OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:59 am

Is Palin running for Ms. America?

Her latest interview with Couric.

Katie Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious: what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?
Sarah Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.
KC: But, like, what ones specifically? I'm curious.
SP: All of 'em, any of 'em that have beenin front of me over al these years.
KC: Can you name a few?
SP: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where, it's kind of suggested and it seems like, 'Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C. may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska?' Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

She is either incredibly stupid. Or so f***in smart that by playing stupid, she's going to give Biden a heart attack.

Huh is this some bizarro strategy the McCain camp has for her. It's what media you read to inform your world view. Name them even if you didn't read them.

Here New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, Fox to name a few.

That's all she had to say. If Katie pressed here, all she had to say was, you asked me to name what informed my world view, not to remember every single article or segment. It's not like this was a hard question by not answering she sounds stupid and makes the newscycle. By saying any newspaper or network it's a non-story.

Thursday is going to be a bloodbath is this is the real Palin. If it's not kudos to those deceptive shits in the McCain campaign. You made Biden look like a giant condescending asshole.

The last quote isn't even one complete thought.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:35 am

There's an old saying: "Ask a stupid question and you'll get a stupid answer."

"Name a news periodical you read" is a stupid question.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:42 am

Today's headlines at cnn.com this morning include:

- Palin denies taknig swipe at Biden's age
- Sarah Palin mum on what she reads
- Time for Plain to put up or shut up
- McCain's 13-bedroom mansion up for sale
- Sarah Palin and Russia
- Palin's conservative problem

Not one item for either Biden or Obama. And of course, every one for McCain/Palin could easily be viewed as negative. I mean really, the only reason the 13 bedroom mansion story is up there is to make McCain seem elitist.

On a contrasting note, Foxnews leads with the story "In the tank?", which is about the debate moderator for Thursday.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:44 am

2 for 1 in this WSJ editorial. You get a rebuttal to scapegoating deregulation as well as yet another chapter in the Bill v. Barack saga.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1222826 ... us_opinion

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:18 am

TheHiddenTrack wrote:
Teal wrote:What the hell?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76645

Who the hell thought this was a reasonable idea?
I don't think the moderator is the person you need to be concerned about. She hasn't come off as biased to me in the past. But if she comes off as biased that will be a great way to spin the debate, so maybe it will be a blessing.

You're joking, right? This is a conflict of interest. I don't give a sh*t how unbiased Ifill appears: You cannot be seated as the moderator of a debate involving a party about whom you just wrote a book.

Take care,
PK

Post by **Jared** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:24 am

matthewk wrote:Today's headlines at cnn.com this morning include:

Unfortunately, w/the combination of the VP debates coming up, her tanking the few interviews she has done, and the strategy of the McCain campaign to shutter her off from the press, she is the story right now. Trust me, I'd rather there be an extended debate over the airwaves on the merits of various bailout packages. But CNN is interested in what draws eyeballs, and Palin does.

(As for bias, I'm pretty sure that if Obama picked for his VP a Palin clone, but a Democrat, that you'd have the same kind of coverage.)

As for Ifill, it depends on whether it's a fawning book or an objective book. And you can write a book on how the civil rights movement affected current African-American politicians and still be objective. With Obama being the first black major party nominee, it's an important story.

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:51 am

The "Make-Believe" Maverick:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/covers ... ohn_mccain

"In its broad strokes, McCain's life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers' powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.

In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot."

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:01 am

GTHobbes wrote:The "Make-Believe" Maverick:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/covers ... ohn_mccain

"In its broad strokes, McCain's life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers' powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.

In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot."

Thanks!!! For now on I'll look to Rolling Stone for advice on politics.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:02 am

pk500 wrote:
You're joking, right? This is a conflict of interest. I don't give a sh*t how unbiased Ifill appears: You cannot be seated as the moderator of a debate involving a party about whom you just wrote a book.

Take care,
PK

No s***. So when does Ann Coulter get her shot?

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:06 am

JackDog wrote: Thanks!!! For now on I'll look to Rolling Stone for advice on politics.

Don't forget the additional military aviation analysis that they toss in for free...

Wow an anti-McCain hit job in a major media publication? Stop the presses!

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:06 am

JackDog wrote:
GTHobbes wrote:The "Make-Believe" Maverick:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/covers ... ohn_mccain

"In its broad strokes, McCain's life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers' powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.

In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot."
Thanks!!! For now on I'll look to Rolling Stone for advice on politics.

Jack, did you even read the article? You should.

Actually...nevermind.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:10 am

matthewk wrote: I mean really, the only reason the 13 bedroom mansion story is up there is to make McCain seem elitist.

"seem elitist"? The guys doesn't even know how many houses he has:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/2 ... 20322.html

He and his wife have 10 houses worth over $13 Million. He doesn't even look at Obama while speaking to him...Gee, I wonder why people would think he was elitist? How can people trust a guy who has more money
$40million)http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/mon ... mag/4.html
than everyone on this forum combined to get them out of a financial crisis? His wife Cindy is worth over $100 million....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/0 ... 94833.html

And BTW...Obama's Net Worth? $1.3 Million
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/mon ... mag/5.html

Obama has a very real stake in the same economy and you and I.
McCain and his wife have over 100 times the money Obama has. Who would you think was more in touch with the economic issues?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:11 am

A hilarious example of Fox News' "fair and balanced" coverage:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KTkqosRiyYo&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KTkqosRiyYo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Split, my ass!

Take care,
PK

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:13 am

JackB1 wrote:How can people trust a guy who has more money than everyone on this forum combined to get them out of a financial crisis?

Breaking Rule No. 1, but it's too good to pass up.

Good point, Jack. We need to get more of our financial leadership from the ranks of the poor and middle class. Who knows more about finance than them?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:13 am

GTHobbes wrote:The "Make-Believe" Maverick:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/covers ... ohn_mccain

"In its broad strokes, McCain's life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers' powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.

In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot."

Yeah, Rolling Stone always has ranked alongside the National Review as a bastion of conservative political media.

What's next? A link to the DailyKos or the Huffington Post? Should we all visit moveon.org for more objective commentary, too?

Keep 'em coming!

Take care,
PK

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:14 am

pk500 wrote:
You're joking, right? This is a conflict of interest. I don't give a sh*t how unbiased Ifill appears: You cannot be seated as the moderator of a debate involving a party about whom you just wrote a book.

Take care,
PK

Don't both participants agree on the moderator beforehand?

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:14 am

RobVarak wrote:
JackDog wrote: Thanks!!! For now on I'll look to Rolling Stone for advice on politics.
Don't forget the additional military aviation analysis that they toss in for free...

Wow an anti-McCain hit job in a major media publication? Stop the presses!

My favorite thing about repubs...when faced with the hard truth, ridicule! Works almost every time.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:20 am

GTHobbes wrote:My favorite thing about repubs...when faced with the hard truth, ridicule! Works almost every time.

And what about the clay-footed scions of the Democratic Party?

JFK -- you know, St. Jack -- never had a drink or lifted another skirt besides Jackie's, right? And the Kennedy family, especially Joe Kennedy Sr., may have been the most pious, noble family in American history.

LBJ never used profanity in his life, especially during Cabinet meetings.

Gary Hart never banged a broad who wasn't his wife on his boat. That lie was all a bunch of "Monkey Business."

Bill Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. He also never lied during grand jury testimony, because Webster's truly never has defined the meaning of the word "is."

Oh, and don't forget the famous North Carolina son of a millworker, who must have learned between the whirring, spinning looms that it's cool to bang a fourth-rate documentarian while your wife is undergoing treatment for breast cancer. Those $300 trips to Supercuts also broadened the populist appeal, too.

Pot. Calling. Kettle. Black.

And no, I am not a registered Republican and never have voted for a Republican in my life in a presidential election.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:25 am

JackB1 wrote:He doesn't even look at Obama while speaking to him...

This is the most overblown aspect of last week's debate, period. Various reports have emerged since the debate indicating that McCain's handlers TOLD him not to look at Obama during Obama's answers because it might deflect McCain off-message and ignite his famous temper.

McCain was just following orders. But the fact that the guy can't look an opponent in the eye without steam building in his inner pressure relief valve is a bit alarming.

Dude might need to spend the next NFL bye week with Ricky Williams and chill out.

Take care,
PK

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:25 am

Sorry, PK...this election isn't about any of the guys you mentioned. I learned quite a few things about McCain from the article that I never knew before. Quite the "make-believe" maverick, indeed.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:29 am

GTHobbes wrote:
RobVarak wrote:
JackDog wrote: Thanks!!! For now on I'll look to Rolling Stone for advice on politics.
Don't forget the additional military aviation analysis that they toss in for free...

Wow an anti-McCain hit job in a major media publication? Stop the presses!
My favorite thing about repubs...when faced with the hard truth, ridicule! Works almost every time.

Rolling Stone actually has some very solid reporters who are only dedicated to politics and they usually have at least 20% of the magazine's bi-monthly content dedicated to articles on politics. They are more qualified that you think. You guys are just dismissing something because of it's more famous as a music magazine. The more successful magazines like RS and Playboy can afford to pay more and usually get quality articles because of it.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:38 am

GTHobbes wrote:
RobVarak wrote:
JackDog wrote: Thanks!!! For now on I'll look to Rolling Stone for advice on politics.
Don't forget the additional military aviation analysis that they toss in for free...

Wow an anti-McCain hit job in a major media publication? Stop the presses!
My favorite thing about repubs...when faced with the hard truth, ridicule! Works almost every time.

Yep, we're nowhere near the cold, hard rationalists of the Left, more than willing to face the "cold hard truth."

We've seen a refreshing lack of ridicule from the Left when Obama is criticized. Of course the cold, hard truth can never reflect badly on their candidate, or else it's "lies" or "racism" or "guilt by association."

They've mostly stuck to mobilizing masses to drown out their critics and censoring them through coercion and threats of litigation. Can't wait to see how they handle things if they end up with the Justice Department at their disposal.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/polit ... ma_ca.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... pNDefWKbi4

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/a ... &dist=hppr

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ ... obama_alp/

That's only a quick list. I've got to get back to avoiding cold, hard truth from unbiased sources like Rolling Stone. LOL

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:38 am

RobVarak wrote:
Good point, Jack. We need to get more of our financial leadership from the ranks of the poor and middle class. Who knows more about finance than them?

So according to you, the most wealthy are the most likely to share their financial knowledge with the rest of us and lead us out of this crisis? So should we then be consulting with Donald Trump about this $700B Bailout?

Also, you are correlating "financial knowledge" with wealth. You think every wealth politician got there due to their "financial knowledge"?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:42 am

GTHobbes wrote:Sorry, PK...this election isn't about any of the guys you mentioned. I learned quite a few things about McCain from the article that I never knew before. Quite the "make-believe" maverick, indeed.

So, do you expect Rolling Stone to counter with a story about Obama's faults, or does he have none? And will the Stone write a piece comparing the legislation drafted by McCain to that drafted by Obama?

Of course not.

That's why the Stone is a joke as a political entity. It is unabashedly pro-left, so its objectivity is non-existent. It's as far left as Fox News is as far right.

You don't trust Fox News, so why should you trust the Stone? Because it promotes your guy and shreds your foe?

Go team!

Take care,
PK

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:45 am

JackB1 wrote: So according to you, the most wealthy are the most likely to share their financial knowledge with the rest of us and lead us out of this crisis? So should we then be consulting with Donald Trump about this $700B Bailout?

Also, you are correlating "financial knowledge" with wealth. You think every wealth politician got there due to their "financial knowledge"?

You're right, Jack. I'm sure that the wealthy are more than happy to watch the international banking system crumble so that they can lose millions. It's all just a plot to screw the little guy while politicians and busienssmen eat caviar and do coke off of dead hookers.