Palin on the Supreme Court:
In a post-debate interview with Fox News' Carl Cameron, Gov. Palin identifies Kennedy v. Louisiana, Kelo v. New London, and Exxon Shipping v. Baker as decisions (other than Roe v. Wade) with which she disagrees.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
In Search of Jefferson's Moose
Sources on the Second Amendment
"Gov. Palin, other than the Exxon Valdez case, can you name me any other Supreme Court case involving admiralty and maritime law with which you disagree?"
Too late.
She wins.
Are you seriously suggesting that Palin has a clue about those cases?
Are you impressed by the fact that she was able to memorize the names of 3 cases?
Your cheerleading is making you look silly.
Hmmm...
When Biden was in law school, he was accused of having plagiarized 5 of 15 pages of a law review article. He said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and Biden was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was subsequently dropped from his record.
He plagiarizes and gets a 'do-over.'
hahahahaha......
(a) pro death penalty
(b) pro "life"
(c) against small town eminent domain powers (but see, the Wasilla exception) and
(d) pro Alaska fishermen (I wonder if the First Dude stands to gain money from that one).
Applying this litmus test to a Supreme Court nominee means that only her husband Todd is qualified to sit on the high court.
Palin seems to imagine that Couric's job is to let her recite her stump speech, rather than ask questions that Couric thinks Palin should answer.
Then Cameron gives her another do-over on what she reads.
I suppose the point of this post might be to point how ridiculous the whole interview was. I can't imagine any other sensible reason.
Maybe it is only cases decided in the last 5 years that she comments on (with the exception of Roe). What does she think about Casey?
Although I have been practicing law for a while, it would take me some thinking to determine which Supreme Court cases I like, and which ones I don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
Hell, she could have gotten huge milage by saying there are aspects of Heller that she disagrees with.
When you are in the Cult of Perpetual Victimhood, aka WATB, you can complain about anything you want.
Conservatives want a real network of their own.
Reminds me of George's delayed perfect comeback on Seinfeld. You can see a clip here where the gang is coming up with alternative comebacks.
I disagree your majesty.
CROWLEY: You talked yesterday in your speech, saying, look, I recognize that there are people in the world who think that the U.S. has been part of what has gone wrong in the world. Do you think that there’s anything that’s happened in the past 7 1/2 years that the U.S. needs to apologize for in terms of foreign policy?
Needless to say, Obama handles this hardball with restraint and dignity:
OBAMA: No, I don’t believe in the U.S. apologizing. We’ve made some mistakes... etc
So, why didn't she ask: "How many foreign leaders can you name?"
Of course all of us can answer prepped questions from friendly journalists. After her gaffe Ms. Palin had no choice but to think a bit about some rulings, and get advice from her handlers about how to answer the question should it come up again. But the fact that someone who has obviously never cared much for the larger world (never had a passport till 2007; never thought about Supreme Court cases beyond Exxon-Valdez and the "red flag" Roe v. Wade until late 2008) is being run for VP should be alarming.
The problem is not that Ms. Palin's opinions on economic, legal, or political issues may be wrong. Most public positions taken by Presidential candidates are on issues that the president has no power to change. The problem is that Ms. Palin does not have opinions in the first place. Moreover, the lack of such opinions does not stem from her political instincts (some politicians publicly express whatever opinions would get them elected, as opposed to their intrinsic opinions; former Israeli PM Netanyahu is the epitome of this phenomenon). Rather, she seems to have genuinely not cared enough about these issues to have opinions. This is a serious deficiency.
Exactly. I've met *18-year-olds* out there with strong convictions and a command of background knowledge for a wide range of political issues. Now these kids may not be particularly wise, but you can't deny that they *care* about politics. Palin seems to have been an ambitious and successful local politician in Alaska, but it's quite clear that she hadn't harbored serious national ambitions before a few weeks ago; even if you judge her simply as a citizen, her level of interest in national politics was obviously close to nil. Maybe we can spin that as a "breath of fresh air" coming to Washington; or maybe we can view her selection as a cynical move by the McCain campaign that helped with fundraising but has largely backfired in general.
What is your point here, exactly?
Are you seriously suggesting that Palin has a clue about those cases?
Are you impressed by the fact that she was able to memorize the names of 3 cases?
I really suspect she has a clue about Exxon Shipping v. Baker even if she didn't remember name of the case the first time.
In other words, Joe Biden might give a quick list of cases--but I'm guessing he wouldn't have Kelo on it. Which matters a lot more to me
The childhood shows the man,
As morning shows the day-- Milton
As morning shows the day-- Milton
St. Augustine would beg to differ.
Well 'specially higher than a below average law school student like Biden.
Buy keep hammering Palin for being a neophyte.
I find what you consider to be a "deficiency" quite refreshing when compared to a stinking bag of the same ol' same ol' horse manure... a posturing piece of excrement who thinks "president" FDR went on television in 1929, and a self-styled "foreign policy guru", who thinks the US and France "kicked' Hezbollah out of Lebanon.
Your guy is a phony.
I agree though that this is trivial stuff. Biden's a pretty smart guy with a good knowledge base and seems like a very decent man. He mentioned, in passing, in the debate last night about McCain's son also serving in Iraq, which is something McCain intentionally doesn't talk about.
I think the candidates in this race are far better than we've had in an election in a long time.
I read "PALIN ON THE SUPREME COURT" and thought "CHRIST! What has Bush done NOW??"
:->
I used to think that, too. Hey I turned 65 yesterday, so I've had the opportunity to be somewhat familiar with the guy.
We all get old. Seems to me that Biden might be getting to the "senior moment" stage of life, considering his gaffe-a-minute performances, which suggest his "knowledge base" is fading rapidly.
(FDR on TV in 1929????)
In particular, I'd like to hear Obama explain exactly how he disagrees with opinions published by justices Roberts, Alito, and Thomas.
I understand Palin not having Supreme Court expertise. But what is Obama's excuse?
But this Palin stuff is EMBARRASSING.
But this Palin stuff is EMBARRASSING.
I guess that this is better than the "I'm not going to answer your questions" tactic.
and god help us when those kids grow up and run for congress. any 18 year old with "a command of background knowledge for a wide range of political issues" is exactly the kind of person i want nowhere near our government. it shows a clear lack of balance and understanding of what's important in the world.
Expertise? To name a couple of cases she disagrees with? Even if she didn't know the names she could have mentioned the issues. Does it take expertise for an Alaska governor to know something about the Exxon case, or an ex-mayor to know about Kelo? All that executive experience, gone to waste. Guess she was on lookout to see if Putin was coming across the Bering Strait.
Bye, Nate.
Here's a bye-bye song for you. Try to keep your pants buttoned up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPu-C5vvzU4
Obama, McCain, and Biden all have made much more serious gaffes, and much more often, than Sarah Palin. Doubled and squared.
And Barry Obama is certainly much less experienced in elected administrative duties -- which is what counts most here, above anything else -- than Governor Sarah Palin.
Yet the liberal contingent attacks every word Palin utters, putting the most vile, reprehensible and dishonest spin on it that they can possibly think of.
Can you say H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S?
I knew that you could!
so, b, at what age does it become appropriate for a citizen to start caring about politics and informing him/herself about political issues? 25? 30? Later?
First, Biden is no more "my guy" than Palin is "my girl". Just because I don't think Palin belongs in the Presidential race doesn't mean I think Biden is not a phony, or that Obama's policy preferences are any good. Biden is not the most-informed guy on the planet, and tries to bluff his way out of it where Palin wouldn't. But at least he has some notion about the world around him.
In my opinion, the US political scene can be roughly divided into two camps: the Democrats, who support bad policies, and the Republicans, who are bad people. Thankfully, I'm not a US citizen so I don't have to actually choose between the two.
Secondly, uneducated and unthinking candidates running for office is a sign of the continuing anti-intellectual sentiment in the US, especially on the Right. This is nothing new, but has gotten worse during the Bush years. Voters do not want a candidate who thinks about issues, who is well-informed and cares to be better-informed, even if they themselves aren't. They want a candidate who is "like them" -- who will be "simple" and prejudiced.
How much does Palin know about Chinese history? about European history? about the history of the Middle East? You should ask her about these not because you should expect her to leverage such knowledge into insightful policy decisions. Rather, without such knowledge she won't understand the backdrop against which she should judge the (hopefully insightful) policy decisions of her advisers.
As morning shows the day-- Milton
So Zarkov has now declared that he never did anything stupid when he was young.
My congratulations to him. I do not make the same claim for myself. How many do?
It's not so much the words themselves as the fact they don't come out of her mouth in coherent sentences.
Jeez Nate, your boycott lasted less than a minute. Even John McCain holds his position a little longer than that.
You've got to be kidding. "The history of the Middle East"? No one running for any office in the U.S. is going to expound on the work of Averroes and Avicenna, nor do I think knowledge in this are would do any good.
I'm pretty well-traveled and well-read, and I haven't seen the leaders of any country approach anywhere near this standard of knowledge.
Perhaps you can enlighten us with a few examples of world leaders who meet your standard. I, for one, would like to meet them and discuss the tactical blunders at the Battle of Hastings, Bertrand Russell's travels in China, and whether Cuba would ever have turned Communist if Fidel Castro had actually made it to the big leagues.
I agree that leaders should be knowledgeable, but the European leaders don't strike me as any more enlightened than Sara Palin. Honestly, they're pretty much a joke, too. And, for the most part, the Europeans aren't really any brighter than Americans. Neither of us are impressive, though it's really pretty to think we're special.
John McCain and Joe Biden are politicians. They know their numbers, and they know Washington.
What is different about this election is culture. Where is America going, culturally?
This is where Barack Obama and Sarah Palin come in.
Some say race is a factor against Obama, but I say it is the opposite: Obama has been propelled upwards by his skin color. The positive ‘racism’ (Black-Americans supporting him, White-Americans feeling guilty about the legacy of slavery) far outweighs the few remaining pockets of negative racism (traditional bigotry) that still exist in our country.
Whereas Black-Americans account for 12 percent of America, women number about 51 percent.
This is where America’s reaction to Sarah Palin gets interesting. It is not only sexism at play, but regionalism too. Keep in mind that America’s reaction could be vastly different from the media’s reaction, which tries to intervene in how America thinks and observes for itself.
For the last decade, American women have been trying to become either the fifth ‘Manhattanite’ cast member of ‘Sex and the City’ or a ‘Desperate Housewife’ on Wisteria Lane. The White male executives who created, packaged and marketed these female stereotypes have made plenty of money as women across America spent time and money trying to become ‘Carrie Bradshaw’. But somehow, these wanna-be’s never lived it up as glamorously.
Sarah Palin is all about God, Family, Country and Shot-Guns. She is a completely New American Woman. She was not constructed by a Public Relations agency in either New York City or Los Angeles. She is not a Hollywood creation. Sarah Palin is simply a product of American small-town wholesomeness: happy childhood, hard work, self-discipline and a bright, and almost chirpy, outlook on life.
Sarah is not the high-maintenance, drama-seeking, bulimia-suffering fragile caricature of a working woman as peddled by TV.
Her husband, Todd Palin, is not a neurotic metro-sexual obsessing over the price of organic arugula, or whining about his commitment phobias to his shrink. He is a man’s man, and frankly, a woman’s man: just your regular American guy—wholesome and uncomplicated.
Sarah and Todd are American ‘retro’, but it is retro made cool all over again. They are a brand of Americana that has been tested and true—genuine, confident and mature.
Something happened to the Obama brand on the way to the election. It is as if the fashion gods decided that “Didn’t you know? No one wears Obama after Labour Day.”
Once exotic and different, the Obama brand has been turned into something weird and creepy. “Obama’s Witnesses,” “Obama’s Blue-Shirts,” “The Obama Youth Fraternity League”…Plus, after the initial swooning over him, most people still think that there’s something “off” about Obama; as if he’s hollow, or hiding something.
Today, the Obama brand has become decidedly “uncool”. That’s why people tuned out from watching him debate McCain.
On the other hand, Americans are discovering that they are intrigued by Sarah Palin. The TV pundits may want to spin things their way, but the surest measure of who won the Vice-Presidential Debate is that, at the end, the vast majority of viewers walked away from their TV sets and said to themselves, “I’d like to see more of Sarah Palin—unfiltered and uncut.”
The Obama camp may be celebrating too early. There are still plenty of people out there that haven’t made up their mind, and Obama’s triumphalism may begin to sound like arrogance, and he’s already been accused of that.
This is indeed a culturally interesting time to be an American.
How are Republicans bad people? Should I assume the rest of this parallel analogy and figure Republican policies are good?
Agreed.
There is no anti-intellectual sentiment in the U.S. at all, on the Right or the Left or the huge Middle. It's a misinterpretation of disgust with shallow thinking that passes for "intellectualism".
The average American thinks about issues. There are filters of liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism that inform their thinking, but most of them are definitely thinking about issues.
We would like a candidate that can relate to us, not necessarily be "like" us. It is completely unfair to characterize the Right, Left, or Middle as "simple" and prejudiced.
It is quite amazing to me that disagreement with European ideals, Chinese ideals, or Middle Eastern ideals is magically translated into ignorance or dismissal of their relevance or impact.
2) Contrary to what some have claimed, Wasilla did not utilize eminent domain under Palin. The town used eminent domain to seize the relevant property after she was out of office. The lawsuit she was involved in was over actual ownership of the property.
Don't get too upset. Europeans have had this view of Americans for at least 200 years. I read about it in "European History."
Some Americans hold this view as well, and so must move to Europe to escape the boorishness here. For example, Henry James and T.S. Eliot, who, much to his chagrin was born in St. Louis, Missouri, espoused this view. Ezra Pound, who was born in Idaho (whose literary distinction is the birthplace of Pound and the suicide-place of Hemingway) went to Europe as well. He actually helped do propaganda for Mussolini during WWII, because Mussolini believed in the art patronage system. (It's in the same "European History" book.)
Fortunately, the boorish Americans saved the rest of the Europeans (again) from the tyranny of Germany. Or so says my "American History" book.
Unfortunately for Europe, they too are susceptible to terrorist attacks from al-Qaeda, which carried out deadly bombings in Madrid and London. Apparently their deep knowledge of history was of no help here.
Great post. Thank you. You know, we wade through dozens of stupid posts on these blogs in search of gems like yours.
Best,
Arrowhead.
"Carl Cameron had the impression..."
"And there is a sense..."
Well, I have an impression that 0bama is an anti-American empty suit, and that there is a sense that Joe Biden lacks integrity.
And my cites are right from the original source.
Politico has been evenhanded through this election cycle so I have no problem using them as a reference. More importantly, "And there is a sense . . ." is a direct quote from Cameron.
That's right from the source, and I think we can all agree that Fox News has been, to put it charitably, sympathetic to Palin. Attack Obama and Biden all you want, it does nothing to address Palin's deficiencies. As someone else said, it's too late for a mulligan.
Absolutely true
Absolutely false
Yet the liberal contingent attacks every word Palin utters, putting the most vile, reprehensible and dishonest spin on it that they can possibly think of.
Oh, please. I don't think anyone, in any post on VC, nor have I seen it in the media, have accused Sarah Palin anything vile or reprehensible; for example no one has accused her of being anti-American, a terrorist, or a foreigner, all of which Barack Obama has been accused of. She hasn't been accused of any crime (except she is being investigated for what at a minimum is a breach of ethics.) The focus is on Sarah Palin because, as she proudly admits, she is not part of the Washington establshment. No one ever heard of her until the Republican Convention.
Given the short amount of time between the convention and election day, of course people are going to be interested in her life and positions on issues. And the fact she is being held away from the press only wavers a red flag to journalists, who assume there is something to hide.
If she didn't expect the media onslaught, then she really isn't ready for prime time. At minimum the McCain campaign should have prepared her, and it is obvious they didn't. They have let her twist in the wind.
I think racial issues are largely overblown, but I dont buy this for a second.
"Liberal guilt" exists only in the minds of conservatives who can't understand why whites don't support the white candidate.
Sarah Palin mentioned Harry Truman as an example of an American from small town America. Harry Truman did not attend college, but he was very well educated as a result of his own reading. Similarly, Abraham Lincoln was self-educated.
It is not unreasonable to expect that someone who runs for VP or President to be educated in Ameerican and world history, at least through self-education. There are wonderful biographies and history books that can be very informative.
Probably more accurate to say that a McCain advisor told her she disagreed with those decisions and she dutifully repeated that to Cameron.
We ducked that one.
Why do you think the governor of Alaska would need any coaching on Exxon Shipping? Do you contend she was ignorant of this case prior to being nominated? If so, why?
I agree, but Palin has compared her experience with that of Truman. The problem with that comparison is that Truman made his name in the Senate for investigating military procurement mismanagement and fraud (something we didn't see until recently in Congress). He became VP after serving in the Senate for 10 years.
If McCain-Palin loses, I think she has a bright future. She can run for Senate (Ted Stevens can't live for ever) and get the experience she needs with national issues, amd then run for President in 2012.
on the eminent domain issue, see this story
in the Anchorage Daily News, from before Palin was picked (July 2008).
Sure, all those arch-conservatives like Ralph Nader
Or those folks at Daily Kos
Or Time's Joe Klein:
Or Slate's Ron Rosenbaum:
Someone posting as deepthought would be better served by doing just that - before posting.
As a person with a vast amount of general knowledge, I am nonetheless uncertain it is much of a qualification for executives. To have it is better than to not have it, but I suspect the threshold is lower than many folks here are quite certain is the case.
This is a law blog, and I expect a certain bias toward people knowing the law as a primary qualification for the presidency. I don't share it. As before, I list a knowledge of science, management, economics, military history or capability, commerce, and energy of similar importance. But above all those is the ability to evaluate, manage, and negotiate with others.
In retrospect, Bush's great mistake came before 9/11, when he believed he could trust Putin. That expectation that Putin wanted to bring Russia into the family of semi-sane nations led to an expectation of support - or at least not undermining - in the war against jihadists. That overestimation colored later decisions. Imagine the likely difference with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc had Russia been even a partial ally.
Churchill, Elizabeth, Bismarck, Washington - none of these were remotely expert in the law.
All this is not to claim that Palin does have the necessary qualities, but merely to point out that the metric used here is quite flawed. What many think is "just obvious" is in fact pretty suspect.
While technically an eminent domain case it isn't really one, actually it is a case of the same land being agreed to be sold to two different parties and multiple courts deciding differently on which was the legitimate sale forcing the city to use eminent domain to buy land in a manner which was legitimate outside Kelo. I doubt many people think using eminent domain to purchase the land which the city built a municipal complex on after receiving a court ruling that it owned the land is an illegitimate extension of eminent domain (although I am sure there are some). Even being anti-Kelo doesn't make one anti-eminent-domain, only anti-expansive-reading-of-eminent-domain.
So do you apply the same reasoning to her inability to give a "quick recitation" of what newspapers she reads?
I am just wondering how much of your credibility you are willing to shit-can in order to defend this imbecile.
"But I would ask also, then, that the media tries a little bit harder also," Palin went on. "And that this is a two-way street, that there is fairness, just objectivity and fairness and truth. That's all Americans ask for."
"Objectivity?" Cameron asked. "Fairness?"
"As we send our young men and women overseas in a war zone to fight for democracy and freedoms, including freedom of the press, we've really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here. With fighting for the freedom of the press, and then the press, though not taking advantage and exploiting a situation, perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege. We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance."
Three things I take from this:
Palin's an idiot when she's not reciting memorized speeches or reading off of notecards.
Palin really seems to think our freedoms are somehow at stake in the Iraq war (see the bizarre closing statement in last night's debate, where she warned that one day our freedoms may be a mere memory if we don't pass them down to our children).
Palin seems to think that asking follow-up questions or calling attention to a candidate's blatant stupidity is an abuse of the privilege the press has. ("I'll tell you. Honestly. The Sarah Palin in those interviews is a little bit annoyed. Because it's like, no matter what you say, you're going to get clobbered. If you choose to answer a question [apparently she thinks this is at her discretion], you're going to get clobbered on the answer. If you choose to try to pivot and go on to another subject that you believe that Americans want to hear about, you get clobbered for that, too." How, pray tell, besides asking Palin to clarify herself on occasion, did Couric 'clobber' her?]
Sure--NOW!
Please think things through before you bring the indignation.
If Palin considers a question like "what are the pros and cons?" being "clobbered" then she's not a serious candidate for national office.
But then we already knew that.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Governor of Alaska, a co-owner in a commercial fishing business, and lifelong Alaskan would not be familiar with the Valdez case?
Pathetic.
The sources you cited may feel "liberal guilt" about America's past, but I certainly don't--you can't change history, and apologizing and feeling guilty about is a waste of time. I stand by my analysis that it is a conservative explanation (just listen to Sean Hannity sometime) for the inability to understand why Obama has the cross-cutting support he does. The talk show conservatives just can't believe that people support Obama because of his policies, so they come up with this alternative justification.
Drink your hemlock.
I am sure she didn't come up with answers to Fox News on her own--like during the debate. Apparently she was looking at note cards with her talking points during the debate, which you could see on C-SPAN since they did a side-by-side. Here is a compiliation clip.
Um, no.
Yes, what we need is a person who knows all of the Supreme Court decisions by heart, by the names of parties.
The fact is she said Valdez before, suggesting that her failure to mention it to Couric was a case of freezing up.
By comparison Biden thundered out complete constitutional idiocy confidently as though he actually knew what he was talking about. But oddly, you don’t seem to care about that.
First history
> Conservatives complain that moderator X or reporter Y is "in the tank" for Obama. McCain-Palin and the Republicans have a whole friggin' network, the highest rated news channel on cable, as well as number of highly rated talk radio shows. What are they complaining about?
Do you really think that it is just about a few commenters?
No, here is the list of the (arguably) pro-conservative media outlets.
Fox news
New York Post
WSJ
Washington Times
Weekly Standard
National Review
Now here are the liberal ones
ABC
NBC
CBS
MSNBC
CNN
New York Times
Boston Globe
Washington Post
LA Times
Chicago Sun Times
Chicago Tribune
Charlotte Observer
Dallas Morning News
AP
Knight-Ridder
AFP
Reuters
Mother Jones
Newsweek
Time
US News and World Report
Slate
BBC
CBC
Guardian
Hell, I can’t even remember them all. Between 80-90% of all journalists voted for the democratic candidate in the last two elections.
We made a big deal of Ifell because here she had a clear and undeniable conflict of interest. Pointing out clear examples is a good way to show those who are not convinced how pervasive this bias is.
Angus
> Sure, and if she becomes President, and there's a crisis, she can ask for a few days of "Time Out" so she and her staff can Wikipedia some basic information.
Which is of course much better than voting present some 140 some-odd times?
Asher
> Palin's an idiot when she's not reciting memorized speeches or reading off of notecards.
You mean as opposed to Obama who ingeniously wants to be president of all 57 states.
> Palin really seems to think our freedoms are somehow at stake in the Iraq war
Our freedoms are at stake in the war on terror. See Theo van Gogh. And maybe we can hand our enemies a cheap victory and expect to win, but it doesn’t seem like the smartest strategy.
> Palin seems to think that asking follow-up questions or calling attention to a candidate's blatant stupidity is an abuse of the privilege the press has.
Give me a break. When has the lightbringer faced this kind of scrutiny? And when has anyone from ABC, NBC, or CBS mentioned all the stupid lies that Biden said in the debate such as:
The United States and France invaded Lebanon. (Shouldn’t the mere fact that he was claiming that France won a war, ever, have been the tip off?)
The Executive Powers are in Article I of the Constitution and the Veep is only there to vote to break a tie.
Obama never said he would meet without preconditions with the president of Iran, etc.
Obama never voted to cut off our troops.
And on and on.
The press has the balls to put forth a moderator of her debate that has written a book betting explicitly on the success of Barrack Obama. That is exactly the same thing as an umpire in a ball game putting down $10,000 in a bet on one team in that game. And then you guys dare say that she is wrong to criticize the media for being so in the tank?
By the way, its funny you say all that about her, but not a word about Obama’s fascistic suppression of free speech. Palin was clear to make a moral argument, to attempt to shame the press into being fair. Obama will prosecute to obtain his version of fairness. And Palin is only proposed to be veep and Obama is proposed to be the POTUS.
You've never heard of Napoleon?
You might want to think about the actual relation between morning and day some more before you jump to such conclusions about what Milton is saying there.
First, Roe is simply a horrible case. Whatever your feelings are on abortion, Roe is just gibberish. McCain has also made a point about Supreme court justices he would appoint as opposed to Obama. So why radio silence on this issue.
Also, Obama's voting record on abortion puts him to the very far left of the Democratic party.
Again, McCain's strategy in this election just mystifies me. Maybe McCain is gearing up for an October push, but time is running out. The GOP needs to act!
It was trumped up at best: a legit historical novel, not a partisan screed or endorsement. And she went on to play things out without any obvious bias. If anything, Ifell's management favored Palin because it allowed her to essentially ignore the debate questions and just repeat her lines. She sucked as a moderator, but she was fair.
Compare that to Cameron, who wrote a whole article about how John Kerry is a big metrosexual fag that he accidentally published on his network's website, but is still treated as some sort of objective journalist. These aren't even close in terms of professional conduct.
Napoleon won some great campaigns during the Napoleonic Wars (as Germany, Japan, and Italy did during World War II), but I seem to remember that they ended with Napoleon being exiled to a remote little island and France losing all its conquests.
http://sergeisp.blogspot.com
Some facts, sir:
Right Wing Talk Radio Dominance
As a matter of fact, New York City just added a THIRD major conservative talk radio station, as opposed to one "progressive" talk format station. 970-AM The Apple
In other words, you're nowhere NEAR close in your assessment of "pro-conservative media outlets."
Among the allegedly "liberal" media outlets you listed, how is it that I can find conservative pundits and op-ed writers on most of them? Even MSNBC subjects the viewer to three hours of Joe Scarborough in the morning &Pat Buchanan incessantly. CNN Headline News focuses its prime time line-up with Glenn "Is Obama the Anti-Christ?" Beck, for pete's sake.
A.W., you're going to have to come up with a better argument than this "liberal bias in the media" stuff. It doesn't stand up in the face of evidence.
--Cobra
Except that those sources are not, generally speaking, "liberal".* They have some liberal reporters, they have some liberal columnists, but for the most part, they're moderate to slightly conservative. The problem is, many conservatives have grown so intolerant of opposing views that the presence of even an occasional expression of liberal views somehow taints the entire enterprise.
*I'll give you Mother Jones and you left out The Nation. The English media you mention don't fit well into the American political spectrum, so I'm leaving them out.
Hundred Years War? Charlemagne?
Nobody's suggesting Palin needs to be an expert. We're just shocked that she lacks even the basic familiarity with public affairs which one would get by actually reading a newspaper.
I hope you're not seriously suggesting that she compares in any way with the 4 you mentioned.
Oh please. First, the McCain campaign agreed to Gwen Ifill. Second, she has never been accused of bias as a reporter before. Third, there was no evidence of her actually being biased in this debate. Lots of people have said she *must* be biased, but like you, haven't been able to demonstrate a single thing that she did that was biasd.
I just can't believe the balls that people have in defending Palin. This woman actually said that she will not answer questions that she doesn't want to answer! You think she will be more forthcoming as a VP? Is this what you want in an elected representative? A queen who believes she is accountable to no one, not the press, not the public, or to anyone but her self. Oh, and her God?
Her sheer arrogance that she can't be expected to answer even simple questions (like what newspapers do you read?) is simply unbelieveable. Obama isn't asked questions like that because if he was, you people would complain that the press is giving him softball questions. Instead, he is rightly asked about his tax plans, his thoughts on the financial crisis, his thoughts on Iraq. But we can't ask Palin these questions -- oh no! It might offend her feminine sensibilities! It would be *clobbering* her!
Fine -- you folks haven't had enough of remote out of touch leaders for the past 8 years, and now you want people who are even more untouchable. This is what the republican is all about?
I've spent most of my time abroad in Germany. They have several impressive "national" daily papers, and a couple of excellent weeklies. Yet this is the biggest seller:
www.bild.de
The two headlines below the rotating banner (today):
Liz Hurley Shows her Panties
and
Don't Marry the Old Idiot Ron Wood
QED
Hundred Years War? Charlemagne?
Sure. And my Cubs won a World Series back in 1908.
Two options seem plausible:
1) She has studied the technical issues in admiralty law and the law of punitive damages that were at issue in the case, and has considered opinions on them.
or
2) She's (understandably) partial to one of the parties in the case, and thinks that "wrongly decided" is essentially equivalent to "the guy I like lost".
I know which one I'm betting on.
Pathetic.
Based on her response to Couric it's quite a serious suggestion.
And yes it is pathetic, but not the way you mean.
The fact is she said Valdez before, suggesting that her failure to mention it to Couric was a case of freezing up.
The poor dear. Couric wouldn't keep quiet and just let her recite the stuff she worked so hard to memorize, so she froze up.
Ever hear of Waterloo?
So giving Biden a non-rebuttable closing 300% more than Palin is "fair" in your world. Figures, but it doesn't match --isn't even close-- to the dictionary definition of "fair".
As for Palin-my guess is that she froze rather than didn't actually know any cases. But I also think part of her problem is that she is so afraid of the "gotcha!" moment in these interviews that she tries hard to avoid them and ends up not answering.
I do think Palin is being held to a different standard with her answers than Obama and I think some of the toughest interviews with real probing and difficult questions have been handed to her when none of the other candidates have been challenged this way.
I would actually like to see Obama answer many of the questions Palin has been asked in an interview.
I thought it was pathetic that at her second interview with Couric she had to have Grampa there to field the tough questions.
Doesn't this show the absurdity of Couric's question to begin with? Certainly Palin answered very poorly, but most non-lawyers and even some lawyers tend to view all legal issues through the latter lens.
As a non-lawyer, I know that many Supreme Court decisions are often made on the basis of complex legal theories of which I only have a basic knowledge. I also know that when the Supreme Court makes a decision, it means that 9 experienced judges backed up by teams of sharp clerks have made a decision after reviewings the legal precedent, the decisions of lower courts, and various arguments.
I certainly can (and have) reviewed some Supreme Court decisions and have felt that their reasoning was questionable. However, I would be reluctant (with a few exceptions) to say that a Supreme Court decision was "wrongly decided."
And then:
What exactly would you know about it, you pasty-faced tea-sipping bad-teeth alcoholic? Why don't you go back where you came from (and take David Beckham with you)?
I should add that those decisions that I would say were wrongly decided involve economic theories that are a bit esoteric. The cases were wrongly decided because the Supreme Court either misunderstood the underlying theory or bought into discredited theories.
The French also bore the brunt of the fighting in WWI, though I know most Americans like to think we were solely reponsible.
And just for the record, your Cubs cheated my Giants out of the pennant that year. A just God has made you pay ever since.
It's not for nothing that she was constantly looking down at her notecards and dodging the questions in Thursday's debate. She can't give a coherent answer of her own, so all she can do is go back to the talking points sitting in front of her, whether they're relevant or not.
Of course, the Republicans' way of dealing with this is to desperately spin it as an advantage that Palin knows nothing about any issue the President will actually have to deal with other than abortion and Alaskan energy subsidies. Foreign affairs? Nope. Economic policy? Nope. The Supreme Court? Nope. And on and on and on.
The Demos are Bill Buckner in the 86 series, kicking the ground ball 1 strike away from the championship.
No, the McCain campaign are the Cubs in the 2008 NLDS, with a team that can't field, and down 2-0 playing the Dodgers in LA against Manny. Good luck.
Or she could have referred to a case from the Supreme Court's parade of horribles, like Plessy or Dred Scott, which aren't exactly specialist knowledge.
He wrote the paper around the time of his 23rd birthday. Probably before, or at most slightly after.
She also has her spokesperson Meg Stapleton saying that Palin's "an open book" regarding Troopergate, at the same time that her husband and staff are refusing to comply with subpoenas. Pretty amazing.
Let's see your evidence. And please don't bother mentioning anything that comes from Brent Bozell, since he's a proven liar.
The fact is that none of the executives in charge of Fortune 500 companies, nor the hordes of lawyers pontificating here (barring an occasional visitor with actual heavy-duty political experience), are themselves qualified to become Vice President or President of the nation: because high political office in this country requires political experience — being elected to something, something greater than dogcatcher — which Sarah Palin as governor of a large, diverse state, indubitably possesses.
As to what experience counts best in this regard, governors in the U.S. come first, senators a somewhat distant second, while representatives are out of the game. Palin, still the most popular governor in the nation after years in the office (and even before her exposure and performance as a major party's vice presidential candidate), ranks highly in this regard.
Considering Palin's experience as a political executive, it's worth noting that the state she administers, Alaska's gross domestic product (2007) is more than $44 billion (federal BEA figures), while state government revenues (which Palin as governor administers) totaled more than $13 billion for 2008. On a corporate scale this is far from small potatoes, whilst GDP-wise, Alaska is bigger than many nations: larger, for instance, than Serbia (whose GDP was some $42 billion as of 2007).
Even before her election as governor, Palin served on and ultimately chaired Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Since that time, during her tenure as governor of the state Palin propelled into being the Alaska Gas Pipeline project — negotiating with Canada to authorize its end, selecting among competing corporate proposals — finally signing into law just this last August 27, 2008, the bill authorizing half a billion dollars in seed money as well as licensing the company (TransCanada Corp) designated to build the ultimately more than 1,700 mile long, $26 billion pipeline, designed to carry some four billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to the lower 48 states. While the project still isn't completely certain of realization (various First Nations in Canada must also buy in on it, for one thing), it's nonetheless an extremely impressive achievement.
Beyond that, Alaska, though it has a relatively small population (similar to Senator Joe Biden's state of Delaware), is enormous in sheer scale (superimposed on the contiguous U.S., Alaska would stretch from Los Angeles, California, on the Pacific in the [south] west, to Charleston, South Carolina, on the Atlantic in the [south] east, to the North Dakota-Canadian frontier in the north) — not to speak of that land's (the only arctic state in the union) terrific variety and environmental rigors: from the ice and storm-tossed Bering Sea where dangerous commercial fishing work is undertaken (a commenter here ridiculed concern about Alaska's fishermen, but half of all the fish taken in the western U.S. come from the Bering Sea), to the state's expansive, frigid interior, where tens of thousands of native and non-native folk live, oftentimes scores of miles from any road, in a region where wintertime temperatures sometimes approach −80° F. (revisit that figure again: 150 Fahrenheit degrees below room temperature). Roads reach only a minority of the state, whilst an extensive state-run ferry fleet is required to support those residing within the huge, (almost entirely) roadless Alexander Archipelago of the southeast (including the state capital), together with other island communities. Only aircraft can service much of the rest of the state. Alaska also has unusual defense requirements — recall who lies along its border; one of the nation's two anti-ballistic missile interceptor systems is operational there. Alaska ain't Delaware!
Comparing Palin with the Democratic running mate, Joe Biden is a legislator who has never held any kind of executive position, whereas Sarah Palin administers the whole Alaska shebang — very successfully, according to her stratospheric approval ratings, even among Alaska Democrats — a most remarkable and revealing showing, that.
As to whether she knows every last detail of what a President must know — in the unlikely eventuality (as McCain's health is known to be excellent and actuarily he should live for at least a dozen years yet) that Palin does end up untimely propelled into that office — since the Vice President of the U.S. basically has no duties, she'll have plenty of free time to study up on it. One of the most absurd criticisms of her in this thread is that she went out and (gasp!) refreshed her memory as to particular Supreme Court cases she had concerns about and then returned to speak more knowledgeably about them. Horror of horrors! that Palin turns out to be willing and able to go and out learn what additional knowledge she finds she needs in order to do her job. I find that a lot more impressive than somebody like Obama who never admits he doesn't already know something or was ever mistaken about any position he's embraced in the past.
John McCain is 72, a torture victim, and a cancer survivor. Although he's in relatively good health, he could die or becomes sick enough to be unable to serve on or before Inauguration Day. The Vice President needs to be ready on day 1, not on day 730.
Sez you.
According to this article from two months ago in Time, deriving from an exhaustive look through McCain's more than 1,000 (the New York Times says 1,500) page medical record, recently released to the perusal of reporters in all its excruciating detail — as his personal physician put it, “We can find nothing in his history that would preclude him from serving as president of the United States with vigor.”
Vigor, as the piece notes, such “As he has criss-crossed the country for the past year, routinely putting in 16-hour days on the campaign trail, the 71-year-old John McCain has shown the physical endurance of a much younger man.” Moreover, “A stress test of the heart earlier this year showed McCain to have the cardiovascular health of a younger man.”
As for the skin cancer, as it says, “An examination of his skin in February, which he repeats every few months, discovered on his leg a non-invasive form of skin cancer, called a squamous cell carcinoma, which was ‘destroyed’ earlier this month using liquid nitrogen. It was the fifth incidence of skin cancer for McCain. Only one of those cancers, a 2000 invasive melanoma on his left temple, was considered seriously life threatening. That cancer was removed in 2000, leaving a scar on his face. Connolly said that the chance of that cancer's recurrence was thought to be less than 10%, since so much time has passed without any new problems.”
I consider the probability of McCain becoming incapacitated before (or soon after) Inauguration Day to be much too low to offset any experience advantage Obama (who undisputedly must be ready on day 1) may have over Palin.
That the press has responsibilities as well as rights.
I would actually like to see Obama answer many of the questions Palin has been asked in an interview.
Yeah. Like "What do you think about the bailout?" and "What are the pros and cons?"
Not like Obama ever expressed any opinions on that.
McCain could also be impeached.
Hey, it happens.
> You've never heard of Napoleon?
I’ve heard of Waterloo.
But yes, I was exaggerating for the sake of humor.
Angus
> Show me even one time that Obama voted "Present" in the United States Senate.
Actually scrolling through about 3 pages of senate votes, he isn’t even present most of the time.
But do you really think it makes it better that most of his “present” votes were in Illinois?
Bad
> It was trumped up at best: a legit historical novel, not a partisan screed or endorsement.
Its not a novel, but non-fiction. And no one knows what it is yet, but again, it is clearly betting on an obama victory. No one will buy her book unless he wins.
Seriously, next time the Yankees face off against the Red Sox, is it okay to have an umpire who bet $10,000 on the red sox presiding. Or do you instead want one who bet nothing?
The fact I have to belabor this point just shows how blinkered by partisanship you really are.
Cobra
You’re being stupid. First, anyone who claims that radio has more penetration is just being silly.
Second, anyone who claims that most radio listening is on talk channels is being sillier. Even more so on AM radio.
> Among the allegedly "liberal" media outlets you listed, how is it that I can find conservative pundits and op-ed writers on most of them?
One word: tokenism. Indeed, often the choosen right wingers are intentionally ridiculous people, such as pat Buchanan.
Mark
If you think they are not liberal, you are just fooling yourself. You certainly ain’t fooling anyone else.
Randy R.
Disingenuous as usual.
> First, the McCain campaign agreed to Gwen Ifill
When they didn’t know this about her.
> Second, she has never been accused of bias as a reporter before.
Yes, she has. In fact honestly if anything this whole controversy put her on good behavior Thursday night.
> , there was no evidence of her actually being biased in this debate.
And I have already conceded that, although over at Hot Air they have made an interesting case for bias.
> Lots of people have said she *must* be biased, but like you, haven't been able to demonstrate a single thing that she did that was biasd.
I didn’t say she was biased by the book issue. I said her conflict of interest meant that she should have been automatically disqualified.
Although I will say this, if none of you will admit she shouldn’t have moderated, then will you please petition the baseball hall of fame to get pete rose in? what he did was far less heinous.
> This woman actually said that she will not answer questions that she doesn't want to answer!
That’s not actually what she said, but nice try. And even if she said it, so?
> A queen who believes she is accountable to no one, not the press, not the public, or to anyone but her self. Oh, and her God?
Answering questions of a reporter or in a debate is not accountability. It is standing for elections.
> Obama isn't asked questions like that because if he was, you people would complain that the press is giving him softball questions.
Ah so the press is afraid of seeming too soft, so it doesn’t ask at all. Gotcha.
Bytomov
> The poor dear. Couric wouldn't keep quiet and just let her recite the stuff she worked so hard to memorize, so she froze up.
Were you actually watching the interview. Or do you just get your talking points from someone else?
Just me
I agree with almost all of that.
carr1on:
> I'd like to see Palin tsubmit to an interview in hostile territory such as Obama did with Oreilly.
Didn’t you hear? She was interviewed by ABC and CBS news. If you don’t think that is hostile territory, you are just deluded.
Jukie
If you didn’t know that, you weren’t paying attention.
But then you are so twisted that you think McCain selfishly submitted to additional beatings in Vietnam, so who cares what you think?
Only three states have a population smaller than Alaska. It has roughly the same population as Baltimore, Charlotte, Austin or Memphis. The whole state is only about three times larger than the district Obama represented when he was a state senator. That district is roughly 40 times larger than Wasilla.
I know that by "large" you mean 'land area,' but it's a bit silly to make a fuss about that.
She's been governor for "years?" Really? As of today, she's been governor for 1.8 years. Treating a number under 2 as plural is a bit of a stretch.
And she used to be the most popular governor, but that was before Troopergate got started. According to Rasmussen, her approval rating had dropped to 68%, as of 9/9. That's high, but four other governors were as high, or higher. Jindal is at 77%.
By the way, high ratings are a lot easier if your predecessor was in a heap of trouble, and if you send a fat check to every person in the state.
There you go again, stretching numbers. Delaware is 27% larger than Alaska.
Here you demonstrate your willingness to tell an intentional falsehood (and everyone knows the word for someone who does that). You recently made the same bogus claim, and I pointed out that you were overstating Palin's approval rating (among Dems) by 39%.
I know you saw my comment, because you responded to it. But you ignored the part where I corrected your statement regarding her appoval ratings. So now we know you're not just making an innocent mistake. Rather, you're repeating a falsehood even though you've been shown proof that it's false.
It would be remarkable if it was true. Trouble is, it's not. And you know it.
It was "released" for a few hours. With severe restrictions (video). No copies. No electronic devices. What's he hiding?
This is something else you know, but seem intent on obfuscating.
If he's offering an opinion or a guess, that's fine. But he seemed to be stating a known fact. Therefore I'd like to see his proof. And as we can all see, he is ducking the question.
> By comparison Biden thundered out complete constitutional idiocy confidently as though he actually knew what he was talking about. But oddly, you don’t seem to care about that.
Or that Obama is being dumb by saying he wants to be president of all 57 states.
Or:
> Our freedoms are at stake in the war on terror. See Theo van Gogh. And maybe we can hand our enemies a cheap victory and expect to win, but it doesn’t seem like the smartest strategy.
Or:
> When has the lightbringer faced this kind of scrutiny? And when has anyone from ABC, NBC, or CBS mentioned all the stupid lies that Biden said in the debate such as:
> The United States and France invaded Lebanon. (Shouldn’t the mere fact that he was claiming that France won a war, ever, have been the tip off?)
> The Executive Powers are in Article I of the Constitution and the Veep is only there to vote to break a tie.
> Obama never said he would meet without preconditions with the president of Iran, etc.
> Obama never voted to cut off our troops.
> And on and on.
(well several people did point out that france has won some wars.)
And:
> By the way, its funny you say all that about her, but not a word about Obama’s fascistic suppression of free speech. Palin was clear[ly] mak[ing] a moral argument, to attempt to shame the press into being fair. Obama will prosecute to obtain his version of fairness. And Palin is only proposed to be veep and Obama is proposed to be the POTUS.
So you can't even deny these points. interesting.
McCain has the worst attendance record in the Senate. Are you sure this is something you want to make a fuss about?
Then I guess they aren't paying attention. Ifill was talking about her book in July. Even Fox reported this. WP mentioned her book on 9/3. She also discussed her book publicly on 5/8. Her role as moderator was announced on 8/21. Why did McCain's supporters wait until just a few days ago to start making a fuss about her book? Is it possible that it was only then that they finally learned how to operate teh google?
And we're still waiting for you to show proof for this claim you made:
If Obama wins VA, he will be doing something that all the following Ds failed to accomplish: Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, Humphrey, JFK, and Stevenson.
In 2004, Kerry had a lead in VA in this many polls: zero. Bush's lead was never smaller than 2%. This year in VA, McCain hasn't polled above 50% since April.
Similar story in NC. The last D to win NC was Carter.
Now we can get back to discussing Palin's mulligans.
Yes, of course. That's because liberals are good people who occasionally err, while conservatives are evil.
Do you have any idea how foolish you sound?
> Are you sure this is something you want to make a fuss about?
Well, which one decided to come back and deal with things in the financial crisis?
> Then I guess they aren't paying attention.
The duty to disclose conflict is on the person with a conflict.
> And we're still waiting for you to show proof for this claim you made
You know, its almost impossible to find a specific article from back in 2000 and 2004, but read this and this. It doesn’t prove my claim, but it gets at the issue: most journalists have been democrats, and for a long, long time.
I know that by "large" you mean 'land area,' but it's a bit silly to make a fuss about that.
It's not silly. Yours is very much the same supposed “argument” that many on the left proffer, sometimes phrasing it as “dirt doesn't vote.”
Dirt may not vote, but the many hundreds of thousands of Alaskans do, and they elected Sarah Palin and continue to strongly approve of the job she's doing (Alaska Democrats may have wavered during the last month of MSM slime blasted at her, but overall her ratings remain high) — while the quantity of dirt as well as the vast geographic range across which it's spread enormously complicates (compared with, say, Delaware and most any other state, as the rest of my posting that you very selectively quoted demonstrates very well) the task of administering the lot of it.
Thus, size does matter in making Alaska far more complex to administer than geographically compact states.
She's been governor for "years?" Really? As of today, she's been governor for 1.8 years. Treating a number under 2 as plural is a bit of a stretch.
Duh. That number (presently 1.833 years; on election day it will be 1.927) is very close to two. Two is plural.
Please find something further off than than 8.33% to complain about.
Moreover, as my posting makes clear, she's accomplished a lot during that time (more selective quoting on Juke's part).
And she used to be the most popular governor, but that was before Troopergate got started.
Whether it's due to “Troopergate” is your spin. What we know, as I said in that piece and you failed to quote, is that her earlier, much higher rating among Alaska Democrats occurred “before her exposure and performance as a major party's vice presidential candidate” — which coincided with the blast of slime that “progressives” and the MSM have since directed at her — and in turn reflects their appreciation of her performance as governor of the state. Moreover, even without the blizzard of lies about her, it's not very surprising that Palin's rating among Alaska so-called “progressives” has sagged since she joined the Republican ticket — they want Obama to win the election.
coincided→ preceded.“Alaska, though it has a relatively small population (similar to Senator Joe Biden's state of Delaware)”
There you go again, stretching numbers. Delaware is 27% larger than Alaska.
Being within about a quarter (26.52% as of 2007) is being similar as far as I'm concerned. Moreover (and I checked this even before posting that piece), Delaware (a road stop along Megalopolis) has recently grown faster in population than Alaska. In 2000 the proportion was 24.99%; in 1990, 21.11%.
It [McCain's medical records] was "released" for a few hours. With severe restrictions (video). No copies. No electronic devices. What's he hiding?
So, those reporters were unable take pen to paper and take notes? Nonsense. What a ridiculous argument.
And I've already answered this supposed point by you on another thread. A complete release of the (>1000 pages of) the original paperwork of McCain's medical history to the open perusal of reporters (often hostile to McCain) for hours on end is enormously more open than Obama's physician sending a letter (consisting of a mere quarter of a thousand words) of his interpretation of Obama's record.
It's utterly ludicrous for ultra-partisan folks like you to haughtily demand that McCain make the original documents of his complete medical record publishable for every nincompoop in the country to laugh over (or else he's supposedly “hiding” something) — no candidate would consent to that. As I said on that earlier occasion, given the gross disparity between what McCain has released and what Obama's done (almost nothing), you're really beclowning yourself on this issue.
Your first link is to Brent Bozell. I knew you were going to cite him. I specifically told you not to bother, because he's a known liar.
Did you even read the second article you cited? It said this:
In what universe does "one-third" translate into "most?"
It's not "may have." It's a fact. And we're still waiting for you to explain why you knowingly made a false statement about this.
Indeed. So what you said is "very close" to being true. Here's an idea: just say things that are true. When you act like "very close" is good enough, you just remind us of McCain, Palin, and the rest of the GOP.
I already did. You knowingly overstated Palin's approval rating (among Dems) by 39%. Why did you do that?
That was all they were allowed to do. And they had three hours to go through 1,173 pages. That's about 9 seconds per page. Do you really think it's humanly possible to read, evaluate, and make notes on a page of medical records in 9 seconds? Of course not. Especially when you're trying to share the material with about 20 other reporters.
And the pages weren't numbered, which means there's no way to know what might have been selectively removed. And certain organizations, like the NYT, were specifically excluded.
This wasn't an open release of information. It was a stunt.
Both Bushes, for example, allowed extensive interviews with their doctors. Why won't McCain allow that?
> Your first link is to Brent Bozell. I knew you were going to cite him. I specifically told you not to bother, because he's a known liar.
He is proven to be inaccurate. That’s a bit different.
> Did you even read the second article you cited?
Yeah, they aren’t democrats. They just never ever vote republican.
Of course when they ask the party affiliation question, they probably answer what they are registered as. But a democrat by any other name...
By the way, are you going to stand behind your assertion that McCain was selfishly submitting to additional beatings in the Hanoi Hilton?
When someone is "proven to be inaccurate," and then makes no effort whatsoever to take responsibility for their "inaccurate" statement, there is no longer any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
If you can show where Bozell issued a correction or an apology, that would be helpful.
Correct. Most of them are not. Why did you say they are?
You have data regarding one election. How does that translate into "never ever?" I guess the same way that "one-third" translates into "most."
Your relationship with facts and reality is highly tenuous.
I'll stand by any assertion I've made that you can present in the form of an actual quote.
http://www.adn.com/matsu/story/474934.html
So it seems that she either 1) doesn't understand what eminent domain means, 2) doesn't actually know what Kelo is about, or 3) changed her position for the convenience of the election.
> When someone is "proven to be inaccurate," and then makes no effort whatsoever to take responsibility for their "inaccurate" statement, there is no longer any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
So says the man who cited media matters.
By the way, how do measure up to those standards. For instance, you have claimed that it is possible for a birth control method or a few in combination, besides vaginal abstinence, to stop 100% of all pregnancies. Haven’t corrected that.
You claimed that John McCain submitted to additional beatings at the hands of the NVA out of self-interest. Haven’t corrected that.
You claimed that you hadn’t said that sarah palin had to stay home until her children are at least 18. Haven’t corrected that.
You claimed that you wanted one parent to stay home and didn’t care if it was a man or a woman, democrat or republican. Then I pointed out that no one stayed home in 2004 with Obama’s children. You haven’t corrected that.
So there is better evidence that YOU are a liar, than Bozell.
> If you can show If you can show
You are making an accusation, so you show it.
> Correct. Most of them are not.
Sarcasm is lost on you, isn’t it?
> . How does that translate into "never ever?"
Read both articles, you nitwit.
> I'll stand by any assertion I've made that you can present in the form of an actual quote.
Okay, here you go:
> [me] When McCain was in a prison camp, they offered him early release. But he knew it would be wrong. So he refused.
> [you] He knew it would be wrong, and it would be an explicit violation of regulations, and he also knew he would have been stigmatized, and his family probably would have disowned him.
Got that? McCain didn’t do it out of sacrifice, but because he was more afraid of regulations and stigma! Bwahahaha, you are such a partisan hack.
I mean, let me repeat what I said in that thread:
> Is your heart really so twisted, so hateful of all republicans, that [McCain’s service] fails to impress you? That you can’t say, “this is a genuine American hero, even if he is not right to be president”?
So you stand by that, still?
Skywise
I haven’t heard her say that all emmenent domain was bad, just the application of it in Kelo. And it was quite an innovation to say I can take your land and give it to another private citizen.
Show proof that there's a problem with the article I cited. Do you have any? Of course not. Also, show proof of a problem with any MM article. Do you have any? I doubt it.
Perfectly well. If you have a problem with anything I've said, then quote me. Your paraphrases are bogus.
I don't know what you're talking about. I already showed proof that Bozell made a false allegation.
You're inviting me, again, to read Bozell. But before you even cited him I explained why you shouldn't bother. And then I showed proof why he is not to be taken seriously.
> Show proof that there's a problem with the article I cited.
After you show proof that there is a problem with the article I cited.
Funny how your standards change when an outlet is left-leaning.
> Also, show proof of a problem with any MM article.
Here you go:
link
link
> Perfectly well.
No one is fooled by that but you.
> I don't know what you're talking about. I already showed proof that Bozell made a false allegation.
You called him a liar. Prove it.
> You're inviting me, again, to read Bozell. But before you even cited him I explained why you shouldn't bother.
On standards that your own media mutters article doesn’t stand up to.
So I guess that answers my question from the last thread. You aren’t a pig. You are a partisan hack.
All your first link shows is that MM ran a headline that was true at the time (saying that Hot Air had refused to admit an error). Later, HA admitted their error, and MM took down the headline. Why do you think HA is posting a screengrab, instead of an actual link to MM? Because MM changed their headline, after it became incorrect. Duh.
Your second example is even more idiotic. RWN accused MM of not posting the complete Rush transcript, even though MM posted the complete Rush transcript. And Rush said what they said he said.
I showed you a simple, clear, unmistakable example of Bozell making a false statement. I showed you direct proof (I didn't point you to someone else who in turn points to someone else who in turn points to someone else who in turns gets their facts wrong in a lame attempt to claim that MM did something wrong). Let us know when you're in a position to do the same thing with regard to MM.
Bozell is just like the rest of the GOP. See here and here for proof that a
falsehood is being promulgated by the McCain campaign, Byron York of NR, and Jim Lindgren of VC.
I proved that Bozell made a blatantly false allegation. If you can show any sign that he ever retracted or corrected his falsehood, then it would be fair to consider his falsehood to be something other than a lie. I'll be waiting patiently.
You still haven't even made a pretense of demonstrating a problem with the specific MM article I cited. I guess you think no one has noticed that.
There was more to it than that.
> Why do you think HA is posting a screengrab, instead of an actual link to MM?
Because MM is in the habit of changing their pages without issuing a correction. Another form of dishonesty.
> Your second example is even more idiotic.
No, you are, because you think you can lie about it. Rush denounces phony soldiers and Media Mutters pretends he is talking about anything but... phony soldiers.
> I didn't point you to someone else who in turn points to someone else who in turn points to someone else who in turns gets their facts wrong in a lame attempt to claim that MM did something wrong
No, actually, that is exactly what you did. You pointed to your post, which in turn contained links to disreputable cites that could only be rehabilitated by following their links.
> Bozell is just like the rest of the GOP.
What could be better proof that you are just a partisan hack than you painting the entire party with such a broad brush?
> See here and here for proof that a falsehood is being promulgated by the McCain campaign, Byron York of NR, and Jim Lindgren of VC.
Except that your “proof” has holes in it you could drive a truck through which I have pointed out to you on a previous occasion.
By the way, have you actually gone back and catalogued all of your comments for easy indexing?
> If you can show
You are making the accusation. So it is for you to make the showing, not me.
> You still haven't even made a pretense of demonstrating a problem with the specific MM article I cited.
You still haven’t even made a pretense of demonstrating a problem with the specific MRC article I cited.
I guess you think no one has noticed your double standard.
But I have your number anyway. All of those people are the same. All of them are stupid, evil, liars. By them I mean republicans. If you are honest, you are infected with a remarkable amount of blind party prejudice.
You never addressed the proof I presented here and here.
The GOP is packed with liars, from top to bottom. Some examples of Bush lying are here. Some examples of McCain lying can be found via here.
I could show you many examples of Power Line lying, like here.
I just pointed out a falsehood that's been promulgated by McCain, York and Lindgren.
The list goes on. That's just scratching the surface.
Undoubtedly there are some honest Republicans. But why are they so silent when the rest of the group is telling so many lies?
Yeah the comment period shut down. But frankly you have yet to comprehend, and thus to address, my point. York said he was on record saying he wasn’t pressured. Can you prove he NEVER said that?
> The GOP is packed with liars, from top to bottom.
With, according to you, zero exceptions.
And indeed many of your so called “lies” are unproven. At most they are inaccuracies. But a lie is a different animal from a mere inaccuracy.
By the way, since you lie here all the time, does that make you a republican? Indeed, like many liberals shouting liar, the so-called lies are actually the truth.
For instance, let’s take the bush link. You claim it is a lie that we found wmds. But in fact we found 700 shells of it and yellowcake.
You claim it is a lie to say Saddam wouldn’t let them in. but indeed, he didn’t let them in unfettered. Do you really think it complied with the treaty for him to say “You can search everywhere but 23 separate sites?”
At best, the wiretap thing was a lie... FOR THE SAKE OF NATIONAL SECURITY. Which to most sane people is a recognized justification. I mean I suppose next you will complain about the conspiracy to make the Germans think we weren’t landing at Normandy, but further North. Did you know we built entire regiments of fake tanks, and even assigned Patton to away from the real invasion—all in an evil plan to deceive the world! Or how the Americans lied about the invention of computers (official story for years: made for the space program. Real story acknowledged today: made to break codes in WWII.) You sound like the kind of nitwit who would actually blame the Palins for having sex… oh wait, you HAVE blamed them for that.
So your claim bush lied is in fact a lie, or at least such a distortion of the facts as to qualifiy as a lie to most sane people.
The powerline example is rich, too. I have already shown that they accurately reported on a real story. Then they reported when another part of the organization put out a story contradicting the previous one. There was no lie, indeed, one isn’t really sure what happened. And unlike Media Mutters, they let everyone see exactly what happened. But once again, the liberal outlets get judged by a different standard than the conservative ones with you. Media matters can actually lie, and you will excuse it on a theory that doesn’t fit the facts; but you refuse to apply the same theory to powerline, when it fits the facts.
Hack.
> Undoubtedly there are some honest Republicans.
That’s not what you said above. Liar.
here.
Hack.
I suppose you believed Baghdad Bob, too?
Are you really this stupid? Or are you going to finally admit you are a complete hack?
OK, let's play that game. Imagine that tomorrow the NYT publishes this:
Hmm, let's see. I wonder how you would react. By asking NYT to show proof, and assuming that they are lying, when no proof emerges? Or would you defend them by saying "Can you prove he NEVER said that?" I can hardly guess the answer.
Blix said this (1/27/03):
Do you understand the meaning of the word "all?"
Your other recent statements are similarly untethered from reality, as usual.
You are either a liar or a completely partisan hack who literally cares more about his own party than the honor of his country.
No wonder you are voting for Obama.
Seriously, where is your patriotism, asswipe?