–She’s got more executive experience than he does.
–She’s got more business experience than he does.
–She’s got a son who will be serving in Iraq (no more chickenhawk arguments).
–She doesn’t think babies should be killed after birth.
–She hasn’t flip-flopped on gun control or energy issues.
–The top of the ticket has the foreign policy experience, which is what the candidate should have.
And here’s the dirty little secret: if Joe Biden decides to attack her during the debate, he will look every bit the bully for a national audience. If he tries to be condescending–and when isn’t Biden condescending?–he will piss off even more people.
The Obama campaign is already having trouble attacking Palin without coming across as pigs. This will only get better over the next couple of months.
Cross-posted at Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels.
I don’t think much of what passes for “debates” in this country, but we aren’t going to get away from them. Yet debates are won, and lost, less on the whole substance than on little things, things often unrelated to the content. Vice President Gore lost the debates to Governor Bush — debates his supporters thought he’d win by a huge margin — not based on their answers but on the rudeness and discourtesy the viewers saw exhibited by Mr Gore. (Our friends on the left will dispute that he lost the debates, but Mr Gore half-way admits it in his book The Assault on Reason.)
Hillary Clinton could never get straight what her campaign was about, but she picked up some points, especially in the New Hampshire primary, due to the perception that the bully boys were picking on a girl. How will the Democrats’ designated attack dog, Senator Biden, go about his debate with Governor Palin? The kinds of tactics he’d use against Mitt Romney simply won’t work.
It’s clear that Senator McCain surprised the Democrats, even though Governor Palin’s name had been out there, on the supposed “short lists,” for over a month; they are really in a quandary about how to deal with her candidacy.
Good, I love to see the dems squirm when they are outfoxed.
A thought occurred to me earlier this morning that I haven’t seen or heard anything about yet. The VP is the president of the senate, and while there is little to do with that job, I am sure the VP is involved at times.
Biden is a DC insider who would preside over the same people he has been with for 20+ years. Whoopdedoo. Palin has taken on people from both political parties and thrashed their butts. She doesn’t do politics as usual. I am picturing her presiding over these career blowhards and knowing that her accomplishments in a few years are far better than some of theirs. Heh. I am sure some of our elected “leaders” are very nervous right about now.
I can see the ads now about Biden the “insider” and Palin the “outsider.” Given that Obama’s campaign is all about doing things differently in Washington, it seems like a spectacular argument to make.
Joe Biden is a bully and represents the type of careerist who turns a lot of people off from politics. He has maintained a low net worth for a sentator but the family business seems to be politics with huge gobs of cash that are handed around among the various Biden enterprises. The Wilmington News-Journal ran a small piece on a potentially troublesme lawsuit involving several members of the Biden clan. This news is being spiked tighter than the Edwards Love Child.
Heh, “more experience.” She’s been governor for 18 months and she’s managed to at least prove to the press that she’s aware there is a war in Iraq, but little more. This is who McCain gives us in these times when he’s a 72 year old cancer survivor?
Look, guys, she’s spunky, pretty, and she has a nice life story. Her social conservatism is extreme stuff that will turn off voters, her obvious tokenism won’t impress Hillary voters, and she’s way, way greener than Obama. The public has been examining Obama up close for almost two years, made him undergo dozens of debates, voted on him, and it took the convention to seal the deal that he was ready for office. Now two months before the election we get Palin forced upon us by McCain, who only met her once?
I mean, you guys have your caricature of Obama that you stick too and reinforce for each other. Then you see Palin who actually is that wet behind the ears and unprepared, and you think, “heh, same thing.” But she isn’t, and repeating “executive experience!” a million times won’t make it so. It proves that this whole “experience” line against Obama doesn’t mean a thing to you guys. It proves that virtually anybody who comes along and vows to be for criminalizing abortion is A-OK by you dudes. None of you care about Obama’s experience or lack thereof. You just don’t like his policies, and the experience thing was your main line of attack.
Now you don’t have that anymore. You guys have proven you’ll take anybody on the thinnest of pretenses. Then again, after Dubya, we knew that already, didn’t we?
Obama’s been vetted by the extremists of the Democrat party. And please. You don’t want to go down the “she’s got no experience track.” She’s roughly the same age and has done far, far more with her life. She’s actually had to make executive decisions and Obama has not.
There’s a possibility that Sarah Palin will have to assume the duties of POTUS, and she doesn’t have tons of experience. However, if Obama is elected POTUS, there is a 100% certainty that an inexperienced person, who has had to backtrack repeatedly to attempt to sound like he knows something, will be the POTUS. My bet is that more people will want the guy who has experience, with a less experienced running mate than the guy with zero experience.
James Buchanan was the most experienced person ever to hold the White House – and was horrible at it. He was followed by the least experienced President ever… who, as I remember it, was pretty darn good. So can we drop the “experience” bovine feces now?
Anyway, here’s what the Dem playbook should be. You attack Palin like you’d attack any VP candidate. If someone starts whining about misogynism, they should simply reply with something like, “I thought you wanted women to be treated like men. Well, our attacks wouldn’t be any different if she were a man. So shut up, hypocrite.”
Personally, I wish McCain had picked Michael Palin. Ineligible for the office, yes, but way funnier.
Oh, and John C. – the veep rarely does any actual presiding. He/she is really only around to cast the tying vote. I tend to look at veeps as chief advisors more than anything, nowadays.
Look, Sharon, I already told you I knew you’d just yell “Executive experience!” over and over again. Your response is completely canned. This veneration of governors is a fairly recent occurrence in U.S. history, but 18 months? Please. Fuckface Karl Rove was laughing at Obama choosing Tim Kaine because he only had three years experience as a governor the other day. You guys really think that as soon as somebody is sworn int office as governor they automatically know how to be president?
The mayor of San Diego Jerry Sanders governs more people, and nobody would think he’s got qualifications. Oh, wait, nobody except the GOP base thinks Sarah Palin is qualified either.
As for Obama being only being vetted by the extreme Democrats, it would behoove you to not rely on making things up. And saying he has zero experience? Sarah Palin is the one with zero experience on the national level. Obama has ten years of legislative experience, four at the national level. Nobody but you yahoos can seriously compare the two. And nobody but you, Sharon, can convince themselves that Obama isn’t an intelligent and knowledgeable person.
EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE! Yeah, in 18 months she’s managed to work up a corruption scandal already. Didn’t waste time, did she?
Wow, this isn’t very good news for Palin:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/undecideds-dont.html
59% of undecided voters think Palin is qualified. How many think she is? 6%.
The woman knows nothing about foreign policy. How is she going to learn enough in two months to sway people to believe otherwise?
Sorry, folks, but you guys, being the GOP faithful, are just about the only ones buying this. And I really doubt any of you are really mystified. If her paper qualifications don’t raise an alarm, opening her mouth certainly does. When asked if she was ready to be an old man’s heartbeat away from the presidency, she said, “Absolutely, yup yup!” No further explanation, except that she had “a great team.”
Okay then!
As a liberal Democrat, I am thrilled with Sen. McCain’s choice for a V.P.
Just listening to her eloquent “yups” makes me think of how she’ll impress both foreign allies and ememies.
And I love how she managed to give birth to a child without ever showing signs of being pregnant. Her teen-age daughter Bristol was kind enough to do that for her, which tells me what a special gal she must be.
Comparing herself to Hillary Clinton was brilliant! As a Hillary supporter, I see so many similarities in the two.
Congratulations.
And I’m sure Sen. Biden is dreading their debates.
Yup!
Jeromy–Your arguments that “she doesn’t have enough experience” are ridiculous. You have a guy who won your nomination because he reads well. He has no legislative accomplishments other than shady associations and radicals. The executive experience he does have (with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) is so bad that he is making every effort to prevent anyone finding out about it, including siccing the Justice Department on a group for having the audacity to tell the truth about him.
Sorry, but she’s still got more experience in general, Jeromy, than Barack Obama. Granted, she hasn’t written 2 books on having a deadbeat father and doing drugs, but I guess while Obama was busy being a “community organizer” she was running a business and having a life. What a concept!
I know you guys have to try to run against the vice presidential pick because you have nothing to compare with John McCain. But most people look at the top of the ticket as the one that’s supposed to have the experience. And, of course, Senator Blowhard has done nothing but shill for lobbyists and lie about his own accomplishments. So, keep telling yourself that she’s a terrible pick. Then I’ll link to your crying and whining on November 5.
Karen–I guess the clean and articulate black guy has your vote. I’d rather have candidates who actually did things with their lives other than run for office. And practice Chicago politics. And threaten people for discussing his past. Oh, and having a career politician for his v.p. Yup! That’s hope ‘n change!
I’d be much happier if Governor Palin were in her second term rather than her first, but it is what it is. But of the four major party nominees for president and vice president, which ones have ever:
Sarah Palin is the answer to all five; John McCain would be an acceptable answer to the third question, concerning his unit command in the Navy. Neither Barack Obama nor Joseph Biden would be a realistic answer to any of these questions.
I’d rather that Mrs Palin had longer experience as governor, but even her too few years of executive experience is longer than that of any of the other three.
Miss Zipdrive wrote:
This lets you know just how desperate our friends on the left have become. There’s an undercurrent message that Governor Palin, who did not announce her pregnancy until she was seven months along, isn’t the actual mother of Trig, who was born with Down’s Syndrome, but that her seventeen-year-old daughter Bristol was actually the unwed mother of the child, and that Mrs Palin faked the pregnancy to hide the tremendous shame the family faced.
There is no proof beyond ridiculous internet speculation for such, but it’s good enough for the loonies. In the real world, we wouldn’t call this grasping at straws, because there isn’t even a straw there.
LOL I didn’t even get that bit of subtle sneer. I guess the point from the Left is that Trig would be better off dead.
Even the Pandagonistae haven’t sunk that low, but it was on some idiotic site like Democratic underground.
Of course, the Pandagonistae have come up with their own, inimitable stuff. Pam Spaulding wrote:
And no one saw the sexism dripping from that one!
Damn…you guys have your “EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE!!!” life preserver talking point and you’re clinging to it! I guess you’re shooting for getting 10% of undecideds to think she’s qualified?
Unfortunately, George W. Bush had a lot more EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE than Sarah Palin and people who aren’t GOP base diehards like you guys know that didn’t turn out so well.
And I really don’t see that you guys can cope with her having 18 months experience. She barely got started. And the key thing is being ready for politics on a national scale. Her resume might have been enough if she betrayed any sense of having paid attention to the world outside Alaska. Obama’s is enough because he’s articulated with great depth his understanding of how the world works. If Sarah came out of the gates acting like she knew the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, it might be a different story.
The Alaskan press and even Republicans from Alaska are shocked by this. People there were starting to wonder if she was prepared to be governor. Honestly, the window for accountability was barely beginning to open. Who can tell in 18 months where somebody’s term is really going? It took Schwarzenegger a couple years in California to find his style, and that required getting drubbed by the public and feeling a little fear about re-election.
BUT SHE HAS EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE!!!
You just keep repeating that, Sharon, and continuing with your fantasy version of Barack Obama. Nothing on McCain? We’ve been beating the living shit out of McCain for months, this is Palin’s news cycle. But it says plenty about McCain that he decided she was the best person in the country to take over if he croaks or has a stroke. If you were worried about McCain’s age before, you’re double-worried now.
Oh, and this baby-switching thing is crap, although I’m sure you guys would be happy to breathlessly report it were the tables turned. Karen, get a brain and can that shit.
Mr Brown, you act as though her 1½ years as governor is all that she has done. Mrs Palin has been a government official longer than Barack Obama!
Have either of your candidates ever prepared a government budget? Have either of them ever supervised a group larger than their own office staffs? Have either of them ever, ever actually been responsible for anything?
We all know the answers: nope, not at all, not ever.
Dana: Nice arbitrary standards! Has Sarah Palin ever paid attention to Iraq more than what she hears on the news? NOPE!
Of course, I know you guys are cool with that because you’re happy to have a know-nothing for president who can be surrounded by people with the “right” priorities. She doesn’t need to know anything, she just needs to be the sales lady!
EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE! What, you’re going to compare her term as mayor of a small town to Obama’s time on the national stage? NOBODY can believe this except you guys!
Which brings me to another point. You guys are all AGHAST at these baby-switching stories, except the reporting is as reliable as any of the wish-it-were-true hogwash the right dreams up every day. Have you seen the photos?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137?detail=f
If she was a Democrat, Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, Malkin, Instapundit, and you guys would be all over it. Remember your whining over an Enquirer story with one anonymous source not being carried by major news organizations?
I think the story is likely to be proven wrong, somehow, but make no mistake: Palin needs to squash it. People will look at her seven month pictures with no bump, then look at the pictures of her daughter with a gut, then note that her daughter was pulled out of school, and they’ll expect an answer more detailed than “But the baby has Down’s Syndrome!”
EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE! What, you’re going to compare her term as mayor of a small town to Obama’s time on the national stage? NOBODY can believe this except you guys!<<<<
what has Obama actually accomplished, other than beating Hillary? His short time in the Senate (cut shorter by spending nearly half of it running for President) has not exactly stood out, either as a profile in courage or legislative excellence.
Face it, in Obama, you are running a cipher who give a good speech, but hasn’t really done anything that matters.
Here’s the best piece I’ve seen on Obama’s record:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html
It’s certainly an interesting and active record.
But again, Obama is somebody who, to most objective observers, has been spending a lot of time thinking about the world and formulating his approach to it. He got here on the strength of his ideas. He’s approached foreign policy via a close study of the best minds out there, and has earned the accolades of many heavyweights. His judgment on Iraq was prescient, and now President Bush is copping his position.
And then there’s Sarah Palin. “Hi, everybody! Yup yup!” My god, they’re identical!
Again, this is indicative of you folks and your lack of proper perspective. You’ve convinced yourselves Obama is a neophyte know-nothing, so McCain adds a neophyte know-nothing to the ticket and you yell EVEN!
Um, no, it isn’t. And the more you show America how off your judgment is, the better as far as I’m concerned.
Wow, this really has you worried, hasn’t it? I haven’t seen you spinning this hard in a long time. Look, I know the IL crowd think Obama is Mr. Oh-So-Qualified to be POTUS, but his dropping poll numbers showed the difference.
Obama’s is enough because he’s articulated with great depth his understanding of how the world works.
This was a joke, right? I mean, Obama proposed a “one Jersusalem” strategy, then quickly backpedaled. He opposed the war in Iraq, wanted an immediate pullout, now says things are great there but won’t admit the surge worked. He’s so smart he won’t listen to the generals on the ground. He’s proposed unconditional diplomacy with crackpots like Ahmedinejad. He’s blamed Georgia and Russia equally for the latest foreign policy problem. In short, Obama’s “experience” is flapping his gums, taking some heat, and then “clarifying” his statement. That’s hopeNchange? I don’t think so.
And exactly what has Obama done with all his “experience”? Well, we know he has the most radical abortion view of any candidate for president in history. He passed one piece of legislation as a U.S. Senator. He votes “present” a lot. He buys into his own celebrity (look at those magazine covers!) to an extent that he and his sycophants actually believe reading is all it takes to be a good POTUS.
But you just keep telling yourself that it really matters whether the Republican vice presidential candidate has foreign policy experience. I can’t wait to watch Joe Biden step in it when he tries to explain what the hell he’s done in Washington that doesn’t make him part of the problem that Obama supposedly wants to fix.
Heh, when Sharon starts talking about others spinning, get ready for a load of horseshit.
Sharon, NOBODY but you mouthbreathing rightwingers can convince yourselves that Palin is even comparable to Obama. That’s not spin. People look at her record and listen to her, and she hasn’t even given foreign policy a THOUGHT.
Your rebuttal? Distortions and disagreements with Obama’s positions. But you can’t fool anybody that he doesn’t have those positions!
“Opposed the war in Iraq” is a credit to his record for most people, Sharon. Not you, obviously. But with most of the country believing it was a mistake, and with Obama’s warnings looking like the writings of Nostradamus, this isn’t going to convince anybody.
“The surge” was one factor, and many people thought the troop levels were simply too low to effect change. The Anbar Awakening was one of the most important changes in Iraq that made it possible, and John McCain thinks the surge caused that when it preceded it.
“Blamed George and Russia equally.” And? The consensus is that Georgia acted foolishly and aggressively in ways that gave Russia the green flag.
What’s Palin’s take on any of this?
And yes, Sharon, any idiot on the planet can figure out that when you’re a 72 year old cancer survivor, your VP pick had better be ready to swoop in.
You guys are capable of fooling yourselves with no limits. But you can’t fool the people on such obvious stuff. If the public could get two years to pick Palin’s brain and she sounded like she knew something, she’d probably get a pass at some point.
The fact that you’ve given her a pass before she’s even opened her mouth on foreign policy (or her brain, apparently) betrays just what a hacktacular spinner you are. She’s a woman and you think that gives you some Hillary oomph, and she’s a staunch social conservative, which is all you cared about anyway. National security has always been about politics for you guys.
And, of course, here’s some cold water on Obama being a big fan of infanticide:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/08/uselections2008.barackobama
You guys have zero shame.
Sharon, NOBODY but you mouthbreathing rightwingers can convince yourselves that Palin is even comparable to Obama. That’s not spin. People look at her record and listen to her, and she hasn’t even given foreign policy a THOUGHT.
Are you talking about the 4 Obama lovers quoted in a story today? WTH experience does Obama have that compares? He’s spent his entire time in the U.S. Senate running for president…after saying that he would have to do just that to run for president. That’s not making things up about Obama. In fact, there isn’t a single bit of speculation in anything I said about Obama: those are all facts about what he has said and done. I realize you aren’t familiar with facts, but most people are starting to see Obama for the shallow, naive huckster he is.
“Opposed the war in Iraq” is a credit to his record for most people, Sharon. Not you, obviously. But with most of the country believing it was a mistake, and with Obama’s warnings looking like the writings of Nostradamus, this isn’t going to convince anybody.
The only people swooning over Obama’s supposed prescience on Iraq are farleft lunatics who agreed with him in the first place.
“The surge” was one factor, and many people thought the troop levels were simply too low to effect change. The Anbar Awakening was one of the most important changes in Iraq that made it possible, and John McCain thinks the surge caused that when it preceded it.
But Obama never agreed that the surge would make any difference, Jeromy. He was, in fact, churlish when General Petraeus reported on the success of the surge. Then he’s argued that he would listen to his generals. But his entire history is that he doesn’t listen to anyone but the sound of his own voice.
“Blamed George and Russia equally.” And? The consensus is that Georgia acted foolishly and aggressively in ways that gave Russia the green flag.
Are you in there smoking cocaine with Obama now, Jeromy? At what point did liberals ever defend aggression because “they asked for it”? There was no “green flag” for Russia to swallow part of another country, and the proper response to Russia’s aggression was to condemn it. Not that your candidate would know anything about a proper response to a foreign policy crisis. His staff does his talking, then he cuts their legs out from under them.
She’s a woman and you think that gives you some Hillary oomph, and she’s a staunch social conservative, which is all you cared about anyway. National security has always been about politics for you guys.
Nah, I don’t worry about whether Hillary supporters like her. Some of them will vote for John McCain because McCain’s positions more closely reflect theirs. Palin shores up and excites the base, giving them more reason to come out in November. She’s already helped McCain in fundraising.
I know you have to focus attention at the bottom of the ticket because your candidate is so weak versus the GOP one. And you might really believe Senator Blowhard is some sort of asset to your ticket. But that says more about YOUR candidate than ours.
And, please. You think your article changes Obama’s record on abortion? This guy really is afraid that somewhere, somehow, a woman might not be able to abort her 34-week-old fetus. And your side supports that position, Jeromy. Just go read some of your nutroots compadres. You can try really, really hard to finesse that position, but nobody buys it.
Yes, Sharon, only nuts on the left are amazed by Obama’s prescience on Iraq, while you guys are still idolizing people who were comically wrong on everything.
It’s still not conclusive that the surge was solely responsible for the shift in Iraq, but of course you didn’t really address that, or McCain’s revisionist history.
I’m not talking about Palin because I can’t attack McCain. Repeating that won’t make it true, Sharon. She’s the hot topic. You can’t figure out that discussion of her would at least dominate the weekend news cycle? Holy smokes, you just can’t help being utterly ridiculous.
In fact, I’ve been talking about Palin as a reflection on McCain. Care to pay attention?
As for the abortion vote, the bill was redundant and you’re exploiting it falsely. It seems you understand this, which is why you’re moving the goal post backwards in your usual intellectually dishonest style.
It’s telling that you have to keep trying to turn this around on Obama, but people already know what they think about Obama. You guys have thrown your best punches and people aren’t buying it because the picture you paint is cherry-picking distorted bullshit that doesn’t resemble the actual person. The question for now is, “Who is Sarah Palin?” and you guys don’t really have much to say. Hmm, what soundbite is Fox News (and now Cindy McCain) feeding us? “ALASKA IS RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA, OF COURSE SHE KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT FOREIGN RELATIONS!”
God, I feel a giggle coming on. Kind of like Palin giggled when those shock jocks referred to an enemy of hers as a bitch. How sexist!
Oh, may I also remind you guys that you’ve been quiet about Palin’s impressive record of being under investigation for abuse of power and lying after only 18 months in office!
It’s still not conclusive that the surge was solely responsible for the shift in Iraq, but of course you didn’t really address that, or McCain’s revisionist history.
I didn’t claim the surge was solelyresponsible, Jeromy. That’s the strawman you want to set up. But Obama has refused to give any credit to the surge or its architects. Even during his grand tour, he refused to admit that he had been wrong about the surge. But that’s only one thing in a long list, so it is understandable.
I’m not talking about Palin because I can’t attack McCain. Repeating that won’t make it true, Sharon. She’s the hot topic. You can’t figure out that discussion of her would at least dominate the weekend news cycle? Holy smokes, you just can’t help being utterly ridiculous.
You are attacking the experience of the vice presidential candidate vis a vis your presidential candidate. I have simply pointed out that she has more experience than your candidate. You really can’t help but looking desperate here, Jeromy.
In fact, I’ve been talking about Palin as a reflection on McCain. Care to pay attention?
Jeromy, your arguments about McCain are as ridiculous as your claims about Palin. You looked better trying to argue why Rev. Wright was no big deal. Now, we’re four months later and you’re trying to attack McCain’s judgment? That’s a laughable charge from an Obama supporter.
As for the abortion vote, the bill was redundant and you’re exploiting it falsely. It seems you understand this, which is why you’re moving the goal post backwards in your usual intellectually dishonest style.
Exploiting = arguing effectively.
Obama was the only person to vote against the amendments in question because he was so afraid some baby might escape death. That’s just a really hard position to argue for, Jeromy. You wanna try again to make excuses for him?
The problem is, most people don’t like abortion in the first place. But Obama’s record is so far left that it’s impossible to defend.
It’s telling that you have to keep trying to turn this around on Obama, but people already know what they think about Obama.
What’s telling is that you can’t defend your candidate, Jeromy. And yeah, Jeromy. Lots of people know what they think of Obama. That’s why he isn’t going to win. They know he’s a northern liberal Senator with little to no experience to recommend him for the presidency. They know he’s an empty suit who fumbles and bumbles when he isn’t reading. They know that the only executive experience he does have (the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) is one that he wants to prevent everyone from knowing about. They know that his idea of foreign policy is ridiculous and naive, supported by our enemies. His domestic policy is built on the idea that he can bleed “the rich” enough to pay for a ton of new giveaways, but, like Bill Clinton, he’ll discover that he needs to raise a boatload of taxes to pay for them.
The reason I talk about Obama is that a vice president is just not as important as a presidential candidate. Your arguments to the contrary are weak and ineffectual.
You guys have thrown your best punches and people aren’t buying it because the picture you paint is cherry-picking distorted bullshit that doesn’t resemble the actual person.
“People aren’t buying it?” How so? This is the eighth year of a presidency with a POTUS who is very unpopular and a war that has people weary. Your guy should be 30 points ahead at this point. Yet, Obama can’t break away from McCain. Why is that, Jeromy? Because people don’t know him yet? You just said people do know him. They must not like what they’re seeing. They see a typical hard left type who doesn’t understand foreign affairs, lies and flipflops when he thinks no one is noticing. He can’t debate but he reads really well. His abortion position is repugnant to all but the most hardline supporters. His energy policy is a joke. So keep kidding yourself that people don’t recognize who Obama is.
The question for now is, “Who is Sarah Palin?” and you guys don’t really have much to say.
You’re joking, right? I personally have written half a dozen posts on it. Every blog in the universe has discussed her and refuted every. single. argument. your side has presented against her. Why, I’m surprised you haven’t sunk to the level of the feminists yet, arguing that having a Downs Syndrome kid disqualifies her because she should have aborted him.
Oddly, Jeromy, I’m giggling, too. I’m giggling because Obama supporters are so desperate that they have let the world see what they really are: a bunch of lying hypocrites who don’t really care about the qualifications of their candidate.
1. Still not addressing McCain’s revisionist history of the surge.
2. Obama on the surge and the reduction in violence:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/_reply_reply_reply_to.php
It’s impossible to describe your caricature of his reaction as honest.
3. “Obama was the only person to vote against the amendments in question because he was so afraid some baby might escape death.”
Um, really, I think I can almost finish up here: you’re deranged.
What’s the point of talking to an insane woman such as yourself?
Retract that now. If not, you’re simply too deranged and too dishonest to talk to. Well, to be honest, too deranged and dishonest to continue besmirching the Earth’s good soil and air with your existence, but I imagine there are worse people on the planet.
I’m interested in an intellectually honest exchange, Sharon. Elbows and daggers are fine and all, but telling me that Obama was afraid some baby might escape death? That’s all I’d need to justify to any reasonable person that you are not one.
Don’t try changing some words in my comment and turning it around on me like your lazy ass does.
Retract that, or you’re just complete scum.
1. I’m not interested in discussing your mischaracterization of John McCain’s statements on the surge. You have an echo chamber that will make you feel good about that.
2. Obama admits the surge “didn’t go as he expected” is more obfuscation from The One. You are lying when you try to finesse this into anything other than Obama was wrong about the surge. He also, at the same time he made this statement, said he still would not have voted for the surge, even knowing what he knows now. It’s impossible to argue with such an intellectually dishonest person as you, Jeromy, because you swallow this manure like it was baby food.
3. Obama was so worried about Roe that he didn’t care whether born babies were cared for. That’s infanticide, Jeromy. Even hardline pro-choicers have a problem with this because their argument usually is that the baby doesn’t have rights till birth. But we aren’t talking about babies in utero here; these are babies who are outside their mothers. And Obama couldn’t decide when babies get human rights.
This is the profound and disgustingly dark part of this argument, and shows how morally bankrupt your party is. They are so beholden to a tiny fraction of hardliners that they can’t say “enough. That’s the line.” We’re talking about a law that even the usual hard core abortion-at-any-point supporters backed. But not Obama!
And, oddly enough, as stupid and nasty a person as you are, I don’t wish death upon you like you just did on me. And don’t play semantics about the wording of your comment. I think you went way over the line here. I can back up my statement about Barack Obama’s abortion position with his own comments. You have nothing but your filthy, nasty mind for yours.
Jeromy wrote:
Mr Brown, a lot of conservative sites would ban someone who said that someone else ought to be dead. You’re stepping way over the line here.
You go ahead with your drama queen theatrics about what I said while telling us how Barack Obama is down with killing babies because he voted against a redundant bill. I can admit I’m unrealistically venting. Will you?
Dana, my continued participation on this site is up to you, but you go ahead and pretend you have standards while you give airtime to this venomous scumbag who’s too stupid to even know what intellectual honesty is except as a big word to throw around.
Sharon, I’m sure that in your personal life you’re probably not a complete menace, but every time you open your mouth you take a shit on the Age of Enlightenment and the love of reason that gave birth to this nation. You are a cancer on this country, and a serial rapist of the First Amendment.
Me pointing out that John McCain forcefully said that the surge caused the Anbar Awakening is “distortion” according to you.
You saying Barack Obama sits around afraid some child might not get killed is “just telling it like it is.”
This is nothing less than a farce. And all your tiny brain can think to do is take what I’m saying and try reversing it. You can’t actually deal with the substance of people’s words. If somebody points out that you’re too intellectually dishonest to argue with, you just make some shit up and try saying “NO you’re too intellectually dishonest to argue with!”
No, Sharon, I do my best to lay it down as close to reality as I can. I like accuracy, I like to say things that can be verified, I like to know when I’m wrong. Your problem is that these things are nowhere near your heart. All you know is I’ve dissed you and you’re going to keep screaming “Fuck you!” in a thousand different ways to keep your ego afloat.
Jeromy, I think thou doth protest too much!
Sharon has you dead to rights on Obama’s vote, which is why his defenders get so hysterical whenever it is brought up.
Sharon, I’m sure that in your personal life you’re probably not a complete menace, but every time you open your mouth you take a shit on the Age of Enlightenment and the love of reason that gave birth to this nation. <<<
What’s reasonable or enlightened about not protecting babies after they’ve been born? That’s what Obama voted for!
Eric: Okay, that’s what you think…but why? Just cheerleading?
Obama is so pro-death that he voted against a bill that would protect babies born after a botched abortion. Only a sicko would vote for this ghoul!
Oh, I see. You haven’t even been following the discussion.
Just so you know, Eric, the bill was a redundancy that threatened to creep on Roe vs. Wade. That’s what Obama objected to.
Obama does not endorse killing infants. That’s unimpeachable. They were already protected, and he supported later bills that protected them. You can argue with him about whether those bills would have impacted Roe vs. Wade, but you can’t possibly claim the man endorses anybody killing a viable fetus outside of the womb. If it’s out of the womb and has a chance of survival, it’s an infant with rights and it should live. That’s what Obama believes.
Really, ghoul? You’re living in fantasy land.
Jeromy, I won’t lie and say that in your personal life you’re probably a nice guy. I think the way people behave online is a pretty good reflection of the way they behave IRL. Suffice it to say, I wouldn’t be surprised if you spend your time kicking puppies.
Your behavior here is simply unconscionable. Saying people shouldn’t live because they disagree with you politically is despicable. Worse, your callous disregard for facts and desire to switch arguments at will shows a basic lack of morality.
Obama’s excuse for vetoing the Illinois version of the Infant Born Alive Act are self-serving and deceitful. “Redundancy”? If the bills were redundant, why not just vote for it? The fact is, Obama wanted to prove that he was pro-abortion beyond all reason because that’s what the hardliners want. Even NARAL didn’t fight the federal version of this bill.
Pro-choicers always want to argue that abortion till birth is acceptable. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about allowing infants to die after birth because they happened to survive abortion. That’s what Obama voted for because he was just so afraid that there could be a possibility of altering Roe. Yet even Roe acknowledges a point where the right of the child to life outweighs the convenience of the mother. Hardliners don’t acknowledge this, which is why they can say, with a straight face, that only viable infants have a right to life-saving measures.
You’ve shown what you’re made of. You lie. You bully. You say the vilest things imaginable and try to convince yourself that you’re only telling the truth. Now just go away.
If it’s out of the womb and has a chance of survival, it’s an infant with rights and it should live. That’s what Obama believes. <<<
No he doesn’t, and his vote proves it. You can spin it any way you like, but Sharon is right, his vote was against a bill that would protect babies. That makes him a ghoul, and a tool of the most extreme elements of the pro-death movement.
Good post, Sharon.
What turns me off to the pro-death movement is the extremism, and the hubris. There is no form of abortion they won’t defend with vigor, and they show not the slightest shame in their position. An honest person might allow abortions in some circumstances, but nonetheless be repulsed by the procedure itself, especially later term abortions or abortions of pure convenience. But today’s pro-deathers show no such restraint, and militantly demand that no restrictions of any kind be put on their cherished “Reproductive Rights”. And now, with Obama, you have what amounts to a defence of “Post Birth” abortions. This is just sick & twisted!
“Blamed George and Russia equally.” And? The consensus is that Georgia acted foolishly and aggressively in ways that gave Russia the green flag. <<<
I think that’s the old “She was asking for it” argument.
Sharon: There you go again, fooling yourself that I insult you because I disagree with you. I get frustrated with you because you argue in a dishonest fashion. And I tell you why. You, of course, bounce the same claims back at me because that’s your version of rebuttal, but you can’t prove it.
But here, watch me:
Sharon now:
“That’s what Obama voted for because he was just so afraid that there could be a possibility of altering Roe.”
Sharon before:
“…because he was so afraid some baby might escape death.”
This is what’s called changing arguments, Sharon. You switched your line, without acknowledging the correction.
Now, tell me where I misrepresented John McCain by saying that he claimed the surge caused the Anbar Awakening.
Eric: Um, no, nobody’s defending the actual practice of post-birth abortions.
Nobody.
You need to say this in order to advance your own agenda.
Kind of like you say “pro-death.” It’s about criminalization, but you insist on saying people who oppose criminalization are keen on death. They’re not. They’re keen on YOU staying the hell out of wombs that don’t belong to you. They want to reduce abortion in ways that are more logical and effective.
But, of course, you talk about people being militant and extreme. Always strategy instead of actual thought.
Here’s something for you to think about:
“An honest person might allow abortions in some circumstances, but nonetheless be repulsed by the procedure itself, especially later term abortions or abortions of pure convenience.”
That’s me. Now you can go fooling yourself, and telling yourself whatever kind of horseshit you can dream up. But I am repulsed by the procedure, especially later term abortions and abortions of pure convenience. I would not want any fetus outside of the womb that survived an abortion (however on earth that could possibly happen) which could be rescued to be killed. If you want the fetus to be given life-sustaining treatment even though the doctor determines it to be terminal, I wouldn’t fight very hard, although I’d prefer leaving it up to the doctor.
Now go ahead and tell me what I think, but you’re not exactly going to convince me. Do it for the audience, but just don’t fool yourself that you’re going to tell me what I really think. You just found out. So deal.
Now Sharon has just fessed up that Obama wasn’t really voting against the bill because he endorsed that kind of procedure. Ultimately, your suggestion is unsustainable under scrutiny, it’s just deceitful sloganeering.
OK, Jeromy, here’s the challenge: a decent essay, explaining Mr Obama’s vote, and telling us why it wasn’t the way Sharon characterized it. In fact, if you want to post it on your site, so that you can control the content better, go right ahead, and I will copy and link it in a new post here as “Jeromy Brown’s challenge” or whatever title you prefer. That’s as fair as I can make things.
I’ve seen an article which said that Mr Obama claimed that the bill would have outlawed all abortions, or something like that. Who knows: maybe that was a legitimate claim, and maybe Sharon is just plain wrong on this one. You have a full, uncensored, you control the format opportunity to state your case.
Sharon: There you go again, fooling yourself that I insult you because I disagree with you. I get frustrated with you because you argue in a dishonest fashion. And I tell you why. You, of course, bounce the same claims back at me because that’s your version of rebuttal, but you can’t prove it.
No, Jeromy. You are a liar and a bully and about as stupid and nasty a person as I’ve dealt with on the internet. You’ve called me a variety of names and said the world would be a better place without me. Those statements negate any possible political point you may want to make.
If I were like you, I’d wish you a horrible death and hope that your fiance finds a way better guy at your funeral. I’d hope your family suffers terrible diseases and losses just for having you as a relative. I’d hpe that every single thing in your life crashes and burns in equal measure to the evil and nasty things that you’ve said.
But I’m not like you. I don’t have to go to those places because you aren’t mature enough or smart enough to recognize hyperbolic prose as a literary device versus a literal description. See, “he’s afraid one baby will escape death” is hyperbole (accurate, but none the less, a bit of an exaggeration). Because, no, I don’t think Obama gowns up and goes to the abortion clinics to put together the puzzle pieces that was a baby just to make sure the doctor got all the parts.
But Obama is a hardliner where Roe is concerned, which is why he voted to prevent the Illinois Infant Born Alive Act from passing. The “redundancy” argument is just for show. The fact is, he wanted the pro-choice organizations to know he was their man no matter what. That’s both disgusting and chilling. And you can’t dress that up as anything other than chasing down live babies for death.
It’s about criminalization, but you insist on saying people who oppose criminalization are keen on death. They’re not.
People who support abortion support killing babies. That’s death, for those of you in the sticks, Jeromy. There’s just no way to argue that you support abortion without acknowledging what you want to abort.
And here’s your misrepresentations, Jeromy. You lied about Obama’s position on abortion. You lied about his position on the surge. You lie about virtually every position Obama takes in an attempt to excuse it.
OTOH, you will take one sentence, one comment, one phrase from John McCain and blow it up saying, “OMG! He believes X!” That’s distortion, Jeromy. Your argument about John McCain’s remark on the surge is designed to frame what McCain said, and what is common knowledge about the surge (which included more than just adding troops), in a dishonest way to make him look as clueless and out of touch as your candidate. Why don’t you just try the “He supports the draft!” argument nutroots were circulating just a couple of weeks ago? It makes as much sense.
So, yeah, Jeromy. You’re a liar. And deceitful. And a bully. And a jerk. Because that’s the only way you know to argue.
Kind of like you say “pro-death.” It’s about criminalization, but you insist on saying people who oppose criminalization are keen on death. They’re not. They’re keen on YOU staying the hell out of wombs that don’t belong to you. They want to reduce abortion in ways that are more logical and effective.<<<
No they don’t. They are extremists who will refuse to compromise on anything regarding abortion. They had their chance on Partial Birth Abortion a few years back, but they refused. Their position is All Abortions, All the Time, for any reason or no reason at all.
If you want to convince us you’re a moderate on abortion, then act like it. Obama sure hasn’t.
Oh, cute, Sharon…that’s like OJ, “If I were going to say really mean things…” You want to have your cake and eat it too.
Typical. But that’s okay. People have emotions, and you’re very emotional. I don’t take it personal, I just see you reacting. Unfortunately, logically, none of this stuff negates any points. So back to the issues…
You didn’t explain how I got John McCain wrong about claiming the surge caused the Anbar Awakening. What you did say was so vague and generalized as to be useless logistically.
And you’ve retracted your statement about Obama.
So, subtracting your whining and groaning, I’ve successfully defended my point. You’ve made claims which, so far, you have been unable to sustain.
And that’s what really matters. You accuse, I explain.
As for abortion, it’s back to the usual deadlock. People who know where they stand on the issue won’t be swayed by other people mischaracterizing their beliefs. People who don’t like abortion and don’t approve of it but believe criminalization isn’t the answer aren’t going to believe somebody else telling them they like abortion.
And there’s no way around that for you, or anybody. These people already believe the conscience is one of the best weapons against abortion. They already stand where their conscience points them. And they’ve heard you guys yell “Baby-killers!” for 35 years. They’ll withstand it for eternity, or until technology somehow negates the issue (extract fetuses and put them on ice until some pro-lifer walks the walk and adopts them?).
So let’s agree this thread is no place to continue that 35 year (or 150 year, or timeless) debate. It was about Palin’s criminal lack of preparation for the White House. Let’s see, what were you going to say, again? Oh, yeah…
EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE! Apparently she was qualified for leader of the free world after her first day as governor! More that McCain, I mean Obama!
Take it personally? I really don’t know how one doesn’t take it personally when someone says the world would be a better place without you in it, Jeromy. That’s just evil. That you see nothing wrong with that shows exactly who you are.
And I’ve retracted nothing that I said about Barack Obama. Why do you insist on playing this stupid game every time you argue with someone? You think that’s winning a debate? It’s ridiculous. Obama has the most liberal voting record and a 100 from the likes of NARAL. His support for the death of living infants is inexcusable. Yet you keep trying to finesse it into something other than what it is. Here it is in plain English: Barack Obama voted to allow children killed because they were inconvenient to their mothers. There it is. That’s what he voted for.
So please. Just go away. You are a disgusting excuse for a person who cries “I win!” when you haven’t and thinks it’s all a game.
Well, Obama doesn’t really have the most liberal voting record, but as I’ve noted before, what passes for liberal in the Senate is mainstream American opinion. It ranks way, way better than John McCain voting with the GOP’s revered George W. Bush, which he ratcheted up to 90-95% when he decided he wanted to lead you yahoos.
You’ve now revised your position to be a generic pro-lifer statement. You did retract your statement. Here’s when you retracted it:
See?
And you haven’t explained how I misrepresented John McCain’s assertion that the surge caused the Anbar awakening.
Executive experience!
Jeromy wrote:
According to the National Journal, Senator Obama came in as the most liberal, with Senator Biden hot on his heels at number three.
And if one is hard on the left wing of his own party, it’s difficult to call him in the mainstream.
If liberalism were “mainstream American opinion,” you’d think that the Democrats would hold absolutely huge majorities in the Congress, rather than the bare ones they have now.
“Look, guys, she’s spunky, pretty, and she has a nice life story. Her social conservatism is extreme stuff that will turn off voters, her obvious tokenism won’t impress Hillary voters, and she’s way, way greener than Obama. The public has been examining Obama up close for almost two years, made him undergo dozens of debates, voted on him, and it took the convention to seal the deal that he was ready for office. Now two months before the election we get Palin forced upon us by McCain, who only met her once?”
And when she was announced as McCain’s VP pick, his campaigh raised $10 million in only a few days. Her social conservatism turned off voters? No, the choice of Sarah-cuda Palin is the reason why McCain will win in November. Voters he never dreamed of getting a month ago are now flocking to him because of her. As far as McCain meeting her once, brush up on VP selections from past elections. Kennedy and LBJ hated eachother. Clinton met Gore once. And so on…
Joe, I’d like to think that you’re right, but I guess we’ll all have to wait and see.
Last thing I saw, Senator McCain had actually met Governor Palin twice before the decision, not once, but it was still a very limited number of meetings.
As for abortion, it’s back to the usual deadlock. People who know where they stand on the issue won’t be swayed by other people mischaracterizing their beliefs. People who don’t like abortion and don’t approve of it but believe criminalization isn’t the answer aren’t going to believe somebody else telling them they like abortion. <<<
That’s a bit like saying “I personally oppose slavery, but don’t think we should restrict the rights of others to own slaves”.
I think this will get BO’s attention. 50% more than Biden and a Million less than BO.
37,244,000 WATCHED PALIN … [24,029,000 BIDEN; 38,379,000 OBAMA]…
WOW, you need boots to navigate this BS. Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t have enough experience to run a gas station let alone a country. He votes present most of the time. He writes no legislation. He has spent his whole time in the
senate running for president. But hey, give the devil his due, he can read a teleprompter like no one else. He makes crooked deals with Rezko and is buddies with Ayers. Don’t forget to go check out that neighborhood he was community organizer in and see how it’s now practically condemned and the people without homes due to him and Rezko. He sits in a church with Rev. Wright spewing his black liberation theology and hatred of the US. He’s never served in the military, nor has he ever shown any reverence for those who do. He is NOT qualified to be commander in chief, take that from the mom of an Airman! If he were a white man there is no way he would be where he is. They would have laughed at him for his lack of experience in anything of substance. Voting for someone BECAUSE they are black is just as racist as NOT voting for someone because they are black. The last thing we need in DC is another crooked good for nothing lawyer. The best legislators and leaders are usually non-lawyers (Reagan). Leaders need to be there for the right reasons. Power and a devotion to special interests such as radical environmentalism does not make a good leader. A president should be someone that is there to work for the common man. Our federal government has very few responsibilities. One is protection, our borders and fighting enemies. The other is general infrastructure. Liberals think the government is the answer to everything. Government is the problem!! The federal government needs to get out of the affairs that legally belong to the states.
As for the ridiculous accusation that the baby is Bristols: most down syndrome babies are born to older mothers not teenagers. This is a desperation story concocted by an Obama media running scared. I love how they keep referring to her as the mayor of a town of 9000. Hello? She is the Governor of Alaska you morons!! I’m sure that must compare to being the governor of, say, Arkansas? She fought corruption the whole way there. As for the job of commander in chief, should that ever fall to her, she was the commander of the Alaska National Guard and who better to do what is best for America AND our troops then the mother of one of them, her son. I say replace every one of those corrupt, power hungry lawyers in DC with a hockey mom or soccer dad that is only there to change what they saw needed to be changed but realized they were gonna have to do it themselves.