OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[greggsand]

I can't believe that Palin's saying that Obama "pals around with terrorists who want to attack our country." Can she get anymore desperate? Does anyone other than the Fox news crowd actually believe this crap? Talk about more of the same old Bush/Cheney/Rove schtick...hopefully our country has had enough over the last 8 years, and someone will actually call her out on it. That aint the way to win over this independent voter's vote, lady.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/05/ ... index.html

Dude, it's only gonna get worse. After next week's debate, it's gonna be a scare tactic lollapalooza. "Is a Black Muslim secret Al-Qaeda operative really right for America???" *wink at the camera*

[Teal]

If it's not true, then name one instance in all the Election threads here this year where you went over the evidence presented by other posters, and changed your opinion on something important. If you can't think of a single time that happened, then you can start here:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

The Truth: Not important since January 20, 1993

Fixed that for you...

EDIT: Thanks, PK, although 'read my lips, no new taxes' might still drive this date backwards...

[Teal]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not.

Why is that? Oh wait...that may be a racist question...

[Teal]

Okaaaaay...

I present to you, the worshippers:
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rUEQz5dltmI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

ALPHA! OMEGA! ALPHA! OMEGA! ALPHA! OMEGA! Because of Obama!

Holy s***.

All we need now is a bible:

Check.

A minister:
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8M-kD0QdRJk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>
Check.

A choir:
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7p8tLtiTW-M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>
Check.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have us a religion!

[Jared]

Teal,

Do you know what a stepshow is? (This is in the step show style, Greek letters, shouting things out of the line, some of the moves...albeit, a really really really bad step show. )

[Teal]

Teal,

Do you know what a stepshow is? (This is in the step show style, Greek letters, shouting things out of the line, some of the moves...albeit, a really really really bad step show. )

Yeah, I know what it is (and how bad it is). But please...because of Obama? What the hell?

And if their name is Alpha Omega-wow, could they have picked a more timely name?

[JRod]

The Palin Problem
Yes, she won the debate by not imploding. But governing requires knowledge, and mindless populism is just that—mindless.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162396


That's pretty damning for the campaign.

[Jackdog]

Teal,

Do you know what a stepshow is? (This is in the step show style, Greek letters, shouting things out of the line, some of the moves...albeit, a really really really bad step show. )

That was so sad. Why does it take Obama to want to be an engineer or architect? Some of them need to push themselves away from the table and get in shape because of Obama. What if he loses? Does all those plans go out the window?

[XXXIV]

The Palin Problem

N/T

[RobVarak]

Let me see if I can clarify this a bit.

For every tenuous connection to someone with extremist ties, you can do the same thing, with much stronger connections with McCain and Palin. For a comparison to Ayers, you have actual connections between McCain and Liddy and Singlaub. For Palin, you have her husband (member of a group that promotes a vote for secession from the United States..and yes, to pre-empt, we have no idea if he wants secession...but he's been affiliated with a group that was founded by someone that hates America). For connections to Rezko and other corrput politicians, you've got Keating for McCain and for Palin, you've got Stevens (she was chair of his 527) and herself (see Troopergate). For Pastor Wright, you've got Hagee and Parsley for McCain, and for Palin her pastor holds extreme end-times ideologies.

Now I think it's stupid to judge people based on their connections, because you can do this to nearly every politician. The fact that you can do this with McCain and Palin would seem to make it clear that these are silly comparisons that don't hold up.

I'll clarify it even further. McCain = known quantity. Obama = much less of a known quantity.

Obviously, you and his supporters feel that you know enough about the man from his biographical information and campaign. Neutral observers and opponents are rightly a bit more skeptical.

Nobody on any side of the aisle is really concerned that McCain's ties to Liddy or Keating etc. are possibly representative of a radical streak in his beliefs or evident of a pattern of bad judgment because his record is freaking immense. The same is apparently true of Biden and his connections to MBNA etc.

Obama is a different animal altogether. None of his campaigns for lower office featured a serious vetting process because he was annointed by the machine in his state office campaigns and basically unopposed in his US Senate run. The crackpots running Keyes' campaign tried to put on some pressure, but he was able to wave away any serious questions about his background.

So it's not just the ties to extremists. It's his ties to extremists coupled with his relatively thin resume and his willing embrace of certain policies espoused by those extremists.

Palin is in a similar situation to Obama. She lacks McCains track record and has been scrutinized for the same reason. I have no problem with people asking her questions about her affiliations to the extent that she has espoused their beliefs or manifested her agreement through her policies. If someone can prove that she believes in the platform of that secesh group than it's an appropriate area of investigation as well. It's a hell of a lot better than having MSM asking to see the hospital records of her child's birth.

Jared, I have to demand at least 30 minutes of nationwide airtime to debate this with you. We're discussing it at a significantly more sophisticated level than either side that's actually involved in the campaign.

[JRod]

I thought SNL was on fire last night....

Though this might be the most biting commentary, I've ever seen from SNL.

After this video, check out the Bail-Out video and then for giggles, Mark Wahlberg talks to animals.

(Sorry for the all the gibberish.)
Okay I don't know how to post videos.

[XXXIV]

Okay I don't know how to post videos.

...I feel you...Its a b*tch.

[Jared]

I'll clarify it even further. McCain = known quantity. Obama = much less of a known quantity.

Then a question. Using your premise, why isn't this just as much, if not more of an issue, in your mind, for Palin? She is much less of a known quantity than Obama, and has stronger ties to a member of an extremist group, worked directly for a corrupt Senator, attends a church with extreme views relative to the mainstream, etc. Using the same logic, shouldn't this apply, even more so to Palin?

[pk500]

If it's not true, then name one instance in all the Election threads here this year where you went over the evidence presented by other posters, and changed your opinion on something important. If you can't think of a single time that happened, then you can start here:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

The Truth: Not important since January 20, 1992

Fixed that for you...

George Bush The Elder was a liar, too?

Fellas, Inauguration Day is Jan. 20 of the YEAR AFTER the election.

Take care,
PK

[JRod]

I'll clarify it even further. McCain = known quantity. Obama = much less of a known quantity.

Then a question. Using your premise, why isn't this just as much, if not more of an issue, in your mind, for Palin? She is much less of a known quantity than Obama, and has stronger ties to a member of an extremist group, worked directly for a corrupt Senator, attends a church with extreme views relative to the mainstream, etc. Using the same logic, shouldn't this apply, even more so to Palin?

Maybe because he supports McCain/Palin?

[RobVarak]

I'll clarify it even further. McCain = known quantity. Obama = much less of a known quantity.

Then a question. Using your premise, why isn't this just as much, if not more of an issue, in your mind, for Palin? She is much less of a known quantity than Obama, and has stronger ties to a member of an extremist group, worked directly for a corrupt Senator, attends a church with extreme views relative to the mainstream, etc. Using the same logic, shouldn't this apply, even more so to Palin?

I don't accept your premise that she's "much less of a known quantity" for starters, but I'll accept it to clarify my point.

Unlike the Obama campaign, and apparently the media, I accept all of those as legitimate areas of inquiry.

If Biden wants to stand up and say that Palin was employed by an (allegedly) corrupt Senator or if the NY Times wants to explore that issue, fine. It is not a smear campaign or character assasination. It's probably sexist, though.

I don't think there's much political mileage in that approach, however. I've never seen her stand up and rave about the platform of the secessionists the way that Obama did about Ayers book. I've never seen her embrace the wacky pastor the way that Obama embraced Wright before kicking him to the curb. So I don't think at the end of the day that there's much to find there.

The most important distinction, however, is that Palin has not stood up and actively misled anyone about those issues. Her minions did not act to block an investigation into them the way Obama's did, and there is no evidence in the record that she delibertely misrepresented herself with respect to those associations.

[JRod]

I don't accept your premise that she's "much less of a known quantity" for starters, but I'll accept it to clarify my point.

Palin has not had a full year until the pressure of a primiary, both democratic and republican opponents doing op research. She is under the white-hot scrutiny that is the national media. Ya its analagous with an kid burning an ant under and magnifying glass.

This is such an absurd statement that it somewhat hurts your credibility. It's not central to any point but come on, even you have to admit that while Palin's criticism amounts to three to four weeks.

Obama:
8 year paper trail while he was a State Senator.
4 years US Senator
2 as a Presidential Candidate
4 weeks as the Dem Nominee [Elected]

Palin:
6 years as Mayor
2 years as governor
4 weeks as the Rep VP Nominee [Selected]

You are high off Liverpool's win at City if you honestly believe they are equal in their levels of obscurity.

[Teal]

The Palin Problem
Yes, she won the debate by not imploding. But governing requires knowledge, and mindless populism is just that—mindless.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162396


That's pretty damning for the campaign.

That's not a report...it's a partisan blog. But Newsweek pushes bloggers as serious 'journalists' all the time, so...

[RobVarak]

You are high off Liverpool's win at City if you honestly believe they are equal in their levels of obscurity.

1. I accepted his premise for the purposes of our argument, which is a more important issue anyway.

2. A paper trail is one thing. Exposure to the scrutiny of a real campaign is another.

3. I am at halftime of the Liverpool game, which means that I am far more pissed for the spoiler than I am at your questioning my credibility.

And here I am assiduously avoiding the Soccer thread LOL

[JRod]

You are high off Liverpool's win at City if you honestly believe they are equal in their levels of obscurity.

1. I accepted his premise for the purposes of our argument.

2. A paper trail is one thing. Exposure to the scrutiny of a real campaign is another.

3. I am at halftime of the Liverpool game, which means that I am far more pissed for the spoiler than I am at your questioning my credibility.

And here I am assiduously avoiding the Soccer thread LOL

Well that makes sense...I wondered why there was no post by you in the soccer forum. I need to impose the 2-3 day rule for other threads.

I do apologize. I know how it feels.

[RobVarak]

Well that makes sense...I wondered why there was no post by you in the soccer forum. I need to impose the 2-3 day rule for other threads.

I do apologize. I know how it feels.

No need. It's no big deal.

[Feanor]

The Truth: Not important since January 20, 1992

Fixed that for you...

George Bush The Elder was a liar, too?

Fellas, Inauguration Day is Jan. 20 of the YEAR AFTER the election.

Take care,
PK

Sure was, didn't you read his lips?

[XXXIV]

Fixed that for you...

George Bush The Elder was a liar, too?

Fellas, Inauguration Day is Jan. 20 of the YEAR AFTER the election.

Take care,
PK

Sure was, didn't you read his lips?

I loved the pointy finger and lip trembling from billy bob too...

Classic s*** ...I really love how he fakes being pissed. He would have made a great actor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQ ... re=related

[TheHiddenTrack]

For a little debate preview, I forgot how heated it got.....I can't wait until McCain plays the Ayers card.

Oh, the good old days:
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MD9F1t9GQzA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[RobVarak]

He's much like his running mate. The closer to the mark the accusation or the bolder the lie, the greater the indignation and anger.