little people. Jesus. To paraphrase “Sunset Boulevard, there are still people out there who are big; it’s the office that’s gotten small.
She’s not a Kennedy, Edwards, Kerry or even Bush. She does not have to pretend she likes the Red Sox or U2 to appeal to people because she already does. She does not have to down a shot in a bar like Clinton did or bowl badly like Obama did to show she relates to people. Because she IS one of those people. And that’s why so many of the elites hate her.
No, elites hate her because she’s unqualified and clueless. But thanks for explaining the reasons as you see them. And by the way, did you see Obama sink that basket in Iraq? You remember Iraq: the country that McCain heavily criticized Obama for not going to and then criticizing him when he did go. And where Palin has never been, along with every other country in the world. I don’t hate her because of her everyperson status. I can’t stand her because she didn’t even have a passport until this year and until recently has displayed absolutely no curiosity about the world beyond the borders of Alaska. Do we REALLY need another four years of someone with no curiosity about the world around them?
And why so many others simply don’t understand her.
I understand her perfectly. If one of my daughters is raped and impregnated, she believes that my child should be forced to carry the rapist’s baby. It just doesn’t get more one-of-the-people than that. Pod people.
PAD
CNN has started covering how Palin’s appointment for Wasilla police chief was the sole protest against the Alaskan law to prohibit charging victims for rape exams: cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams