"Palin was a supporter of [MSNBC analyst] Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer," Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski wrote in an email.
To recapitulate previous posts, Palin publicly supported Steve Forbes, not Pat Buchanan in 2000. Pat Buchanan has claimed that Palin attended a fundraiser for him during the 1996 campaign, but his sister and campaign manager Bay says they actually met at a fundraiser for another candidate, not for Buchanan. (And as much as I dislike Buchanan, calling him a "Nazi sympathizer" is a bit much.)
Oh well, it's all just politics, I guess, and it's not like Obama has had contact with anyone who might scare off Jewish voters.
(For the context of Obama's embrace of Sharpton, see this story.)
Related Posts (on one page):
- Obama Campaign Spokesman Repeats Lie About Palin and Buchanan:
- Palin and Buchanan, II ("Timeline"):
- Palin and Pat Buchanan:
However, given that Buchanan himself said she supported him, it is difficult to call someone a liar for repeating the claim.
McCain will lays all these fears to rest by designating Joe Liebermann as his choice for Secretary of State a few weeks before the election.
You forgot the other reason Buchanan is labeled a Nazi sympathizer: because he considers the communists to have been more evil than the Nazis. On the left, this is an indefensible view, because at least the commies meant well when they murdered a hundred million or so of their own population.
It's not like McCain said he was "proud" to have the endorsement of Hagee, who said the Antichrist was "partially Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler."
More on Hagee and McCain here.
It seems to be a phrase that went oub by email 10 minutes before the announcement. It seems to cover, oh I don't know:
- No candidate w/o interest group polls?
- No candidate not yet well known to the talking heads?
- No candidate that changes the plot line?
I'm particulalry amused at the number of partisans who have some sort of cartonn in their head aboutwhat their oponnents like and dislike, and how they should react, offering avuncular advice to their oponents.
Somehow it strains credulity further when it start off with a "knowing "Soare us your feigned outrage"...as if Andy L would have had a positive reaction to any candidate nominated. Well Tsk Tsk. Does it become easier to pretend to put such incongruous sentiments together in a single paragrph with practice?
It is worth noting though that the spokesman himself is not calling him this.
This is the old Nixon trick: "Now, some people may call Conresmman X a communist sympathizer, but I do not do so."
Yes, Obama's spokesman called him a Nazi sympathizer by implication.
The problem then is that the Obama campaign did not do its homework well enough before making this attack on Gov. Palin. The correct information was out there. They just jumped with the claim before having checked it out thoroughly.
Though the Obama candidacy has been to some extent Web driven, the actual Obama campaign people sometimes do not come across as as web savvy as one might expect. One example of this is that the campaign of the 70+ year old McCain apparently beat out Obama's campaign in bidding on some basic search terms (like "Joe Biden").
And it is this sometimes apparent ineptitude that makes me (currently) believe that this misstatement was not actually a lie, but rather a result of some level of incompetence (i.e. negligent, and not intentional).
She has always supported "smaller government" and that was what Pat Buchanan was speaking of that day in Fairbanks. A lot of these speaking events label buttons are pinned on you as soon as you walk through the door.
He cuts a damn fine line, if my memory &Wikipedia can be trusted.
The Jews weren't being exterminated until America entered the war? That would've been a(nother) huge surprise to the victims of the Einsatzgruppen in June 1941 &following.
His new book on Churchill and Hitler appears to think that Hitler would have been a fine chap, had he merely gone east and not west.
I don't think Buchanan's an anti-Semite, but his indifference to the Jews was unfortunately the rule, not the exception, in Western governments in the 1930s and 40s ... which is one reason why so many Jews died.
How about Obama's fringe afro-centric church with a commitment to Africa right in the "Black Value System"?
Dang, if only they were pregnant.
With 'friends' like Hagee Jews don't need enemies. YMMV.
Libertarians are also a 'fringe [...] political party'. And there's nothing inherently wrong with the platform of the Alaskan Independence Party. Secession is a right.
"I don't think that the Obama campaign intentionally set out to lie about Palin's endorsement, "
I do.
Dang, if only there was no difference between an accusation and a fact. Is Bristol's pregnancy only an accusation?
If will be interesting to see if Palin handles the issue the way you did. I think she won't. I think her spin will be some amalgamation of the following:
A) I never agreed with that aspect of their platform
B) I was young and naive
C) I wasn't really and truly a member; my connection with the party was very superficial
"Trooper-gate" is only an accusation.
Are there attendance records for his time in the State Senate or records of the non-salary money paid to him, i.e., travel money, staff salary, office maintenance, etc.?
Is it the amount of Annenberg money that was diverted to Hussein's personal use that is being hidden in the Chicago records?
Is there a site where "reliable" historical data on Hussein is being collected and assessed?
Now are we all happy?
As for Buchanan being an anti-Semite. Just look at his defense of every Nazi war criminal like Klaus Barbie. He also praised Franco - a great and very famous facist thug that let Nazi's practice bombing on the civilian population.
At least, if science can be trusted on this one. Given that she is pregnant now, she didn't give birth to a baby four months ago.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2553
Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory." (St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/20/90)
During the Gulf crisis: "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East -- the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States." ("McLaughlin Group," 8/26/90)
In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage...Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path." (The Guardian, 1/14/92)
Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan's columns have run in the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight, the German-American National PAC newsletter and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist concoction.
Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war criminals, because it was "running down 70-year-old camp guards." (New York Times, 4/21/87)
Buchanan was vehement in pushing President Reagan -- despite protests -- to visit Germany's Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried. At a White House meeting, Buchanan reportedly reminded Jewish leaders that they were "Americans first" -- and repeatedly scrawled the phrase "Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews" in his notebook. Buchanan was credited with crafting Ronald Reagan's line that the SS troops buried at Bitburg were "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps." (New York Times, 5/16/85; New Republic, 1/22/96)
After Cardinal O'Connor criticized anti-Semitism during the controversy over construction of a convent near Auschwitz, Buchanan wrote: "If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him 'there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic'...he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith." (New Republic, 10/22/90)
The Buchanan '96 campaign's World Wide Web site included an article blaming the death of White House aide Vincent Foster on the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad -- and alleging that Foster and Hillary Clinton were Mossad spies. (The campaign removed the article after its existence was reported by a Jewish on-line news service; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 2/21/96.)
In his September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan declared: "Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free." (ADL Report, 1994)
Wow. Did he really write that? Anyone willing to confess to a shelf full of New Republics?
I applaud Pat for consistently applying his non-interventionist take on foreign policy, even when it comes to the politically correct wars like WW2. The US army isn't put on this earth to slay all the demons in the world, but that doesn't mean anybody is "sympathizing" with the demons we happen to conclude are somebody else's problem.
If this quote is accurate, I know how we can test his claim.
Pat? Get over here.
Hilarious considering how "reverend" Wright feels about Jews.
Seriously, you can't parody the left anymore.
What a joke.
By the way, if Buchanan really is a "Nazi sympathizer" what does that say about MSNBC for putting him on the air?
All negative facts/opinions about your person are either: minimized, manipulated, or treated as lies.
So, if you like Pat Buchanan you will do that to anything that goes to show his alleged anti-semetism. If you like Obama, you'll do the same for Wright and others of his ilk.
Seriously, you cannot parody the side that you are not on anymore. What a joke.
Actually, that's really a good point.
Even though I don't know enough about Buchanan to call him a Nazi-sypathizer, I've seen enough in the last few years to say that he's certainly an anti-semite. MSNBC still invites him on their shows? If true, pathetic.
What concerns me is that the anti-interventionist "movement" in the US has never been able to break clear of the anti-semitic crowd that blames American military intervention abroad on Jews, whether bankers or Zionist fanatics.
There are certainly people on the right who oppose American military intervention in most case, but who do not have the taint of anti-semitism. Andrew Bacevitch comes to mind. Unfortunately, even Bacevitch chooses to write for Buchanan's magazine, which does in fact skirt the line. (Though, again, Bacevitch is innocent of any Jew-baiting.)
This all goes back at least as far as the post-Nye- Committee "Merhants of Death" fabulism of the 1920s and '30s. Buchanan is very, very smart, and knows precisely what subterranian streams he is tapping.
Um, the man has sympathy... for nazis. so calling him a nazi sympathizer seems fair. And i don't mean sympathizes with them as fellow human beings, but propogandizes to minimize their evil.
Nazi sympathizer is exactly the right term. he should have no place in respectible society. So msnbc is the perfect place for him, representing the latest example of the moronic convergence of the far left and far right.
I'm not saying there's no place for Lieberman in a McCain administration; it would have a certain kind of class to it (though I can't say a particular position just shouts itself out to my mind.) But State???? What better way to ensure that the place ambles on in its current unhelpful condition? We really need somebody like Bolton to come in and shake up the place.
The GOP would love for him to make some noise, and would love to make some noise about him (like Bernstein and you are doing). Trouble is, by picking Palin, McCain guaranteed that the next two months are going to be all about Palin. We're all very bored with the other three. There's no more news there. But the Palin saga is just getting started, and it's very fresh ground to plow, and it's as least as good as Jerry Springer or any reality show. So it's going to use up all the media oxygen.
When McCain loses (and/or when Palin follows in the footsteps of Harriet Miers and withdraws, because she really and truly does need to spend more time with her family), Palin should sign a deal with Fox for a reality show. (Stranger things have happened in America.) The ratings would beat American Idol.
The people who put the words "Bristol" and "pregnant" in the same sentence were on the right track. And there's reason to believe that McCain intended to keep this secret until after the election, and would have, if not for them.
You tried to equate an accusation against the Biden family with a fact (Bristol is pregnant) regarding the Palin family, as if there's no difference between an accusation and a fact. This tells us nothing about Biden, but it tells us something about you.
The facts most likely indicate what you claim they indicate, but there's some room for doubt. When they tell us she's five months pregnant, we're being expected to assume the number five is correct, simply because they say so.
I think your reasoning is backwards. I find that fact alarming, rather than comforting. The same logic you're using could be used to defend David Duke. After all, 671,009 people once voted for him.
Try again. Here's a fact: Palin said she didn't try to get Wooten fired. Here's another fact: Palin tried to get Wooten fired. Here's what that makes Palin: a liar. See here and here.
Unfortunately, those same "subterranian streams" are close cousins of the "subterranian streams" that McCain tapped when his first ad called him "The American President Americans Have Been Waiting For." As if the other candidate isn't exactly American.
I know that you are just in this to shill for Obama. But I'd like to request that you not twist my brilliant insights into unsubstantiated claims against McCain.
Thanks!
The Democrats claim to oppose anti-Semitism. When Jews are discriminated against by Affirmative Action policies, they say it is because they are privileged whites, not because they are Jewish. When "Progressive" Democrats support Fatah and a one-state solution, start academic boycotts of Israel, and join the International Solidarity movement, they claim it is not because they are anti-Semitic, only anti-Zionist.
Laugh out loud funny.
Jokebox:
You seem to be conflating those who said she gave birth to a baby already, with the current story.
Want to take a guess as to why you're doing that?
I love it!
I think the party of infanticide should keep attacking a 17 year old pregnant girl.
Really, I do.
By the way stupid, why can't any of you "tolerant" leftists explain what is wrong with this?
You just love to say 'she gave birth to a baby' and flail your arms.
Um, and then what?
Hilarious.
If not for "them" who, exactly?
Its not like McCain didn't denounce that endorsement.
Carry on as if that means something.
I love that, jokebox.
You link to your owns posts (of course) where you link to allegations by people on the matter.
After posting:
as if there's no difference between an accusation and a fact
Parody.
65% man. How are the polls looking? Think the news is going to give the white female vote for McCain a *ahem* bump?
What a relief to know that no one here but me brings a partisan perspective. Thank goodness you don't!
He actually did run the ad I said he ran. So I don't know what you mean by "unsubstantiated." And if you have some other interpretation of the ad (aside from the interpretation I gave), you should tell us what it is.
And speaking of "unsubstantiated," you should let us in on the secret and finally give us a page number. The anecdote you claim is in Timberg's book is not in Timberg's book.
I think you're going to need to retreat to some remote mountaintop. Until election day, or until Palin withdraws (whichever comes first, obviously), the news is going to be all Palin, all the time. And I predict that the things that we haven't heard yet are going to be similar in character to the things that we've heard in the last few days.
Oh God, it's happening here, too...
And that reason is...what?
The McCain campaign is intelligent enough to appreciate that it would have been impossible to keep the secret.
First, te fact of her pregnancy was widely known in Alaska, which, however distant from the rest of the country, wouldn't be expected to keep the secret.
Furthermore, pregnant women exhibit certain body changes (I'll give you a hint-- the most obvious ones are in the abdominal region), which will be manifest by late October.
Finally, many people identify with the experience that the Palin family is going through. This will not be a negative for Gov. Palin as a candidate.
Wrong. I didn't link just to "allegations" (re Troopergate). I linked to proof. This includes a statement made by Palin, and an audiotape of statements made by someone working for her. As usual, you're blowing smoke and not even making a pretense of addressing the facts that were presented.
By the way, we're still waiting for you to explain why you said this:
And you didn't just say it once. You said it over and over again. You're like Baghdad Bob.
Sarcasm aside, some of us actually discuss issues here.
Thanks!
There is no proof that Palin supported Buchanan and there is proof the other way (she supported Forbes). I think her previous support of candidates should tell you something, for good or ill. As far as her daughter - minor children of national candidates should be off limits. Obama was dead on with that. Its horrible territory to get into and will poison our national politics even worse. Criticize Palin for her social conservatism or her lack of experience. But leave her family alone.
Too much free time.
Aside from the accusation that Palin was not pregnant, and was faking the birth of her own baby in order to cover for the fact that the baby was actually her grandchild, of course.
Come on. While I don't agree with Obama's Florida spokesman, the email in question was sent on the day Palin pick was announced, Aug. 29. At that time, it became known that Palin wore a Buchanan button to some event and there simply was not enough information to determine whether Palin was a Buchanan's supporter. It was only in the next couple of days that more information started to come out and it became clear that Palin was actually not a Buchanan supporter. I haven't heard Obama's campaign repeat any lines about Palin being a Buchanan supporter. So, please be fair.
At what point will all threads, on all sites, become hijacked by the latest Palin controversy? Did you even know there was a hurricane, and a convention? Perhaps its time to create a "Palin's Law" to supplement "Godwin's Law", the point at which a thread invites pro- and anti-Palin partisans. It could have an equivalent Palin Number as well.
For example, a VC thread by DB (any one) has a Palin number of about, say, 5.
A VC thread by Orin Kerr on 4th Am. violations (not involving the GOP convention) would have a Palin number of 20.
A slashdot thread about Google chrome has a Palin number of 45.
And so on.
You're asking me to explain why I think McCain intended to keep this a secret. Because when his campaign made the announcement, they whined that they were compelled to make the announcement on account of the rumors. But if they intended to tell us anyway, why is that a problem? And if there's no shame in the announcement, why whine about being 'compelled' to make it? And when did he intend to tell us?
And if there's no shame in the announcement, why wasn't it a simple, low-key portion of the original announcement about Palin? And if there's no shame in the announcement, why wasn't it something Palin revealed herself, in a low-key way, before McCain picked her?
There are lots of contradictions here.
I disagree with that assessment. Palin hid her own pregnancy until roughly month seven, didn't she? And she gets much more public attention than the kid would.
Maybe McCain didn't know that. There are signs he didn't check things out very carefully.
If the GOP really thought it would be a positive, it would have been part of the original announcement. But they didn't think that. They thought they could hide it for another couple of months. And they would have, if not for those nasty bloggers.
McCain made her family fair game when he made her motherness and bio a key part of presenting her.
If Palin doesn't want her family to get this kind of media scrutiny, then she should have turned down McCain's invitation. Or accept the invitation, but leave the kids at home when you appear before the cameras. She could easily have said 'I have some lovely kids at home, but my policy is to keep them away from cameras; please respect their privacy.' If she had said that, everyone would have applauded, and her wish would have been respected. Instead, she used her kids as props.
She wasn't content to tell us 'look what a good governor I am.' She also felt a need to tell us 'look what a great mom I am.' Therefore it's fair to look into the credibility of that claim.
I don't have a shelf full, but I do have access to databases. Buchanan was quoted in "The Heresies of Pat Buchanan" by Jacob Weisberg (New Republic, 10/22/90, Vol. 203, Issue 17). Here's a fuller quote:
Weisberg also quotes a 1977 piece written by Buchanan:
I've emailed the article to Anderson—I don't want to post the whole thing here and violate copyright. Link to EBSCOhost/Academic Search Premier for those of you lucky enough to have a subscription.
I'm glad the left is telling us what to think about these facts, because they in no way speak for themselves!
Sarah Palin began her career as an elected official in 1992 on the Wasilla City Council. She went on to serve as Mayor of Wasilla, Chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and Governor of Alaska.
Barack Obama began his career as an Illinois State legislator in 1997. He went on to become a U.S. Senator for Illinois.
Sarah Palin has five (5) more years of experience in elected office than Barack Obama.
And Barack Obama has zero executive experience in public office. Sarah Plain is the chief executive of the largest State in the nation (Alaska) and Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard.
Governor Sarah Palin has made decisions as a chief executive, balanced budgets, and managed a government administration. Barack Obama has not.
Sarah Palin is far more experienced than Barack Obama.
And although Sarah Palin did not support Pat Buchanan, Barack Obama did work closely for years with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
You don't think that attacking a politician's minor children is immoral? I don't care what the politician says, leave the kids alone. You are discrediting yourself in this manner. Have some class. If you hate Palin, please go after her some other way - its not like there isn't plenty of great material to work with. That goes for all the candidates.
Don't you see the public policy issues with attacking candidate's children? Who in their right mind would run for office?
•“Experienced”: Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city
administrator to run town of about 5,000.
•political maverick: not at all
•gutsy: absolutely!
•open &transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
•has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
•”a Greenie”: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
•fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
•pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city
without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
•pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
•pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
The myth of Sarah Palin may be a lot different from the truth.
The shame is not IN the announcement, the shame is that the announcement had to be given. What business is it? Hello! Privacy! I guess we only have the right to privacy that the leftist lunatic fringe agrees to.
You're slipping. You forgot the Alaska National Guard bit and the international borders. I heard on good authority that Sarah and Todd snowmobiled up to the Russian border with their guns and the Alaskan National Guard and faced down an invasion from Putin and the Commie Russkies. In fact, I think Orin posted a picture of it recently.
(man, two more months of this??? the mind boggles!)
(ps- rarango, who I agree with approximate once every five blue moons, is right. you vote for the top of the ticket, not the VP)
Damn! Missed that one. I gotta start reading the papers again.
Are you joking?
Do you really believe the left attacking a 17 year old girl is going to hurt McCain?
Nope. You are actually going to have to read a book, buddy. Sorry to make it hard work for you. But I'm just not going to be baited. I've gone that route with you before. I didn't conclude that you actually care.
You don't think that attacking a politician's minor children is immoral?
Why would she?
The only "principle" the left has is "be in power."
Nothing else matters.
You already see how jokebox is justifying the behavior, right?
Of course jokebox is too young to remember how leftists used to get the vapors when anyone talked about Chelsea Clinton...
"Instead, she used her kids as props.
She wasn't content to tell us 'look what a good governor I am.' She also felt a need to tell us 'look what a great mom I am.' Therefore it's fair to look into the credibility of that claim."
I'm really disappointed in the way you are arguing this. You're a better VC'r than this. Where did Gov. Palin ever claim "look what a great mom I am"? Is that how you interpret her having her family on stage? If you believe the family were used as props for her to proclaim her superiority in family matters, well, think that.
I believe your premise is a faulty one for looking into the credibility of Sarah Palin's family matters. Perhaps it's one reason why people are so turned off by the media.
I believe you are generally correct, but this is an unusual situation where the pick tells us a lot about McCain's judgment. He's been reckless and impulsive his whole life, and this is just more vivid proof.
No one is attacking children. What's being pointed out is Palin's poor judgment, and McCain's poor judgment.
People who run for office should generally avoid using their children as props. Although I realize it's a very common practice and hard to eliminate entirely. And people shouldn't run for office on a platform of family values when they seem to be doing a poor job of taking care of their family.
If you want to protect your kids' privacy, don't parade them before cameras. Leave them at home. And don't tell us that one of the reasons we should vote for you is because you're a great mom.
Hilarious.
Um, you linked to an audiotape which you then go on to link to an allegation.
Why? Because the tape doesn't simply say what you want it to so you draw conclusions based on the inference of the tape along with the allegations of course.
Laugh out loud funny coming from you and your ilk.
But again, please continue. It is going to be real helpful to your cause come Nov 4.
Of course jokebox interprets it that way.
The only "principle" the left has is "be in power."
Nothing else matters.
You see how jokebox is justifying the behavior, right?
"The myth of Sarah Palin may be a lot different from the truth."
You posted an article without the benefit of primary sources. Just because you post it does not make it so.
I did. The anecdote you claim is in there is not in there. You're bluffing. What's the page number?
I don't think scholars believe that story anymore. You're right that there was a certain credence given to this story in past years--namely, that Hitler's paternal grandmother got pregnant while working as the maid at the home of a well-off Jewish family in Linz. Thus, the presumption that his father, Alois Hilter, was half-Jewish.
This would have made Hitler a "second degree Mischling" accoring to Nazi eugenics law. So there was something attractive about the idea for some people.
The problem is that there was no such Jewish family in Linz at the time.
I'd love to see that quote...
you're missing the point.
Sarah Palin has government executive experience. She has lots of experience actually making decisions - as Mayor, Commissioner, and then Governor. She's been in elective office since 1992.
Barack Obama has been in elective office just since 1997 - and alway as a legislator. he's never had to make executive decisions in a government administration like Gov. Palin.
Indeed, Obama often could not muster the courage to make even a legislative decison - he frequently voted "present."
See here
Do you really believe the
leftright attacking a17 year old girldecorated war hero is going to hurtMcCainKerry?I'm just not playing defensive. And I'll let the VCers who have a history on the blog make a decision about who is credible.
Er, and then what?
I love how you leftists are now redefining "experience" to mean 'number of people in a district' or something.
Keep going.
It is fun to watch.
The fact you can't see the subtantive differences here explains why your side has trouble winning elections.
"If you want to protect your kids' privacy, don't parade them before cameras. Leave them at home. And don't tell us that one of the reasons we should vote for you is because you're a great mom."
Again, more disappointing arguments from you.
Can you provide a link where she said "vote for me because I am a great mom" I don't think she ever explicitly stated that. She certainly mentioned her family in her acceptance speech - why not?
What you seem to be saying is that if children of Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidates are in public - they're "fair game" so to speak for the media to invade their privacy. This all or nothing approach seems somewhat obtuse.
I am not aware of the context of Hagee's statement, however. Perhaps he was discussing the history of the Third Reich. But I'm skeptical that his reasons were scholarly. In any event, to state this as a "fact" is, at the very least, a serious error based on the record.
(For anyone who is interested, the first volume of Ian Kershaw's "Hilter" deals with this issue. I don't have it here at the office. But as I recall, the issue of Alois Hilter's father is still murky, but it is highly improbably that he was a Jew, according to Kershaw.)
No, only the children of Repubicans.
I remember how outraged the left was about what a poor dad Al Gore was when his son was arrested for DUI..
I've posted the primary sources in other threads here, but it doesn't seem to matter to the Palin partisans. The information about Palin's love of earmarks as mayor, her uncanny ability to drive a town of 5,000 into $20 million in debt, working on Ted Steven's (R-Graft) 527, her links to a secessionist group, etc. are all easily found on Google.
The article I linked to gives a personal view of Gov. Palin and could have baggage associated with it. Just thought it may be of interest since we are still learning a lot of things about Gov. Palin.
Thanks -- that's really very kind.
I don't think that Buchanan's views are particularly well known, which is why MSNBC takes him seriously. If they were better known, he'd be a virtual pariah.
Could you point me to a reference that shows Anne Kilkenny
is a leftist? I haven't seen anything that points out her political affiliation either way.
Seconded, Hoosier. (For some reason I have Kershaw's vol. 2 on my shelf -- where did vol. 1 go?)
Many of the juicier stories about Hitler, like his alleged coprophilia and his Jewish grandpa, were cheerfully spread by his enemies, before they died on the Night of the Long Knives or fled the country. Gregor Strasser's brother was a particularly lively source.
The "Jewish grandfather" bit was rather like suggesting in the 1930s American South that a Mississippi politician had a slave for a grandmother -- it was certainly premised on some shared racist assumptions, but it was mainly meant to tweak the target.
Post the page number openly. If its on google books, everyone can check it. Then half the people can support you, and half the people can support j.
You know, just like everything else.
(two . . . more . . . months . . . muahahahaha)
(65% folks, and you can get rid of either me or The Ace. I highly recommend more side bets so we can get rid of as many of us obnoxious posters as possible . . . as a reminder, if McCain pulls 65% or more of the white female vote, I leave VC forever. If not, say goodbye to the The Ace.)
I'm no friend of Pat Buchanan, but the United States was actively involved in WWII before December 7th, 1941.
The USS Niblack attacked what it thought was a German u-boat in April of 1941. In fact, US warships were actively helping to escort ships in the Atlantic long before war was actually declared. The USS Reuben James was sunk while escorting a convoy in October 1941, but U-552.
One could argue that the US entered the war in September 1940, when it violated neutrality with the whole destroyers for bases deal.
Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about:
In other words, 'let's spotlight her kids when it helps us politically, but let's reserve the right to whine about privacy when it doesn't.' Reed's statement is not unique. There's plenty of proof that her family life is a key part of what supposedly makes her appealing to the voters McCain is trying to reach.
I suggest you put your complaints in the other thread, where they belong.
If you can show an example of me being "caught out," that would be helpful.
If you can show an example of me rejecting a legitimate citation, that would be helpful.
All I'm asking you for is a page number. You present the number, and then you've proven that I'm a liar, right? Something lots of people here have tried to do, and failed. So what's stopping you?
Here's what's stopping you: the anecdote which you claimed is in Timberg's book is not in the book. Period. Full stop. It's that simple.
By the way, there are lots of people here besides you who would like to prove me wrong. They're not providing the page number, either (even though the book is searchable and browsable at Amazon). I wonder why that is.
There is indeed some irony there, because unlicensed hunting is one the accusations Palin made against Wooten (even though Wooten was just shooting the moose on behalf of his wife Molly, who was sitting right there; the tag was in her name, not Mike's name). And of course when Cheney shot his friend in the face he was out hunting without the right credentials.
"I've posted the primary sources in other threads here, but it doesn't seem to matter to the Palin partisans. The information about Palin's love of earmarks as mayor, her uncanny ability to drive a town of 5,000 into $20 million in debt, working on Ted Steven's (R-Graft) 527, her links to a secessionist group, etc. are all easily found on Google."
There's a difference between stating something objectively and tinging it with personal subjectivity. "Love" of earmarks? "Uncanny ability", etc, etc. But that is what a blog is about - and that's is not a bad thing - it just diminishes the points you are making.
I guess my attitude is - if you're going to make the claim, provide the source for the claim.
What a bold conjecture.
By the way, must be that 5th blue moon because I find myself in agreement with Loki13s betting strategy! Damn Loki--twice on one thread
Ok:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor.
Palin Was a Director of Embattled Sen. Stevens's 527 Group
Palin And The Alaska Independence Party
Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident.
Does that help?
Sure, we were messing w/ the Germans before 12/7/41. But I don't think that does anything for the implications that Buchanan's going for, which is to imply a causal role b/t America's entering the war (after Hitler declared war on *us*, n.b.) and the Holocaust.
The Wannsee conference was actually scheduled before Pearl Harbor &then reset after the attack, while everyone in Berlin took a deep breath &went "now what?"
My point is simply that the extermination of the European Jews was part of the program, not a sudden inspiration of Hitler's that could've been provoked by the U.S. Had Hitler not gone to war w/ Britain &France, but invaded Russia at his convenience, there's no reason to think that killing off the Jews wouldn't have been on his to-do list.
is a leftist?
Um, I was referring to you.
Hilarious.
I think you should continue being this stupid.
It is fun to watch.
Which of course has nothing to do with her saying she is a "great mom"
Again, your posts are parody.
"
There is indeed some irony there, because unlicensed hunting is one the accusations Palin made against Wooten (even though Wooten was just shooting the moose on behalf of his wife Molly, who was sitting right there; the tag was in her name, not Mike's name). And of course when Cheney shot his friend in the face he was out hunting without the right credentials."
It's the last sentence that makes me wonder about you. Can't you stay on topic? The topic is Sarah Palin, correct?
I don't know. I used to think your posts were informative. Today, you come across as angry and flooding in your responses.
And the "leftists" were right. Chelsea should have been 100% off limits. Its a bad thing no matter who does it.
BTW, the Kerry "war hero" thing is silly. Its like pretending there is no middle ground between "war hero" and "pusillanimous coward". Kerry did his duty in Vietnam, which makes him an honorable sailor, not a hero. His acts upon his return, on the other hand, were quite DIShonorable. People who assume anyone who served honorably is a hero have never been in the military.
Biden and Cheney, on the other hand, may very well qualify for the coward label.
Which is odd, what with McCain definitely losing the election and all...
where can you get the proper credentials to shoot someone in the face? I want to stock up.
I can;t get to the NYT article:
"Ms. Palin is known to conservatives for opting not to have an abortion after learning that the child she was carrying, her youngest, had Down syndrome. “It is almost impossible to exaggerate how important that is to the conservative faith community,” Mr. Reed said.
People will make up their own minds. Even if she had not introduced her family, I believe people will still find her positions on family matters appealing.
The conclusion that some people believe that introducing one's family means the family is fair game is just something I find wrong.
It seems to me that Obama's comparative experience is not relevant. Whether the Democrats have nominated Obama/Biden or Bill Richardson/Bob Graham, McCain's job here is ultimately choosing someone who would is capable of taking over in case something happened to him. Palin does not pass that test.
People vote for the top of the top of ticket. So far, the Palin pick has done two things:
1. Kept the McCain campaign in a defensive mode . . . during their convention (Gustav wasn't a great help, either).
2. Given the MSM a chance to "discover" someone who hasn't been on the national stage before.
When ABC News is running reports on the Alaska Independence Party, it's not great. If this is all, it's still an opportunity lost, but no big deal in the long run. But now every little thing is going to get blown up because *ahem* the American people need to be introduced to her.
If it's mooseburgers, fighting corruption, and family values? Awesome!
If it's pregnant daughters, Alaskan independence, Troopergate, and banning books? Well, that's more McCain political capital expended.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor.
I have zero problem with this, as long as it was for projects that had a legitimate purpose.
Palin Was a Director of Embattled Sen. Stevens's 527 Group
Again, no problem with this. 527's are allowed and she was no longer associated with the 527 after 2005.
Palin And The Alaska Independence Party
I'd like to know more about this story, as there is conflicting information.
Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident.
The link you provide says the same thing without any specifics, so I don't know one way or the other. If there were indeed infrastructure improvements, those capital costs can be extensive. The question is - were they for a reasonable capital project?
Fury:
Where did Gov. Palin ever claim "look what a great mom I am"?
By way of Bill Kristol:
A nervous young McCain staffer took it upon himself to explain to Palin the facts of life in a national campaign, the intense scrutiny she'd be under from the media, the viciousness of the assault that she'd be facing, etc.:
Palin: "Thanks for the warning. By the way, do you know what they say the difference is between a hockey mom and a Pit Bull?"
McCain aide: "No, Governor."
Palin: "A hockey mom wears lipstick."
The official press release from McCain announcing her as his selection also uses her experience as a mom as a qualification for office: "As the head of Alaska's National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops."
Which also repeats the utterly laughable line about the Alaska National Guard.
One of Palin's selling points is her independence and not taking money from big government. Kind of hard to be a maverick when you hire lobbyists to go to DC and get some pork.
Under Mayor Palin, the city tried a land grab using eminent domain and it ended up costing the city a 7 year legal battle and huge fees (the land would have cost a fraction if the city hadn't tried to just take it). Mavericky? Maybe. But it doesn't sound like a breath of fresh air.
In other news, it is good to at last find an example Obaminista bipartisanship: Democrats making common cause with the most corrupt, and self-dealing members of the Republican party who have been purged by a reformer. These corrupt creatures have been regularly cited in this thread as a justification and source for these attacks. Obama supporters must be feeling the be common public values and all, reaching across the aisle.
I've been wondering when that would becoem clear.
Maybe I'm just feeding a troll, but wow
Whether or not Palin's daughter is having a child absolutely does not interest me beyond any other tabloid tidbit, and it will not influence my vote in the slightest.
But if you seriously had even the tiniest expectation that the fact that a Vice Presidential candidate's unmarried daughter is having a child would not be a national headline, you are either very naive or very unintelligent.
I'm not in the habit of assuming that anyone is either, and won't do so here. So please save us the feigned outrage about the "leftists" and what they think. I seriously doubt you would be doing the same if the parties were reversed.
Former Governor (and Secretary of the Interior) Walter Hickel left the GOP in 1990 after backroom maneuvering denied him the gubernatorial nomination. He was offered the Alaska Independence Party nomination (their nominee withdrew) and accepted it - and won the governorship in 1990. A lot of Republicans followed him there, but they, like he, came back after his term was over. He didn't endorse secession either.
Nick
Second, I think that the Obama-ites are freaking out about Palin because she is everything that Obama claims to be but is not: A political reformer. She has crossed party lines to battle corruption. He is a Chicago Machine Democrat that has zero reformer credentials.
This is the best post of the thread.
I am disappointed that the Obama team is taking the Clinton approach- smearing by lying, or at the most charitable interpretation, presenting as unalloyed fact a highly questionable version of events while ignoring strong evidence to the contrary- to score a cheap and personal point, simultaneously painting the opponent as a racist. It's really disgusting. Had the McCain camp issued some statement like this, the story in the NYT would be bleating and crying over "Karl Rove-like tactics" and the like.
Thank you for the concern. We are past parody. We are past self-parody. We are past meta-parody. We now in the era of where nothing is true, and all is permitted.
I think your list suffers from selective editing. Let me add a few more things that the pick of Palin has done.
1. Fired up the Republican Base.
2. Ended the Democrats' claim that only their ticket will represent historic change.
3. Added millions to McCain's fundraising.
4. Resulted in the main stream media and democrats (repetitive, I know . . .) launching personal attacks against Palin and her family in an effort to smear her. While those on the left may see this as a positive, they may come to regret this tactic.
5. Completely stepped over the media coverage of the Democrats' convention and Obama's speech.
None of this is to dispute the fact that Palin also carries risks and challenges for McCain. But to pretend that the pick is all negative is like reading talking points from the DNC.
Here Here!]
You list two negative things, and you ignore some of the positive effects -- for example, it appears to have convinced Dobson to vote for McCain, and announce that publicly. In other words, whatever else the nomination was, it served as a relied-upon signal to social conservatives that McCain intends to maintain a commitment to them. I do think the nomination was intended as a lot more than that, but that's the biggest thing that's come of it at this stage.
One of Palin's selling points is her independence and not taking money from big government. Kind of hard to be a maverick when you hire lobbyists to go to DC and get some pork.
You're misstating her position on federal funding for project. When the Bridge to Nowhere issue came up, she stated her position on federal funding for projects came up. I'll dig up what she has stated on federal funding. She has never stated that Alaska would not take money from "big government". If you have a citation for that, I'd like to see that. What I read in her speech on Friday 08/30/08 is:
"And I’ve championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress."
Under Mayor Palin, the city tried a land grab using eminent domain and it ended up costing the city a 7 year legal battle and huge fees (the land would have cost a fraction if the city hadn't tried to just take it). Mavericky? Maybe. But it doesn't sound like a breath of fresh air.
Do we have any of Palin's comments on this? Do we know how the City Council voted regarding the Eminent Domain? The article you cited does not even mention Palin by name. Maybe I can find those...
By way of Bill Kristol:
Where did she say "great mom" there?
Oh, she didn't.
Again, where do you drooling imbeciles come from?
Of your points, only (3) is of any vale, and we'll see if it makes a long-term difference.
1- doesn't matter. A vote is a vote, no matter how emphatically they put in the ballot box.
2- Ferraro.
4- spin. VPs DON'T MATTER &we have yet to see how it plays out. While all the freepers and the kosheads are up in arms, this has yet to play out.
5- Gustav would have don that anyway.
What it did do was overstep the GOP's message. Where's the VC thread on the GOP convention? The GOP message? The GOP platform? The GOP plan for America? The regular attacks on barack HUSSEIN obama (well, other than DB, got to give him props).
Yeah, probably true, I wish I could just hit a big 'fast-forward' button till November.
His bounce is so small probably because he's doing such a bang up job of showing his "executive experience" running his campaign...
As mayor she hired a lobbyist to get earmarks for her town. But she's a reformer? That seems like being a part of the problem.
The Wasilla hometown paper has its archive online. Here's one article from last year.
The comments on this thread are roughly like what I'd expect the discourse to be like if The Onion bought out Daily Kos.
Anybody want to join me in a petition to EV to put a spam filter on VC through November that automatically deletes any post or comment using the words "Palin" "Obama" "Biden" "McCain" and "Jukeboxgrad"?
As of 9/1, Gallup has it 0bama 50, McCain 42. Rasmussen has it Obama 51, McCain 45. Note that this is the first time Obama has been over 50%. I guess there is a bump for him after all.
And besides, does anyone REALLY believe that Democrats and other opponents of the Republican ticket wouldn't have done some digging if Gov. Palin had not been photographed publicly with her family? Of course not. If she had said, "I'm running as myself; my family is not part of my campaign," (a wierd thing for a contemporary candidate to do, to be sure) the attack guys would have done their research just the same. And we still would have heard about Palin's story.
We also would have heard some spin about how candidates houldn't try to hide their families, because thier personal life is part of how the voters should judge them.
C'mon. You know db. He's told us he's, uh, what is it, not a Republican, a conservative? Something like that. Anyway, he's completely non-partisan. Doesn't take sides. Just likes to point out things that interest him. And he's always interested by negative stuff about Obama. And exposing liberal myths.
Actually, M.S., Susan Estrich said in an interview on Fox &Friends this morning that she believes up to 1/3 of the 18 million who voted for Hillary can potentially be convinced to vote for a McCain-Palin ticket. Also, recently Geraldine Ferraro said that about 20% of those who voted for Hillary in the primaries had voted for Bush-Chaney in 2004, and she estimated that between 25% and 30% of the Hillary voters would either vote for McCain, vote for a 3d party, or not vote (This interview was before Palin was announced by McCain as his VP pick). While neither Estrich nor Ferraro cited any polling data or other basis for their opinions -- other than being prominent Dem women who have had involvement or connections with people in the Dem primary campaigns -- they believe that a substantial portion of the Hillary voters are in play.
Ace and Hoosier:
Pay no attention to the Man behind the curtain! The Great and Powerful
OzJunkbox has spoken.Similarly, anyone who's written a book taking the position that it was a mistake to have gotten involved in the Vietnam War can plausibly be called a "Viet Cong Sympathizer," or, to make it simple, a "comsymp."
And from the article you later linked:
So, where exactly is the source that Palin used ED to take the land in question?
Then again, many men go out on the down-low and have anal sex with other men and absolutely *believe* they are completely heterosexual.
The one thing that really upset my wife was the media, and the repeated retelling of the Trig-is-really-Bristol rumor over and over again. She felt is was very unfair of the media to focus so much time on that rumour, because it made the Democrats look so bad.
I think Troopergate is a very relevant part of the Sarah Palin story. One of the accusations she made against Wooten was a problem with hunting credentials. That's been known for a long time. What hasn't been known for a long time is that she once had a problem with hunting credentials, too. I think it's relevant to know this about her: that she doesn't seem to mind holding an enemy to a higher standard than she holds herself.
I'll be more impressed with your sincerity as topic police when you patrol in a nonpartisan manner.
Ralph Reed and others like him are not just "introducing" her family. They're shining a light on various personal details they find politically advantageous. But then they also want to whine about 'privacy' when facts emerge about other personal details that are perhaps not so advantageous. I don't see the point in tolerating shenanigans like that.
You should have a problem with the fact that McCain and Palin are painting Palin as anti-earmark even though she worked to secure earmarks. Even if the projects "had a legitimate purpose," they are making a false claim.
That's pretty funny.
But just in case you misunderstood me: Cheney was actually hunting that day (certain creatures other than humans). And he didn't have the right credentials for that hunting. You can look it up.
When they hear about Kopp, that's also not going to help. The woman he harrassed warned Palin about him, and Palin hired him anyway.
"I don't think those words mean what you think they mean"
Maybe when you have a chance you'll tell us which "words" you're talking about.
She used her office to pursue a private vendetta against her ex-brother-in-law. And then lied about it. Tell us how this fits your definition of "political reformer."
Indeed. And it was intended to do this, but it was a mistake. A record number of people watched the convention and the speech. A commenter elsewhere made this smart observation: "the move of the pundits to talk about or to defend McCain’s Choice means that voters have been free to digest Obama’s message without hordes of pundits to tell them what they should think about it."
If you look at the very long list of polls here, you'll see that Obama has been over 50% several times before. I think the highest is 53%. Whereas McCain reached 51% just once, in 1/07.
A few weeks ago Politico wrote an article which falsely claimed that Obama has never been over 50%. Maybe you're being influenced by that article.
Palin's supporters like Ralph Reed were explicitly inviting voters to admire Palin's personal life. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Question about your anecdote (for real). What media upset her? I wouldn't have known about it if it wasn't for teh intertubez - I didn't see any old media coverage of it.
Or go back to your celebrity stalking. It may surprise you that those people on TV, unlike the ones you stalk are *real* and not characters for your amusement.
I never denied that.
He had a small bounce, but that will fade as the left always over-reaches and they have done so again.
Their behavior, while despicable, is fun to watch.
You don't have a single shred of evidence to support this claim.
Thanks for pointing that out. So under Palin's term the $15 million sports center was started but problems with acquiring the land occurred. After Palin's term the new mayor used ED to get the land. And the town of Wasilla was $20 million in debt after Palin left.
Given Palin's hiring of a lobbying firm to secure earmarks, I wonder if she is the maverick reformer the GOP claims, or if she wanted to get the pigs away from the trough so there was more for her? I also want to know if McCain's people did any vetting before creating this storyline?
The Ace:
Executive is accused of abuse of power, claims executive privilege to prevent investigators from seeing emails. That's certainly mavericky, but I think I've heard this tune before.
Nice try. What Reed said is just an example. McCain and Palin have both made statements directing attention toward Palin's personal life. Take another look at the speech she gave.
If Palin didn't want her family subjected to media scrutiny, she should have turned down McCain's invitation. Or at least not drag all her kids on stage with her the first time we meet her.
Amen.
But I suspect we'll get our beloved blog back at some point after November.
Can't come soon enough. But I can't say I share your optimism.
Yes. Can't you tell they're doing their practicing here?
In DC itself, or in the DC suburbs?
Oh, and what are her favorite song lyrics?
Nick
"I'll be more impressed with your sincerity as topic police when you patrol in a nonpartisan manner. "
Whatever. I've spoken out on the VC and deal with things in a very non-partisan manner. If I have not, then my apologies.
As noted before, we will not agree on this issue. That's not a bad thing - that's life.
I'm very late to the thread and this comment was very early, but nobody corrected it so I can't let it pass without criticism. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the idea that anti-Semitism is a liberal disease is horseshit.
OK, back to your regularly scheduled flame war.
Dave N:
I'm sorry Dave, but when you fail to mention the regulars here on the right who are just as partisan and a lot hackier -- if making virtually any partisan argument, supported or not, plausible or not, and often just resorting to personal attacks without even bothering to make an argument at all, are evidence of hackness -- it makes it hard to take this criticism seriously. Especially when one in particular, and I'm sure I don't have to mention his name, has been so prominently hackish on this very thread.
I'd leave Palin's daughter out of it, despite there being legitimate arguments that the only person responsibility for her being in it is Palin. I believe you'd do the same if the situation was reversed. But you can't say with a straight face the same goes for many of your cohort here, not to mention at a slew of the more extreme sites like Free Republic, LGF or HOT AIR, where the locals make the most trollish VC commenter look like an Ethical Culturist. I don't know how you define troll, but by my definition, jbg isn't one, though there are others here who certainly are. But again, even if you define it more strictly than I do, that you would apply it to jbg without mentioning any of the far more egregious offenders here undermines the objectivity of your complaint.
During her mayoralty, she increased both spending and taxes by over 30%. It's some new spend-and-tax type of small government, it seems.
There is trollish behavior by others--and feel free to call them out on it.
I should note that I was responding, in part, as a followup of my own post last night where I said all Presidential kids, grownup or minor, should be left alone and given their privacy--with the only exception being Beau Biden, since he is the elected Attorney General of Delaware. Someone mentioned Biden's other son in passing today (along with his father) in a negative context. I deplore that as well. Unless Joe Biden is directly involved, I don't care.
To say that Palin's daughter is fair game because Governor Palin introduced her in Dayton and it is somehow Governor Palin's fault because she dared to accept Senator McCain's offer to his running mate is, in my opinion, disgusting and boorish behavior.
I called him out in an unfair manner on another thread. He had endorsed the Kilzoy/Obama position before making his other posts. I had missed that comment.
My apologies.
There are two questions:
1. What's over the line?
2. Who (what, when) do we criticize for it?
Taking them in reverse order, so many complaints about objectionable behavior are politically motivated, it's nearly impossible to have an intelligent discussion about what ought to be out of bounds. Whenever I hear someone reserving their indignation for one person or party over a type of misbehavior that's bi-partisan, my reaction is wake me when the election's over. Consequently, what's over the line isn't so clear. Is it over the line to attack a veteran's service? Apparently it depends. Which vet? Which party? Are you a vet? You better be if you're going to open your mouth about another vet (from my party). Is the private life of a candidate's family over the line? Lots of people, including John McCain, have apparently viewed this question differently when the family involved was named Clinton than when it's a Palin.
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't engage in attacks on a candidate's service or his family, regardless of party. And I wouldn't criticize one person or party for doing it without acknowledging that the other side is guilty of it too. But that's because I wouldn't feel OK about myself otherwise, not because I think those who do it are necessarily wrong. What I think is wrong and disgusting is the whole cannibalistic system, and the inability of anyone to bring any sanity or decency to it. I blame the Republicans for that more than I blame the Democrats, but I'm sure you disagree. Anyway, given the state of affairs, I don't blame anyone for doing what has been and surely will continue to be done to them. If anything, I blame the Democrats for allowing their moral qualms about such tactics to cost Kerry the 2004 election, and many lesser elections, when the Republicans obviously have no hesitation about using any tactic that will work.
Did you say that to the person who made the comment? If so, good for you. If not, why not?
We already know that you live in a special parallel universe where "McCain didn't have an affair" (even though on planet Earth he has plainly admitted it). So it's no surprise that your parallel universe also doesn't contain the tall pile of government documents which record in detail Sarah Palin's multi-year vendetta against Mike Wooten.
It would be nice if you could create an argument without using a straw man. You should show where I've claimed that "Palin's 17 yo daughter is a fair target." I haven't. I've claimed that the choices Palin has made as a parent are a fair target. The one who is holding Bristol up as a shield, to try to protect Sarah Palin from legitimate criticism, is you.
Thanks for the support. I decided to stop taking dave n seriously here, when he gave us what I think is one of the single clearest examples of egregiously dishonest quoting that I've ever seen. And then disappeared from the thread, when called on it.
I know this will be falling on deaf ears, but let me ask metro1, even if it is granted that Palin has more experience than Obama, how can you possibly say that she has enough experience to be Vice-President? City Council and Mayor of Wassila are not adequate preparation for being Leader of the Free World. All she has is being Governor of Alaska for 20 months. Executive experience, sure, but not a whole lot of it.
It seems to me that Obama's comparative experience is not relevant. Whether the Democrats have nominated Obama/Biden or Bill Richardson/Bob Graham, McCain's job here is ultimately choosing someone who would is capable of taking over in case something happened to him. Palin does not pass that test.
9.2.2008 1:02pm"
Palin is more qualified today than Obama on day one. And Biden as well. Is Biden capable of taking over? Biden doesn't pass the test and neither does Obama past the test. Please explain why experience level pf Palin is relevant but that of Obama bin Biden is not?
No doubt that Pat Buchanan is a not so out of the closet Nazi, however he supports Obama's positions on the war. But then again communists and nazi's were never that far apart.
The democrats have jumped the shark.
Recently (start here and scroll up) you and I had a fascinating exchange regarding a certain style of commentary that regularly adorns VC. You even said you wanted to "take appropriate action." Your statements led me to believe that you had never seen it before.
That was just a few days ago. Today, as if on cue, a few of the usual suspects appeared in this thread (and also in another thread you started today), and did what they so reliably do.
I just wanted to point this out, in case you hadn't noticed.
My point is qualifications are not relative. McCain's job is to pick someone who is capable of doing the job, not someone who is more capable than the Democratic nominee. It doesn't matter if Palin has all the right stands on the issues. You are saying being she has learned enough in the last 20 months as Governor of Alaska, attained enough "Executive experience" that you would be comfortable with her taking over if a President McCain was assassinated by a suicide bomber in February 2009? You're saying that you wouldn't feel more comfortable with a Pawlenty, Ridge or Romney? Or if he was compelled to choose a woman, Heather Wilson or Elizabeth Dole?
2 things, 1) you didn't deny you were a partisan hack. Another poster defended you but that is not the same as you even attempting to deny it.
And 2) and most important: When you postthen YOU are the one who is taking it upon himself to think that discussing a 17 yo's private life is somehow fair game--and I don't give a damn about your semantic word games. That is MY fair reading of what YOU wrote, troll.
If I posted a denial every time some partisan hack like you called me a silly name, that would be a silly waste of time.
Also, I don't deny being partisan. That category encompasses many or most of the commenters here. Including and especially you. And the word "hack" is too subjective to be worth much time fussing over. Especially with someone as demonstrably disingenuous as you.
Aside from that, did you have some kind of a point?
The semantic word games are all yours. But you're right, I should have realized I'm in the company of hairsplitters like you who can do no better than make a fuss about the fact that in one place I said "her family" instead of "her parental decisions." The fact that I'm focusing on the latter should be pretty obvious. Just not obvious enough for the likes of you.
Pretty much. I can't think of anything in the last 6 years and 8 days that has gotten this sort of internet attention
Agreed. Of course it's not just internet attention. It's media attention. And I think it's just getting started. People just got back from vacation yesterday, so today is really just Day Two of Northern Overexposure: Meet the Palins.
America loves nothing more than a troubled family (going all the way back to "An American Family" in 1973). And we don't want a troubled family near or in the White House, but the odds are very high that the Palins are headed for their own reality show. Seriously. They will make way more money. MTV and Fox are going to be in a bidding war over them.
And pay attention tonight. Levi is going to get almost as much camera time as Sarah. By tomorrow morning, people are going to be selling Levi for President t-shirts and bumper-stickers.
"but the odds are very high that the Palins are headed for their own reality show. Seriously. They will make way more money. MTV and Fox are going to be in a bidding war over them."
If you seriously believe that, wow...
More experience is always good. But there are other things to look for as well; experience is not the only criterion. (This includes Obama; as I've said in the past, if he didn't keep bringing Palin's experience up, his own lack wouldn't be an issue anymore due to his selection of Biden to compensate.) Palin sends multiple messages about what McCain wants to accomplish in his presidency: he wants reform of the Republican party, of spending in government; he intends to leave a legacy that social and economic conservatives can be comfortable with; he agrees with the Democratic party that it's time to smash some conventional social role walls.
These are about McCain. Much has also been said about Palin's qualifications, so I won't repeat them.
Then Palin was the wrong choice. In Wasilla she greatly increased government spending and left behind millions in new debt. Sounds a lot like Bush's approach to government.