U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I thought Palin's speech was very good, although it grates on me to hear Republicans talking about "big government" and "government is too large." I guess they're running against themselves? 'Cause they oversaw an explosion of government under Bush ...

---

Full marks!

McCain is going to run AGAINST much of Bush's domestic record (even though he participated in some of it). Politics is an amusing game, no?

My real query is just how McCain will do at curbing government if he's in the White House. He's got a rep as someone who'll "work with" people. This may....or may NOT....mean he'll actually get it done.

Still, for me, the chance that McCain might do some of this beats the alternative.


*EDIT*

Tribesman:

Do you really believe Obama and Biden represent a better/smarter/more "in tune" alternative for leading the USA executive branch or are you just hacking at anything posted by our .org right-wingers on general principles?


Commentary on Palin:

Her speech demonstrated a good and engaging rhetorical style and she's obviously reasonably bright (at least by the standards of US political leadership). A convention is a fairly friendly audience, however.

Can she handle Biden in a debate?

Can she handle the full court press that will be made indexing her current statement of the moment with anything she has ever said ever in any venue (Note: this is the new standard of the internet-centric political world, i.e. there is no privacy now or ever and any and all comments ever made by you ever will be quoted and/or redacted against you whenever possible).*

Her platitudes sounded lovely to this smaller-government is best fellow, but will she really be a voice pushing McCain away from any deals that expand the scope and role of the central government? Is she McCain's tool to dupe the base or, worse yet, a patsy he's using for the same purpose?



* For example: Limbaugh today featured two soundbites by Joe Biden. One, made to the media denying that he had made a statement in favor of prosecuting Bush for War Crimes. The other soundbite was from a speech made to an audience of (mostly) elderly democrats in Florida, yesterday, wherein he said that the Obama-Biden administration would prosecute anyone who'd been determined to have been guilty of war crimes, including the Attorney General or the President.

Limbaugh's analysis "deconstructed" Biden's statements as being:

a) political pandering to an audience that would love to see Bush on trial as a war criminal [Limbaugh is correct in this],

b) evidence that Obama-Biden would move to put Bush and Cheney on trial [Limbaugh is incorrect here. Biden was using very precise language that said they'd move to try anyone who was determined to be guilty -- no specific promise to prosecute anyone was made. Biden was just letting the audience dream up their own answer and hoping they wouldn't call him on the specifics -- political SOP],

c) asserting that this was "Stalinist" because that's what the old CCCP did to the previous administration [Limbaugh is well aware that Biden's statement doesn't betoken this and that NO U.S. President is going to actively work to get her or his predecessor put on trial for war crimes....if for no other reason than that they do not want that precedent in place when they are the ex-president. Limbaugh just wanted to tag Obama-Biden with the "stalinist" label], and

d) facetiously commiserated that Biden was at a loss without having the words of Neil Kinnock to go to [Thus bringing up, yet again, the old smear on Biden -- who was caught borrowing words (not a rare phenomenon in USA politics, where sources for facts and claims are nor reported in speeches at all (a pet peeve of mine)].

This IS the standard of political dialogue in the USA. Will Palin survive the left-wingers and mainstream media efforts along these lines that WILL happen?

Quote:

---

Still, for me, the chance that McCain might do some of this beats the alternative.

---

So you are going for hope and dream rather than hope and dream , a wise choice .

Quote:

---

She agrees with the main policies of the group, which go directly against the smear you made.

---

The "smear" I made :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Did they mention that only last week Palins staff denied that the story of the daughter being pregnant was true ?
Or that the wonderful future father and husband describes himself as "a ****** redneck who likes to shoot ****" ?
Now of course the pregnancy story wouldn't be much of an issue at all , if it wasn't for Palins pentecostal evangelism with her opposition to sex before marriage and support for teaching abstinance instead of sexual education .

---

To which you focused on the last bit and wrongly responded that she belongs to a group that is not opposed to birth control , the group is neither in favour for against contraception so it actually has no view on that subject and is irrelevant , it is Palins views on abstinence only education that were the issue , not the non views of some group she joined .
It was you who made the silly step of linking her belonging to a group and so sharing its views which was easily countered by first giving the groups views and then throwing in the groups views on the death penalty for good measure .
Rabbit with your floundering you walked straight into it , and continue to do so .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you are going for hope and dream rather than hope and dream , a wise choice .

---

Actually, I think he's going for hope and dream rather than single party rule, which recent history has shown is pretty much guaranteed to be a disaster.

the daily show was in top form last night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvOc2jej35c

That was not fair.

Still, also vikings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

That was not fair.

Still, also vikings.

---

What did the shirt say? I couldn't make it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

To which you focused on the last bit and wrongly responded that she belongs to a group that is not opposed to birth control , the group is neither in favour for against contraception so it actually has no view on that subject and is irrelevant , it is Palins views on abstinence only education that were the issue , not the non views of some group she joined .
It was you who made the silly step of linking her belonging to a group and so sharing its views which was easily countered by first giving the groups views and then throwing in the groups views on the death penalty for good measure .
Rabbit with your floundering you walked straight into it , and continue to do so .

---

You haven't provided one iota of evidence saying Palin supports abstinence only programs. The only evidence any dems seem to be using is that she once wrote on a conservative group's questionaire that "explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

Now, she's joined a group that's not against contraceptive use. It's also against the death penalty. But she has said she's for the death penalty, and she has not said she's for a 'just-say-no' abstinence education program. And as for her Church; do you think all Catholics are against contraceptives?

So the facts seem to be against you, and since you've been known to outright lie in your posts, kindly provide some links to information you're basing your posts off of.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

the daily show was in top form last night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvOc2jej35c

---

best post of the week! :laugh4:

DAILY SHOW powns the republican party and takes it´s lunch money!:whip:

Quote:

---

So the facts seem to be against you, and since you've been known to outright lie in your posts, kindly provide some links to information you're basing your posts off of.

---

Really Rabbit , thats a very silly thing to say , can you provide any examples of outright lies in any of my posts at all , or are you just having a bad time of it lately and pissing into the wind .

Quote:

---

You haven't provided one iota of evidence saying Palin supports abstinence only programs.

---

I don't have to , all I have to do is ask if you are familiar with her actual statements on sex education and abstinance only policies from 2006 , if you are not then you are just fishing without bait or even a hook .:yes:

Ah seamus added to his post

Quote:

---

Tribesman:

Do you really believe Obama and Biden represent a better/smarter/more "in tune" alternative for leading the USA executive branch or are you just hacking at anything posted by our .org right-wingers on general principles?

---

A bit of both ,
Its so funny to see the usual suspects crying foul when they normally support such moves when the shoe is on the other foot .
McCain has problems and Palin is clueless , just look at her speech that the convention had an orgasm over , it was pure bull , she hasn't the faintest idea and is so full of meaningles rhetoric its hilarious , I find it so funny that you praise her level of rhetoric when it is one of the things people condemn obama for in his speeches .
Frankly I am past caring which pair of muppets get elected , at least Clinton is gone though .
You need someone over there who can get a grip on your spiralling debt and re establish both the American position in the world and the general security of the west , neither pair are up to it .
Not wishing to ridicue George Bush (as that would be too easy) you need a uniter not a divider and both alternatives for office are on a course which is very divisive .

If we cant knock Palin for being part of the AIP than we cant knock obama for his church right? I mean he doesn't agree with everything right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

If we cant knock Palin for being part of the AIP than we cant knock obama for his church right? I mean he doesn't agree with everything right?

---

You do know that Palin was never a member of the AIP, right? Obama, on the other hand, was ears deep in the America hating.. and those are some big ears. :laugh4:

Interesting bit from a longtime Alaskan political blog:

The stunner of the speech for me? “I said thanks, but no thanks to that Bridge to Nowhere”. Frankly, I was surprised she said it the first time, shocked she said it the second time, but again? Almost incomprehensible. This must be her test to see if that old George Bush theory that if you say something enough, people will just believe it, is true. No other explanation seems possible. This is easy to fact check. Really easy. Palin decided she didn’t want the bridge when she learned that Alaska would have to pay too much for it.

Man, Palin is a :daisy:. Seriously have had a sudden distasteful hate of her. What a horid little :daisy:.

Just had to say it :/

Nice speech though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Interesting bit from a longtime Alaskan political blog:

The stunner of the speech for me? “I said thanks, but no thanks to that Bridge to Nowhere”. Frankly, I was surprised she said it the first time, shocked she said it the second time, but again? Almost incomprehensible. This must be her test to see if that old George Bush theory that if you say something enough, people will just believe it, is true. No other explanation seems possible. This is easy to fact check. Really easy. Palin decided she didn’t want the bridge when she learned that Alaska would have to pay too much for it.

---

From a Reuter's story:

Quote:

---

A press release issued by the governor on September 21, 2007 said she decided to cancel state work on the project because of rising cost estimates.

"It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said in the news release. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here."

---

This one is hard to research, since most results just turn up recent news about the project. When she was campaigning she did make the case for federal monies for infrastructure projects. Later, as governor, she put a halt to the project citing rising costs.

I think that facts may be correct when she claims to have said "Thanks, but no thanks." to the bridge, but it sounds like she may be misrepresenting why she said no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Man, Palin is a :daisy:. Seriously have had a sudden distasteful hate of her. What a horid little :daisy:.

Just had to say it :/

Nice speech though.

---

So was Rosa Luxemburg, if that relates. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Man, Palin is a :daisy:. Seriously have had a sudden distasteful hate of her. What a horid little :daisy:.

Just had to say it :/

Nice speech though.

---

Did Tribesy hack JAGS account? I remember your posts actually having more substance.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Man, Palin is a :daisy:. Seriously have had a sudden distasteful hate of her. What a horid little :daisy:.

Just had to say it :/

Nice speech though.

---

I can't help it, but this is exactly how I feel. Something about her just rubs me in the wrong way. I can't stand her, the sheer look of her, the way she talks, everything. I don't know why. I don't have it with McCain. He doesn't irritate me all that much.

Sounds as if people are comparing her to Hillary, or where's all that sudden hatred coming from?

I just watched the Huckabee speech.

:bow:

Excellent orator, even better than Giuliani.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

the daily show was in top form last night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvOc2jej35c

---

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Brilliant!! Simply BRILLIANT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Really Rabbit , thats a very silly thing to say , can you provide any examples of outright lies in any of my posts at all , or are you just having a bad time of it lately and pissing into the wind .

---

*whistles*

Quote:

---

Mexico hasn't banned guns , you are allowed shotguns , you are allowed rifles , you are allowed handguns .
Damn them things do kinda appear like guns to me .
Now of course there are restrictions , rifles must not be above .22

---

Rather wrong about Mexico's gun laws, weren't you? So kindly provide links to prove you're not lying through your teeth in some sort of attempted cleverness.

Quote:

---

I don't have to , all I have to do is ask if you are familiar with her actual statements on sex education and abstinance only policies from 2006 , if you are not then you are just fishing without bait or even a hook .:yes:

---

I showed the one statement I found, from 2006. Have you seen more? That statement I looked at does not show her to be a 'just say no' abstinence education supporter.

Quote:

---

Did Tribesy hack JAGS account? I remember your posts actually having more substance.

---

The leftists are just hating on her because she represents a strong, self made woman who isn't a democrat. It's all well and good when those type of women toe the democratic party line, but they can't have them getting uppity and having their own opinions.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The leftists are just hating on her because she represents a strong, self made woman who isn't a democrat. It's all well and good when those type of women toe the democratic party line, but they can't have them getting uppity and having their own opinions.

---

Trust me on this CR, no self-respecting true european lefty would EVER support the democrats. The lesser of two evils perhaps, but still evil. ~;)

They're like our conservatives, remember.

Quote:

---

They're like our conservatives, remember.

---

Indeed (though Obama is on the left side of the democrats). But that must mean you really hate the republicans. :sweatdrop:

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

But that must mean you really hate the republicans. :sweatdrop:

---

Indeedely-doodely ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I can't help it, but this is exactly how I feel. Something about her just rubs me in the wrong way. I can't stand her, the sheer look of her, the way she talks, everything. I don't know why. I don't have it with McCain. He doesn't irritate me all that much.

---

Exactly it. It is irrational and as I said before it is distasteful, but man she just makes me boil inside and feel deep feelings of anger towards her.

She did pull off a fairly remarkable speech though - full of bs, lies and nothing at all about her abhorrent positions - but a very well written and delivered one none the less.

I don't think it is fair to say it is because she is a strong woman who is a Republican that I and others feel like this, not fair at all. I think it probably boils down to the fact that she represents views which are so anti-women and plain wrong, yet holds herself in a way which just makes you wanna go ARGH! I dunno, pretty messed up.

Huckabee's speech - while disagreeing with, let me see, pretty much all of it - was fantastic, the outright best of the night. Forget Palin's, her's was good because it was both unexpected and ticked every box she had to but Huckabee's was pure awesome oratory and feeling - nearly getting up there with Obama.

I am really enjoying this election so far, I guess it is helped because deep down I really can't see Obama loosing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Indeed (though Obama is on the left side of the democrats). But that must mean you really hate the republicans. :sweatdrop:

CR

---

Hate would be putting it mildly - downright disgust, contempt and unabashed vitriol towards the Republicans is how I normally feel on a safe day. The views, a lot of the supporters and the general attitude is just horrible.

The Democrats I can tolerate because while the economic message is somewhat weakened, when comparing it to any decent party of the left over here, on social issues the Democrats are pretty good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

The Democrats I can tolerate because while the economic message is somewhat weakened, when comparing it to any decent party of the left over here, on social issues the Democrats are pretty good.

---

Gah, you tolerate someone who wants to destroy any notion of a welfare state? I'm deeply disappointed with you, JAG... :no:

Let me reinforce an old backroom rule: we will not have the b-bomb as reference to any woman. Not even from a woman.

Thanks for your time. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Let me reinforce an old backroom rule: we will not have the b-bomb as reference to any woman. Not even from a woman.

Thanks for your time. :bow:

---

I think that's the least of our worries as to what is said 'round here :juggle2:

A link to Slate's Sarah Palin faq.

And here's an analysis of her speech before she gave it. It's prescient.

I was also amused by the Daily Show clip, media bias cuts both ways.