Sarah Palin Choice: Republicans Try to Telegraph That “Murphy Brown” Has Become a Social Conservative

-

murphy brown.jpg
Politico‘s Ben Smith has posted a hot mic clip of Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy trashing the McCain selection of Sarah Palin.
I’ve been having chats with quite a few hard core Republicans about this and that, including the Sarah Palin choice. In fact, I stood at a urinal next to Tom DeLay today at the St. Paul Hotel as we, well, you know. . .into a bunch of ice. He lamented how ice had sort of disappeared from most urinals and had become old-fashioned. We didn’t get to Palin.
But there is an excitement about Palin here in Minneapolis/St. Paul — but this sizzle is offset by a substantial amount of disappointment.
I told Salon DC Bureau Chief Walter Shapiro and Financial Times DC Bureau Chief Edward Luce a few moments ago that to some degree the Sarah Palin choice is a signal to Americans from McCain that the Dan Quayle-demonized “Murphy Brown” is now back — but she has become a social conservative.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

60 comments on “Sarah Palin Choice: Republicans Try to Telegraph That “Murphy Brown” Has Become a Social Conservative

  1. kotzabasis says:

    Sweetness , I’m sorry, I forgot to give you the titles of the two papers: ‘Overthrow of Hussein will Defeat Global Terorism and its State Sponsors’
    and, ‘Blueprint for Victory in Iraq’

    Reply

  2. kotzabasis says:

    Sweetness
    The link for the two papers is:
    http://www.con.observationdeck.org (Nemesis)
    Kotzabasis

    Reply

  3. Sweetness says:

    You are detracting from the real issue. I was not referring to
    presidents’ consorts and to the possibility that some of the
    former would take the advice of the latter. I was referring to the
    serious choice of Obama about who should be his Vice-
    President and his subsequent acceptance of his wife’s veto.
    S: I guess it’s a matter of interpretation. How would you know
    whether MIchelle had a “veto” rather than a “voice” in the
    decision? Moreover, how do you distinguish the two? If
    Michelle says “no way,” and Obama subsequently rejects Clinton,
    does that mean Michelle vetoed what Obama would have done
    on his own otherwise? I don’t think you can show that. Because
    MIchelle is his wife and a smart, strong woman who knows her
    husband well, he takes her views seriously. Smart guy. Not sure
    about your use of the word “consort” here, George. Isn’t that the
    role Gigi was training for? More broadly, though, much is
    “reported,” but all too often, little is really known.
    Most senior Senators with “experience” in foreign affairs, from
    Biden to Clinton, voted for the war. The American system is not
    the Communist presidium with its unanimous votes and one
    would expect some senators to have voted against the war.
    S: But this is a key point, is it not? This is not an exercise in
    statistical randomness, in which some senators can always be
    expected to vote against the majority. We only have 100 people
    here, and there are not a few votes in which the tally is
    unanimous, or close there to. I gather you hail from the UK,
    Canada, Australia, or SA…and may not follow the Congress that
    closely…but you can get 100 Senators to agree.
    If you insist that Obama’s decision was based on “wisdom”, the
    all I can say to you is that your wisdom has a very low bar.
    S: How so? What you’re saying is that Obama wasn’t privy to
    certain information, so his decision or views couldn’t have been
    wise. IOW, you make it sound like an empirical exercise. I would
    say that wisdom is the opposite: the application of one’s
    accumulated experience and knowledge to specific cases.
    But here, you are turning things around. No one had better
    information than Cheney, and he said at least once, but probably
    several times, that he predicted we’d be greeted as liberators.
    Even when things clearly started turning badly, he and Rumsfeld
    (another person in the know) said that these bad actors were
    marginal players who would soon fizzle out. IOW, they were
    wrong. I think Congress started getting nervous about the
    outcome of their decision much sooner than the Administration
    did. But still, I doubt very much that you could get Clinton or
    Biden or Kerry or even many Republican senators who voted for
    the AUMF to say that their decision was “wise.”
    Apart from this, I can’t answer you because you are merely
    asserting that your standard for wisdom is superior to mine.
    You’re welcome to your opinion, but you haven’t shown it.
    As to the contrast of Michelle and Palin, must I point out to you
    that strength is relative and not equivalent and Michelle is NO
    Palin.
    S: Here again, you’re merely asserting. And you’re asserting
    based on what can only be the lightest of acquaintances with
    Palin. Do you hail from Alaska? Have you been following her
    career? Do you snowmobile with Todd? If you want me to agree
    with you–and there’s no need for you to aspire to this goal–
    you’ll have to give me a reason to think as you do. Just asserting
    your views, fine in and of itself, won’t do the trick.
    I’m surprised of your use of minor issues to trump the major
    issue that the war in Iraq has been won by the USA to the
    detriment of global terror and rogue states which will have a
    domino effects—as I made this prognosis about the war and its
    consequences few years ago in a paper of mine—in favour of
    the civilized world.
    S: I guess we’ll have to see how this plays out, yes? What will
    you say if Iraq and Iran become twin brothers or at least close
    geo-strategic allies?
    Surely you must be joking; General
    Kuznetsov’s “retreat” is not equivalent to Obama’s retreat from
    Iraq. And if you consider the latter a “master stroke” as
    Kuznetsov’s was then you must be a very poor strategist.
    S: Not joking, but it was a bit of a throwaway. Point was,
    sometimes you have to know when to fold them. That’s also
    part of wisdom. Could the US have won the war in Viet Nam?
    Maybe. I guess it depends on your definition of won. But many
    folks have pointed out that Viet Nam is steadily moving toward
    the civilized world and would have anyway had we not fought
    that war. Wouldn’t that have been a wiser path? No lives lost;
    no money lost; goals achieved? In fact, if we had accepted Ho’s
    earlier requests for support, Viet Nam might not have gone
    communist at all. Who knows? But certainly “coopting” Ho early
    on would have been the wiser path.
    Of course, as you correctly state, there are still many thing that
    need to unfold for the ‘complete’ stabilization of Iraq. But the
    defeat of the insurgency, by the “groundbreaking” methods of
    covert operations by US forces, and not by the ‘bribery’ of the
    Awakening folks in the province of Anbar as you imply, opens a
    great potential for a democratic Iraq in the region.
    S: I won’t gainsay Petraeus’s achievement. But I do think that
    the Awakening was actually the first chink in the insurgency’s
    armor and led to the rest.
    Lastly, war in defence of freedom against a mortal foe is
    priceless. And one cannot evaluate its great sacrifices with the
    standards of accountancy. And victory against such a deadly
    enemy should be acclaimed by people as being glorious not out
    of love for war but love for freedom.
    S: Yes; in principle. But to what degree was Saddam a “mortal
    foe” and “deadly enemy”? I don’t mean to whitewash him in any
    respect. But frankly, there are tons of dictators around the world
    who are his equal or his betters. Are they all our deadly enemies
    or mortal foes? Are we now going to embark on taking them
    down one by one…put our armed forces on some sort of World
    Tour to Wipe Out Dictators?
    The fact is, Saddam was NOT threatening the U.S. Nor was he
    threatening Israel in any meaningful way (which is clearly able to
    defend itself militarily). He was also a bulwark against our
    current enemy numero uno, Iran. So was it wise to take him
    down in the way we did?
    But here’s another point: You laud our covert ops forces.
    Couldn’t they have done the deed…killed Saddam and his sons
    and his ruling elite… without our having to send in, and
    ultimately “break”, our army? We may have won this war in a
    sense, but just as clearly, we’ve lost all leverage or ability to
    project power in the region. So have we won or just gotten
    ourselves deeper into the tar?
    I’d be happy to read the paper you spoke of any time. Send a
    link.
    P.S. My third par. is needless to say about the war. And
    deputy=vice president

    Reply

  4. kotzabasis says:

    My dear Sweetness,
    You are detracting from the real issue. I was not referring to presidents’ consorts and to the possibility that some of the former would take the advice of the latter. I was referring to the serious choice of Obama about who should be his Vice-President and his subsequent acceptance of his wife’s veto.
    Most senior Senators with “experience” in foreign affairs, from Biden to Clinton, voted for the war. The American system is not the Communist presidium with its unanimous votes and one would expect some senators to have voted against the war. If you insist that Obama’s decision was based on “wisdom”, the all I can say to you is that your wisdom has a very low bar. As to the contrast of Michelle and Palin, must I point out to you that strength is relative and not equivalent and Michelle is NO Palin.
    I’m surprised of your use of minor issues to trump the major issue that the war in Iraq has been won by the USA to the detriment of global terror and rogue states which will have a domino effects—as I made this prognosis about the war and its consequences few years ago in a paper of mine—in favour of the civilized world.
    Surely you must be joking; General
    Kuznetsov’s “retreat” is not equivalent to Obama’s retreat from Iraq. And if you consider the latter a “master stroke” as Kuznetsov’s was then you must be a very poor strategist.
    Of course, as you correctly state, there are still many thing that need to unfold for the ‘complete’ stabilization of Iraq. But the defeat of the insurgency, by the “groundbreaking” methods of covert operations by US forces, and not by the ‘bribery’ of the Awakening folks in the province of Anbar as you imply, opens a great potential for a democratic Iraq in the region.
    Lastly, war in defence of freedom against a mortal foe is priceless. And one cannot evaluate its great sacrifices with the standards of accountancy. And victory against such a deadly enemy should be acclaimed by people as being glorious not out of love for war but love for freedom.
    P.S. My third par. is needless to say about the war. And deputy=vice president

    Reply

  5. Sweetness says:

    Dear George,
    Thanks for your comment. Here is my response.
    Your first paragraph is psychological analysis, not historical fact
    finding. I find this sort of stuff interesting to read–for
    example, how GWB invaded Iraq to finish his father’s work and
    avenge Saddam’s attempt on his father’s life. However, it’s not
    at all determinative. So I have to dismiss your first paragraph as
    idle speculation. Also, I don’t know what you mean by “deputy.”
    Do you mean “Vice President”? And finally, it’s not at all unusual
    for presidents or candidates to have strong women by their side.
    Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan, Jackie Kennedy, Eleanor Roosevelt.
    Their men take their counsel, as well they should, not because
    they have some special insight into world or domestic affairs,
    but because they know their man and are looking out for him.
    I’m surprised, though, that you APPLAUD Iron Lady Palin while
    seeming to denigrate Iron Lady Michelle. Is there any rational
    reason for doing so?
    Your second paragraph needs some picking apart. First, there
    were more than a handful of senior Senators who opposed the
    AUMF who presumably had access to all the information. So you
    can’t say that had Obama had the same information as they had
    he would have voted for the war. (Actually, the situation is more
    acute, because he wasn’t even in the Senate when the vote was
    taken; he was running for the Senate.) So I don’t think you can
    say he made his decision based on ignorance rather than
    wisdom. That said, I DO think it’s open question as whether he
    would have voted for the war had he been in a position to do so.
    No one will ever know. But since he said the right things at the
    right time, he gets the credit in my book. Not giving him the
    credit requires one to perform too many mental gymnastics
    unsupported by fact or sound reasoning.
    I agree with you about the surge being a PART of the overall
    strategy, AFAIK. However, it’s not at all clear what would have
    happened had Obama been in a position to withdraw the troops.
    You can say disaster would have ensued–but do we know? We,
    meaning the American leadership, has been dead wrong about
    virtually every aspect of the Iraq fiasco from day one, including
    what was going to happen after we invaded. Flowers and
    welcoming committees, etc.
    But when you say “depriving the soldiers on the ground of their
    glorious victory,” you sound, to me, a bit pre-WWI, when war
    was thought to be “glorious.” it’s entirely irresponsible,
    unprofessional, not to say immoral, for our leaders to make
    military decisions based on notions of “glory.”
    Just at the level of strategy, sometimes it is wiser to withdraw
    than to keep fighting pointlessly or into the jaws of defeat.
    Wasn’t it Gen. Kuznetsov who told his generals, “We will retreat!”
    And a master stroke it was.
    Anyway, I think it’s open question as to whether the surge was
    the right thing to do. The Iraqis don’t seem to be any closer to
    political reconciliation, which was the STATED goal of the surge
    and any number of other factors have entered into the
    abatement of violence, e.g., the Awakening, paying folks we
    were sent in to depose, etc.
    But ALL of that said, you still have to compare the 1 million lives
    lost and the 1 trillion dollars lost (thus far)–which McCain then
    and now thought and thinks is worth it–against a decision to
    oppose the surge. The former is a colossal strategic and
    humanitarian blunder…the latter is, at most, a mistake about
    tactics. I’ll take the latter over the former.
    Not sure still what your third para is all about. The invasion?
    The surge? The invasion was a dumb move whose “rationales”
    have been shown to have been completely without merit. In
    fact, it now appears that Bush KNEW they were without merit all
    along, which makes his actions criminal in my book. One’s heart
    ALWAYS enters into the decision to go to war–or should–
    because many, many people get killed, have their lives ruined,
    and the consequences are always unforeseeable. In this case,
    opposing the war from the beginning was a case of one’s head
    and heart coming together in perfect unity.
    P.S, As far as I can see, the ONLY benefit to the war has been
    the removal and killing of Saddam and his ruling elite. They
    were monsters. It remains to be seen what we’ll get now. A
    Shiite state allied with Iran?

    Reply

  6. kotzabasis says:

    Sweetness, you bring up many points and allow me to deal with some of them. First, let us assume you are right that the issue of ‘present’ was strategy not indecision. But what about his savvy political decision to have Hillary as deputy that was vetoed by Michelle who hated her and Obama caving before his wife’s decision? You will say this rumour. But let us see if this rumour can be verified by some facts. The worse mummy’s boy is the one without a mother. Obama was abandoned by both his parents when he was a little boy and was brought up by his grandparents. All his life he was searching for his lost father whom he finally found in his pastor Jeremiah, and more importantly, for his runaway mother whom he found when he married strong Michelle. It’s Michelle that is wearing both pair of pants: Her own and her husband’s.
    Secondly, on the war, his decision to oppose the war was not based on wisdom but on ignorance. Ignorant of the content of the briefings as a junior Senator that other Democrat Senators more senior became aware of and for that reason supported the impending war. On the issue of the Surge and Woodword’s assessment, the Surge was PART of a new strategy under General Petraeus linked to the ‘groundbreaking new covert techniques…’ that were primary in defeating the insurgency, according to Woodword. And the Surge may have facilitated these new techniques to achieve their goal. Further Obama only six months ago had pledged to the American people that he would withdraw the troops from Iraq. And he would do this while the bravery and professionalism of the US army were winning the war in Iraq. Thus depriving the soldiers on the ground of their glorious victory and, most dangerous of all, conceding to their enemies that America was defeated in the war in Iraq, as that would be the logical conclusion of Obama’s withdrawal. Surely, as a reasonable person, you would not consider these decisions of Obama arising from his strength of character.
    Thirdly, what I meant to say was that Obama by ‘cutting his sails to the winds of populism’ went along with the uninformed masses who had made their decision on the issue of the war not by the power of their brain but by the beats of their heart, and it was on those “beats” that Obama also positioned himself on the same issue. Unlike McCain who supported the Surge at the peak of the unpopularity of the war. This shows clearly which of the two leaders is endowed with a strong character.

    Reply

  7. Sweetness says:

    Well, George, you may know more about “strength of character”
    than I do…but it’s hard to imagine that any sort of strength can
    stand strong on a foundation of falsehoods.
    First, the issue of Obama’s having voted “present” has long been
    debunked. It was strategy, not indecision. A number of Illinois
    state Republicans have praised Obama’s efforts there as have his
    Democratic allies for whom he voted “present.” So, if you care
    about the truth, I’d suggest your not repeating this point. Or
    look into it yourself via sources that DON’T necessarily parrot
    your preconceived notions.
    Second, I assume you’re referring to his opposition to the surge
    as his “defeatist attitude.” It’s already pretty clear that the surge
    has not been the deciding factor in the abatement of violence,
    leaving aside for the moment the ongoing violence. See
    Woodward’s new book, for just one bit of evidence.
    But the larger point, George, is Obama’s opposition to invading
    Iraq in the first place. So against Obama’s “defeatist attitude,”
    I’ll see you and raise you with Obama’s “greater wisdom and
    judgement” about not sacrificing 1 million lives and 1 trillion
    dollars. I’m not happy about “defeatism,” but I’m willing to
    accept it if it saves the world and the US 1 million lives and 1
    trillion dollars. Seems like a good bargain. Avoiding wars USED
    to be the conservative viewpoint–but that hasn’t been true for
    eons. Now they go looking for a fight. But WHY?
    Third, I’m not at all sure what you mean by “cutting his sails to
    the populist wind.” Obama has always been a populist in that
    his campaign has always been about energizing grassroots
    support. As a community organizer, he tried to get “the people”
    to take action to better their lives. Frankly, I LIKE that he’s a
    populist. What’s wrong with that?
    As to Sarah Palin, well…
    What can one say?
    She is an iron lady, but to what end? It does appear that she’s
    cut out some corrupt practices, but she’s also engaged in a
    bunch of questionable and unreformist activities herself, like…
    • Using her office to pursue a personal vendetta against her
    brother in law and “unsupportive” government officials. Haven’t
    we had enough of this with Bush?
    • Hiring a D.C. lobbyist to grab a bunch of earmarks for her city
    and state. Isn’t this what McCain is supposed to be against?
    • Getting BP to sponsor her inauguration. She also supports
    pervasive drilling which is HARDLY going up against “big oil.”
    • Support for the bridge to nowhere until it became unpopular
    and a political liability and afterwards STILL keeping the money.
    So, she doesn’t wear the reformist mantle well in her ACTIONS.
    On top of this, she holds some really whacked out, and arguably
    dangerous views, like…
    • We’re following “God’s word” in Iraq. Regardless of your
    religion, and I’m Jewish, this is a DISGUSTINGLY IMMORAL view.
    • Her support of the secessionist AIP party. How does she
    become VP of a country she no longer belongs to?
    • Her support for teaching pseudo-science (“creationism”) in
    public schools. Our kids are already at the bottom of the global
    heap in science–does she want us to come in dead last?
    • She sought to ban books from her local library. So much for
    the First Amendment. Maybe she hasn’t read the Constitution.
    • She opposes sex-ed in the schools and is a proponent of
    abstinence training to avoid teen pregnancies, such as the one
    her daughter is going through right now.
    I know we’re supposed to be nice to Mrs. Palin lest be accused of
    piling on or being sexist or anti-small town America. But
    frankly, looking at the list above, she’s extremely ordinary, and
    what isn’t ordinary is extremely contemptible.
    So, George, I guess of having “strength of character” adds up to
    all of the above, you can keep it. I don’t want it.
    As to my gender, bone up on your American football lore and
    you’ll find the answer.

    Reply

  8. kotzabasis says:

    Sweetness
    What supreme mockery you make of strength of character. Obama’s character is clearly revealed by three things: His myriad “present” in the Legislature, his defeatist attitude on the war in Iraq, and his cutting his sails to the populist wind. Sassy Sarah in taking up the Republican establishment in Alaska and taking action against its corrupt practices, as well as her speech in the Convention, shows her to have the character of an iron lady. But iron ladies don’t come by the dozen, among which number you obviously belong, if you happen to be female judging from your name. And it’s more than probable that history will record that on September 04, 2008, the United States gave birth to the American iron lady.

    Reply

  9. Sweetness says:

    And now a word from George K:
    S: Here we have George K essentially PRAISING–certainly not
    objecting to–the rampant racism in American that has and will
    remain a challenge for Obama. If racism keeps Obama out of
    the White House, let’s hear it for racism.
    “Palin, among some of the other nails, one of them being race,
    will be putting the last nail on the coffin of Obama’s presidential
    aspirations.
    S: Here we have George unwittingly providing an eloquent
    defense (or defence) of Obama’s candidacy despite his lack of a
    long legislative record, whilst providing fodder for charges
    against Palin based on her evident LACK of character and
    judgement on numerous instances–troopergate, God Told Us
    To Invade Iraq Gate, and book censorship gate.
    But here’s George in (almost) his own words:
    In my opinion anyone’s apprehensions about whether OBAMA
    has the ability and knowledge and experience to take the reins
    of the White House …are misplaced. A person’s character and
    actions, the latter even in a short time span as is the case of
    OBAMA’S short tenure as Senator, are immeasurably more
    important than knowledge in the accreditation of a president.
    The character of a person cannot be shared with another
    person, whereas the knowledge of a person or of many others
    can be shared with another person. And it lies upon the latter’s
    personality and character how that knowledge is to be used and
    what decisions will be caused by it. OBAMA’S tenure as Senator
    shows clearly that he can use his knowledge and that of others
    benignly, decisively, and effectively for the interests of his
    constituency. Hence he has the character to be an outstanding
    reformer and a great president. Voila un homme, to paraphrase
    Napoleon.” George “The Con” Kotzabasis

    Reply

  10. Kathleen says:

    questions…I agree…having a troll is like having a lab rat…you can learn from observing it do its thing…..meanwhile, back in my kitchen, this whole election is so bizarre, so bizarre, so bizarre, as the old song goes…..trying to scope it out based on reason is not going to work.. it’s all too crazy….there is always the x factor at play and this one will keep the motivational researchers up all night….the daily tracking polls only measure the top 10% of consciousness, and changes based on daily events… only in depth psychological surveys will give us a clue as to which way the psyche of America will vote…I don’t think logic will play a big part….

    Reply

  11. questions says:

    Paul and POA,
    Tahoe performs an important service, even as a troll. The standard Republican line is what is most frequently going to show up in the media, though there does seem to be some shifting away from it. It’s possible, though, that the media will use the “success” of Palin’s speech as a way to ditch the criticism. Tahoe points out possible pitfalls to dem criticisms and gives us all a chance to think through how our reactions can be couched in order to be more effective.
    Yes it’s trolling and is standard unthinking repub stuff, but then somewhere around half the voting public is right there with this line. So make use of Tahoe to strengthen you arguments against Palin and McC and their conservative Christian utterly unMaverick stands.
    MAVERICKS: You just don’t know which way the corruption will go
    INTERRUPT THE MEME ’08

    Reply

  12. kotzabasis says:

    Dan Kervick
    You are saying that I’ve been wrong with my “advise” in the past without bringing one example of my ‘wrongness’. Have I been wrong when I predicted early in January 2006 in my essay “Blueprint for Victory in Iraq” published on the same date on my Blog Nemesis that the new strategy of the Surge would turn out to be the annus mirabilis for Bush as it would bring victory, when you and so many others from the liberal nipple-fed intelligentsia with your “insights” were predicting a military defeat of the US in Iraq. In the same essay I even foreshadowed the strategic configurations that the Surge would take on the ground and I was eerily correct in my prediction.
    One with a modicum of insight can see how rattled and shaken you are with the Sarah Tornado by the inundation of your posts on the subject. If she was so politically ‘seasonal’ and not lasting, as you claim, you would close the subject with one sentence.
    In a previous post of mine on TWN, again in reply to some of your comical insights, I noted that the art of prognosis is a gift that nature bestows with Occam’s razor. And those who attempt to practise it without endowed with the gift are bound to finish with a lot of egg on their face. So your next task will be to hire a babysitter to wipe it off your face.

    Reply

  13. Paul Norheim says:

    eberit,
    during the last six-seven months, this Tahoe figure was hiding
    behind his spamming machine, basically copying and pasting
    GOP anti-Obama stuff. For the last three or four days he`s been
    out there speaking with, well, I wouldn`t say “his own voice” –
    it`s still the same GOP propaganda voice – but at least he`s
    been out there, in front of his machine, talking, talking, and
    talking.
    Perhaps it was a mistake to harass him while he kept hiding
    behind the machine, challenging him to be his own man…
    We`ll see. But for POA and others here, it`s certainly a new
    experience to sort of confront him face to face, and not arguing
    with his pasted stuff and links all the time. I can assure you that
    he`s been impossible to ignore for many months, at least when
    Steve writes about the election. Perhaps this annoying troll will
    disappear if the GOP looses the election, or when the next
    president enters the scene in January.
    He`s extremely annoying, because he doesn`t display an inch
    of intellectual honesty; he doesn`t care if what he says is a lie
    or the truth, as long as he regards it as politically effective; he
    repeats himself over and over; and he is insistent both if you
    oppose him and if you ignore him. Obviously the Lord
    generously provided Tahoe with a mouth, but there is no
    evidence so far that he was born with ears.
    He`s basically a spammer and PR machine, and nobody can
    stop him except for Steve Clemons, who for some reasons
    allows him to continue. Tahoe`s presence will become an
    increasing nightmare until November, regardless of us feeding
    or not feeding him. After that, if we are lucky, he`ll simply
    disappear.
    I`ll never miss him.

    Reply

  14. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Hmm. DeLay, eh?
    Hey I Steve, I gotta know….
    Does he lift one leg, or does he squat?

    Reply

  15. eberit says:

    Dear POA,
    I appreciate your passion but I fear for your blood pressure and the cockroach is still kicking…starvation is my recommendation.
    Live to fight on brother.

    Reply

  16. Dan Kervick says:

    Kotzabasis,
    You live on the opposite side of the world from America, and have been wrong about most of the political advice you have offered in the past. Please don’t imagine that you have any insight at all into what will have “maximum appeal for many Americans.” I would suggest you are thoroughly out of touch with what is going on here in the United States, and that the country’s broad and profound disillusionment with George Bush has lead to a condition of utter impatience with folksy and unprepared rubes like Sarah Palin.
    The Bush/Palin act doesn’t work anymore.

    Reply

  17. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Listen, Tahoe. Do you think the rest of the readers here don’t notice you’re dissembling and treading water? Who gives a flyin’ **ck what Brokaw says, Tahoe? You have been asked to provide SPECIFIC substantiation, for SPECIFIC assertions you’ve made. AND YOU CAN’T DO IT.
    And do you really think the readers here missed seeing you purposely attribute a statement to me that I didn’t make? THAT MAKES YOU A BLATANT, AND KNOWN LIAR, Tahoe. Hows that contribute to your credibility, jackass?
    Look, friend of Steve’s or not, Tahoe, you’re nothing but a lyin’ scumbag troll, force feeding us a script. And judging by the commentary here, everyone posting here realizes it.

    Reply

  18. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I would like to see a serious discussion here on the issues so DO NOT FEED THE TROLL”
    Some very “serious” links HAVE been posted here, and SPECIFIC queries have been directed towards this jackass troll Tahoe. The Troopergate issue is a picture perfect history of the kind of governance we can expect of Sarah Palin. It answers ALL the questions we need to know. Is she a liar? Yes, irrefutably. Does she abuse powers she is given? Yes, irrefutably. Does she engage in cronyism? Yes, irrefutably. Need I go on?
    Truth is, Eberit, this pathetic troll, Tahoe NEEDS to be fed. His bullshit here NEEDS to be countered and addressed, as it is the EXACT same horseshit that Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Levin, and a dozen other scumball rovian mouthpieces are blathering out to their ignorant audiences in volumnous amounts.
    You do it your way, and others will do it their way. Me, I prefer to rub Tahoe’s nose in his piles of shit. Unfortunately, that means I might get some on me. But hey, thats ok, its haaaard work killing cockroaches.

    Reply

  19. Tahoe Editor says:

    Hey Bacteria Mouth, are you still accusing Sarah of faking her pregnancy? Do you think the Down baby being passed around for GOP blessings was a doll? Did you hear Tom Brokaw calling your scandal less than a speed bump? I know you’ve been desperately waiting for me to respond. I like to make you wait, “Jackass.”
    Let’s move on up to St. Sarah.
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/09/saint_sarah_bea/

    Reply

  20. PissedOffAmerican says:

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/
    Palin Aide Dodges Trooper-Gate Deposition
    By Zachary Roth – September 3, 2008, 5:17PM
    As if we needed another sign that Sarah Palin has decided to stonewall the Trooper-Gate investigation, ABC News reports this afternoon that lawyers for her aide Frank Bailey have cancelled Bailey’s scheduled deposition in the investigation .
    Bailey is central to the case. In phone recordings released last month as part of a parallel probe by the state Attorney General, Bailey suggested that Palin and her husband wanted trooper Mike Wooten — who has been embroiled in a messy family dispute with the Palins — removed from his job.
    “The Palins can’t figure out why nothing’s going on,” Bailey told a trooper official. “I mean he’s declared bankruptcy, his finances are a complete disaster, he’s bought a new truck. All kinds of crazy stuff. He doesn’t represent the department well. The community knows it, but no action is being taken.”
    This is by no means the first instance of foot-dragging on the legislature’s investigation from Palin’s camp since she was announced last week as John McCain’s running mate. In a complaint filed last night to the Alaska Attorney General, Palin’s lawyer suggested that Palin would not be made available for her deposition unless the investigation was taken out of the hands of the legislature and handed over to the state personnel board, who’s three members are appointed by the governor. Sen. Hollis French, the Anchorage Democrat overseeing the probe, has said that he is willing to issue subpoenas if necessary.

    Reply

  21. kotzabasis says:

    Your irritation, which you attempt to cover with your comical ‘neighbourly’ non sequiturs, with Palin’s politically savvy and cogent speech to the Convention with its great potential to have maximum appeal for many Americans shows that you are steeply sliding from the high point of your confidence of a Democrat victory to the low point of the latter’s defeat.

    Reply

  22. PissedOffAmerican says:

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/
    Palin As Reformer? Not Quite…
    By Kate Klonick and Zachary Roth – September 3, 2008, 8:53PM
    As we get ready for the big Sarah Palin speech tonight, it’s worth taking a moment to step back from the charges of negligent vetting and media sexism, to focus on what really should be the heart of the issue.
    The McCain campaign has presented Palin as a squeaky-clean reformer, who took on corruption in Alaska, and will help to bring a new brand of politics to Washington. But a flurry of reports over the last few days significantly undercut that image.
    To be sure, Palin’s claims to be a reformer aren’t toally without merit. Before becoming governor, she went after the state GOP chair, Randy Ruedrich, for doing work for the party on public time and working closely with a company he was supposed to be regulating. She also filed a formal complaint against Attorney General Gregg Renkes for having investments in an energy company that stood to benefit from a state trade deal. Both Ruedrich and Renkes ultimately resigned their posts, and Ruedrich paid a $12,000 fine.
    But let’s look at the other side of the ledger. Both as mayor of Wasilla and as governor, Palin has aggressively sought federal earmarks, and has a friendlier relationship with indicted GOP senator Ted Stevens than one would expect for a good-government crusader. She has fired employees who she sees as disloyal. And, in a move reminiscent of the Bush-Cheney White House, she has stonewalled legitimate efforts by the legislature to uncover the truth in the Trooper-Gate affair.
    Here’s a sampling of reports that complicate Palin’s reformist credentials:
    Last year, Palin requested more earmarks per person than any other state — including some that were criticized by McCain himself.
    Even as mayor of Wasilla, Palin’s pursuit of earmarks was aggressive. She oversaw the hiring of a Washington lobbyist — who, as we reported yesterday, had ties to Jack Abramoff — to go after federal pork.
    And though Palin touted her opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere” just last week in her debut speech, she initially supported the project during her run for governor. It was only after the bridge became notorious as an example of pork barrel spending that she changed her position.
    In her run for governor, Palin was endorsed by now-indicted Sen. Ted Stevens. Video of the endorsement has been removed from her government website, but the two appeared together just two months ago at a press conference on energy. The friendly relationship between the embattled senator, who is accused of lying about gifts he recieved from an oil contractor, and the supposedly maverick governor is at odds with Palin’s claim to dismantling the “old boys club” of Alaska government.
    As Wasilla mayor, Palin reportedly fired the police chief and attempted to fire the librarian, because she did not feel that she had their “full support in [her] efforts to govern the city of Wasilla.” Former city officials allege that the attempts to remove the librarian were a result of her her refusal to censor books at Palin’s request.
    Palin has been at the center of the Trooper-Gate scandal that alleges misuse of her gubernatorial power. The affair erupted in July when Palin fired the Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. Monegan later claimed his firing was a result of his refusal to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law and trooper Mike Wooten. Palin denied that she, her husband or her staff ever pressured Monegan, a statement she later had to retract when recorded phone calls revealed one of her aides, Frank Bailey, had called a troopers office pushing for Wooten’s removal.
    Tonight, the Washington Post published emails from Palin to Monegan in which she appeared to complain that Wooten was still employed, apparently undercutting her claim that she discussed Wooten with Monegan only in the context of the security of her family.
    As a result of the Trooper-Gate allegations, an independent investigator has been appointed by the state legislature. In recent days, Palin has appeared to stonewall the probe. Her lawyer argued in a complaint filed last night that she wold not be made available for her deposition unless the probe were handed over to the state personnel board, whose members are appointed by the governor. Bailey, who had been suspended by Palin with pay for his actions, today backed out of his deposition.
    In a separate civil suit related to Wooten, Palin has claimed executive privilege on over a thousand emails between her and her staff, including Bailey.

    Reply

  23. eberit says:

    Steve and fellow concerned citizens…something has gone haywire here with the trolls pushing the tone. These are serious times. I lived in Alaska for 22 years until late 2006 and I am aware of this woman…..be very wary. That said, stay away from the high school gossip it only plays into the game.
    I would like to see a serious discussion here on the issues so DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.

    Reply

  24. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Her views may be repugnant, but Sara Palin kicked some serious ass tonight”
    Only if you’re a moron. I can’t believe this is happening. Its like a comic book. Anyone that heard her speak tonight and thinks its OK to hand her the reins of the VP slot, with its unspeakable power, is a complete and utter idiot. Or nothing but a mouthpiece for an out of control GOP. Or, in Tahoe or Wigwag’s case, both.
    If you want to see how EMPTY this jackass Tahoe’s support of Palin is, just ask him a specific and fact based question about troopergate.

    Reply

  25. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gee, Tahoe, you musta missed it when I asked you to substantiate your bullshit. Heres the request aqgain. I’m sure you will have no problem provibng to this forum that you aren’t the slimey dishonest and dissembling RW troll I’ve always accused you of being. Come on, Tahoe, show us you have an ounce of integrity…
    Please show us your sources that show irrefutable proof that the state trooper was a “wife beater”, or that anything the trooper did warranted firing. Just because you, an internet troll and slimey lyin’ GOP mouthpiece say something is so, doesn’t mean theres any truth to it. In fact, if it rolls off your keyboard, its probably horseshit.
    So go ahead, Tahoe, put your money where your oily dissembling mouth is. Show us credible information that the safety conmmissioner that Palin fired had credible and legal cause to fire the state trooper, or that the state trooper has in fact been proven to be a “wife beater”.
    Truth is, you are nothing more than a mouth, drooling out Hannity crap and Limbaughism’s 12 to 15 hours a day.
    Even the judge that presided over the divorce proceedings was flabbergasted at the vindictiveness of the attack on the trooper. Now would this judge have been swo sympathetic to a “wife beater”? Doubtful.
    http://jonathan–singer.mydd.com/story/2008/9/2/02019/17796
    But hey, Tahoe, prove me wrong. Lets see whatcha got.

    Reply

  26. Tahoe Editor says:

    I think the McCain-didn’t-know-Bristol-was-preggers-meme can be put to rest now!
    “a transformative leader” — you know, like ZERO said Ronald Reagan was. He had all the ideas, and was a more “transformative leader” than Bill Clinton. (Hillary tried to remind us that they were bad ideas, but ZERO was deep into his uniter-not-a-divider shtick.)
    “The Republican Party establishment has just breathed a gigantic sigh of relief.” — David Brooks
    “Joe Biden has met his match.” — Candy Crowley
    “people didn’t know what to do with Trig” — ha, they knew EXACTLY what to do with Trig. Pass him around and let everyone love him, including Cindy McCain. Preaching about Piper’s posture while she holds her brother continues the spouting off about Sarah’s birth choices. You all have no idea what to do now, do you?
    the attack dog: hockey mom = pit bull with lipstick
    30 years ago No-Change Biden voted AGAINST the Alaska Pipeline.
    Maybe the 21st century Alinsky candidate wasn’t the way to go after all.
    JohnH: offering Paula Joes as evidence for Palin’s scandals. Does it matter? Bill served two terms.
    ZERO got burned belittling small-town America behind closed San Francisco doors. Do you really think you’re helping his cause by doing it in public?
    Mr.Murder — don’t worry about FISA, ZERO already raped it for you.
    Jason — give it up. She was against the bridge before anyone else, and that’s what matters.
    WigWag — spot on. Hillary is the only person who could whip Sarah in a debate. Too bad she was Changeâ„¢ We Can’t Believeâ„¢ In.

    Other applause lines:
    “I am so tired of hearing about her lack of experience. I want to tell you folks something. She got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden got for running for president of the United States.” — Huckabee
    “I have one last suggestion for energy conservation. Let’s keep Al Gore’s private jet on the ground.” — Romney
    “For president of the United States, it’s not good enough to be “present” — you have to make a decision. A few years later, he ran for the U.S. Senate. He spent most of his time as a celebrity senator: NO LEADERSHIP, NO LEGISLATION TO REALLY SPEAK OF [ZERO!]. His rise is remarkable in its own right. It’s the kind of thing that can happen only in America.” — Rudy

    Peggy has a new top on her column, apologizing for her “barnyard ephithet”: Open Mic Night at MSNBC
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122044753790594947.html?mod=todays_columnists
    Her most salient point: “The choice of Sarah Palin IS a Hail Mary pass, the pass the guy who thinks he has a good arm makes to the receiver he hopes is gifted. Most Hail Mary passes don’t work. But when they do they’re a thing of beauty and a joy forever. She could become a transformative political presence. So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick.”

    You not only have to kill her, you have to kill her gorgeous family, including a Down syndrome baby and a pregnant teen. Bristol’s pregnancy will continue to be a metaphor until November. Should we let it live and join a supportive family? or should we chase it down the alley to the dumpster behind the hospital and make sure it dies?
    http://townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/GlennMcCoy/2008/08/10
    ZERO can officially retire “That’s Not Changeâ„¢.” What else ya got?
    http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?image=3&topicid=114

    Reply

  27. JohnH says:

    Dan, you sell yourself short. If Bush was qualified, you’re qualified. In fact, anybody can grow up to be President, as long as they’ve got the right sugar-daddies, Roves, and PR firms.
    But I digress–when will Sarah Palin tell John McCain to stop whining about media coverage?

    Reply

  28. Linda says:

    Just what I expected as she’s given speeches before and was trained in broadcast journalism. But in case nobody noticed it, the Religious Right has been grooming a lot of women candidates for a number of years.
    They aren’t repugnant views to her but the true word of God telling her that life must be protected from the moment of conception and therefore, abortion is a sin and the taking of a sacred human life even if the conception is the result of brutal rape or incest. They are policy goals and statements.
    She has a right to her religious views, but she doesn’t have a right to make them public policy and law for those who believe otherwise.
    Biden will have to debate in JFK mode as a Catholic who believes in separation of church and state, but Hillary also is going to need to get out there and campaign for women for choice, separation of church and state, and for privacy that limits government from intruding on personal family life and keeps it out of women’s wombs.

    Reply

  29. Dan Kervick says:

    My God! Somebody needs to tell Sarah Palin and her handlers she’s running for Vice President of the United States, not the PTA. Does she actually think that protecting the security of my son, and every son and daughter in America, and overseeing the most potent economy on Earth, is just sorta, kinda like being on the PTA, or being mayor of a small Alaskan city, or making sandwiches for an away high school hockey game? Does she think her husband Todd can do it, because he’s a great sled dog driver and all-around tough dude?
    Sarah Palin looks just like some of my neighbors. And I like and respect my neighbors. But you know what? I don’t want my neighbors to be vice president. They’re not qualified. I’m not qualified either. My wife isn’t qualified. The president of my company is not qualified. The first selectman of my town is not qualified. Neither is the head of our school board or the fire chief. These are all fine and wonderful people, the salt of the earth and the backbone of America. But they are not vice presidential material. They are not prepared to step in at a moment’s notice to manage the complex and far-flung global affairs of one of the most powerful and economically advanced nations in the history of the world. They are not prepared to swim with the sharpest and most ruthless sharks on the planet, people who have been 100 times around blocks that Sarah Palin has never seen nor dreamt of.
    The United States is facing a world of troubles. We need the best we’ve got, not just someone who is decent and sorta OK, and just about the same as the rest of us. Is the United States of America now just the United Neighborhoods of Lake Woebegone, where all the men are strong, all the women are good looking, and all the politicians are above average?
    I shudder to think what our allies are thinking, all those people in Germany and Japan and Canada and England and Israel an d South Korea who are actually counting on the power, wisdom and skill of the United States to protect them and to preserve global security, and maintain the global economy. They just got a big “Howdy neighbor, and fuck you!” from the Republican Party. We just told them we think any old hockey mom or little league dad can guide the global affairs on which their lives and well-being depend. If the United States were a public corporation, it’s stock would collapse at the opening bell tomorrow.
    I have no fear that we need to walk on political eggshells around the preposterous Sarah Palin Phenomenon, or worry about some idiotic populist love affair with Palin. Americans are fairly bright and practical people. And part of being bright and practical is having the sense to know the difference between the jobs that you can do yourself, and the jobs for which you need to call in other people. For almost all of us, Vice President of the United States falls into the second category. But not, apparently, for a small group of damn fool Republican yahoos. They’re the kind of folk who would try to fix their own gas lines with a hammer and a screwdrive, and blow their families up.
    Look at what these Republicans think about the sheer idiocy of the American people! The Democrats ran a woman who was the top student in her class at Wellesley, an accomplished lawyer and member of the Watergate investigative team, a national party leader and key figure in a one of the most powerful political machines we’ve ever seen, a much-traveled global ambassador, and a Senator from New York But according to the Republicans, Sarah Palin is an equivalent response. “Hey gee whiz, Sarah’s jess’ like Hillary! She’s a gal … and she’s got a jowb. So what’s the diff’runce?”
    What an insulting and degrading performance. How much lower can the Republicans go in their debasement of American government into some sort of tawdry reality show and confidence game for low-life political hacks They appear to have NO REMAINING RESPECT FOR AMERICA! Have they no sense of shame? Enough with these nitwits!

    Reply

  30. WigWag says:

    Her views may be repugnant, but Sara Palin kicked some serious ass tonight. She is a far better speaker than Biden. She is more willing to attack Obama than Biden is willing to attack McCain. Despite their difference in experience I wouldn’t be surprised in Palin holds her own in a debate with Biden.
    Hillary would have whipped Palin in a debate. It’s too bad that Senator Obama didn’t think there were any women qualified enough to be Vice President

    Reply

  31. Jason says:

    I’m surprised she repeated the line that she was
    against the bridge to Alaska after the stories
    that she was for it until it was clear it would be
    killed. It reopens a line of “Well, actually…”
    stories I hope comes out.

    Reply

  32. DonS says:

    there is an awful lot of rah rah America, rah rah more energy; an awful lot of petty, condescending, mocking lines, bring gaudy applause to gaudy applause lines. Truly an embarrassment. Plays well with this red meat Republican audience — doing quite well for the most part. Too bad the rest of us, not part of this mass denial, live in a different reality.
    What a chauvinistic, embarrassing, ignorant performance.

    Reply

  33. rich says:

    DonS,
    Couldn’t agree more. Some unbelievably lackluster speakers, and I don’t doubt downplaying the whole production is intentional. I wouldn’t want a lot of attention either.
    But think about how brightly Sarah Palin is shining after that endless line of bad speakers with bland lines and nothing to say about wrongheaded policies. Palin just ascended beyond Rudy, Mitt . .. .
    She may not be honest. She may not have great policies. She won’t be great for America. But she’s obviously a highly skilled politician and plenty of folks’ll just plain eat this up.
    This will be interesting. And the outcome is clearly in doubt.
    “There are those that use Change to promote their careers; and then there are those who use their careers to promote Change.”
    Anybody got a retort? I sure hope so.

    Reply

  34. Mr.Murder says:

    She fumbled again, the ‘reading terorists their rights’ item, when even the bare minimum threshold of FISA was raped, is something that is World Court material.
    Whoever got her off the reform message, and filled her speech with the usual agitprop, needs to be fired.

    Reply

  35. Mr.Murder says:

    The melodrama(booing democrats at their mention) is pretty petty, it hardens voters who could otherwise listen to what would be said.
    RNC, still flunking high school debate class.

    Reply

  36. rich says:

    Anybody watching Sarah Barracuda?
    This is a Home Run.
    You’re watching the future President Palin.
    The husband schtick is particularly effective. Fisherman, snowmobile champ (Nascar), union member, indigenous — “he’s still my guy.”
    Repubs are doing a Clintonian ‘end welfare as we know it’ here—added to the PTA hockey mom thing. “Difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick!” She’s not gonna have to plead for votes.
    Giuliana, though, stated Palin has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket. If Biden can’t out-charm her, he’s done.
    “I guess a small-town mayor is like a community organizer, only with actual responsibilities.”
    Senator Obama had better bring his A-game.
    As I predicted, Palin is running against the Washington elite—and slaying the complaint she lacks sufficient experience. If people like her, saying she’s the Gov of a “small” state like Alaska or the Mayor of Wasilla isn’t gonna be an indictment, but rather a recommendation.
    She’s coming across very persuasively.

    Reply

  37. What Grief Is Good? says:

    I’m forcing myself to watch Sarah Palin. And I too am a
    registered Republican.
    Bristol has blown up since her pregnancy announcement — just
    a few days ago her breasts were normal size for a slightly fat
    teen and so was her belly. Now, less than five days later, Bristol
    has beyond Pam Anderson boobs, and a stomach that would
    rival Santa Claus.
    They keep passing Trig around — the “dad” Todd just handed
    Trig, a four-month-old to the smallest daughter, who I think is
    around six. Piper didn’t know what to do with Trig.
    But anyone who’s been around an infant that age knows that
    you have to support the baby’s neck. Piper, being all of six,
    looks like she just let Trig’s neck fall.
    Family values?
    This election seriously much me some kind of cosmic joke.
    Now Piper is stroking Trig’s soft spots. The ones that if you
    touch with any kind of pressure can damage a child for life.
    FOLKS — THE PARTY OF “FAMILY VALUES” IS LETTING A SIX YEAR
    OLD PLAY WITH HER DOWN SYNDROME “BROTHER” AS IF HE
    WERE HER DOLL, while her Mom talks about “family values.”
    This is some kind of joke.
    By the way, Palin’s already met with AIPAC. She knows what flag
    to pledge allegiance to.

    Reply

  38. JohnH says:

    Tahoe–So now you’re a fan of Bill Clinton, who constantly skated as close to the water as he could get? Well some of that “petty Little Rock politics” eventually came back to bite him–Paula Jones, Monica, etc. Or are you so full of denial that you can’t recognize that where there’s smoke, there just might be fire?

    Reply

  39. Dan Kervick says:

    My guess is that any attempt to turn Palin into the “attack dog” will seriously, seriously backfire. The Republicans’ challenge is to take someone who is seen by many as a grossly unprepared local politician, with no discernible interest in, or knowledge of, foreign policy, and present her as a statesman for her first major turn on the national stage. If she goes negative and sarcastic, and attempts to demean Obama, she will just look undignified as well as unprepared, and like someone pathetically punching above her weight class.
    Palin can’t be like Joe Biden. Biden is the chair of the Senate FRC, and is an old Washington hand. He’s built up statesmanship cred over many years, and thus can get into the partisan fight without losing that standing overnight.
    Obama, on the other hand, is the one without the experience, so he has always tried to stay dignified, serious, relaxed and above the fay.
    With all due respect to Palin’s attractive small town virtues and working mom rep, the vice presidency is not the Wasilla PTA. The Republicans desperately need to elevate Palin, not make her look like an ordinary local yokel pol.

    Reply

  40. DonS says:

    the thugs are indeed acting like the big underdogs and pulling out all the stops. Their speakers are truly embarrassing in their pandering to one lower rung after another.
    Pass me a beer.

    Reply

  41. Tahoe Editor says:

    “Think petty Little Rock politics. Remember all those little Little Rock politics that we thought would trip up Bill Clinton? That’s what this has a feel of.” —Chuck Todd

    Reply

  42. JohnH says:

    As I said above, Democrats should sit back, grab a beer, and enjoy this season’s best sit-com. The next episode is about to begin:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/mccain-camp-battles-natio_n_123696.html
    Tahoe, did you like the National Enquirer’s coverage of the John Edwards affair? Then you’ll love the Palin one!

    Reply

  43. thetruth says:

    Andrew Sullivan has an excellent piece about how badly Palin did as mayor of Wasillan, including book bannings, attempted firing of librarians and police chiefs, and procuring multiple earmarks, all the while needing to hire a $60,000/year administrator to actually run the city for her (something no previous mayor had needed to do).
    She also left the city $22 million in debt, none of which existed before her term.
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/an-wasillan-on.html
    —-
    And then, Joe Klein also has an excellent piece completely dismantling the sound and fury of the McCain pushback against the public and press scrutiny of Palin. He calls the McCain campaign “Angry Amateurs”. Great stuff:
    http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/angry_amateurs.html

    Reply

  44. Mr.Murder says:

    Maybe Obama can get her name off the ballot, that’s usually how he deals with women in politics.

    Reply

  45. DonS says:

    The right village falls into line, or, Palin will not be pulled anytime soon:
    “Scarborough, Buchanan completely reverse positions on Palin in just four days”
    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/03/scarborough-buchanan-completely-reverse-positions-on-palin-in-just-four-days/
    Will the rest of the media be so compliant, as is their wont?

    Reply

  46. Mr.Murder says:

    ‘Cynical’ is the new Axelrod meme.
    This place is getting into the Kerry-Edwards forum turf. A big circular firing jerk squad.
    How’d that fight for every vote thing go?
    Remember, twelve hundred bucks back from big oil and gas to every Alaskan. Think of that being the VP.
    Can I roll the red carpet out for you?
    Did Murphy Brown ever have to buy gas? Was she really just a Limo Lib?
    Can’t we just all use demon ethanol? That’s why Barack got the Iowa machine behind him…

    Reply

  47. Tahoe Editor says:

    OMG! It’s totally not The Age Of New Politics that The O will usher in in 60 days! GOP has no clue LOL!

    Reply

  48. DonS says:

    “Palin to slam Obama in speech”
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/palin.speech/index.html
    Gosh, I thought she’d focus on global warming.
    Excerpts from speech show a mean, confrontational, affronted, in your face approach. More adjectives to follow.
    Karl is proud.

    Reply

  49. Tahoe Editor says:

    “My campaign staff is bigger than her mayoral staff.” —Barack Obama
    “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer. Except that you have actual responsibilities.” —Sarah Palin
    We’ll see if it works. There’s a media backlash that’s been building since before the snows of Iowa.

    Reply

  50. YY says:

    Global warming or climate change for the uninals?

    Reply

  51. DonS says:

    I got the memo from Karl. Wait for the cameras do do a real tight shot of Bristol with BF, along will commentary (doesn’t matter what). Then start screaming some more about UNFAIR, SEXISM, BLAH BLAH BLAH.
    Repub strategy at this point, sad as it is to say so, is all controversy, all the time. Forget the hearts and minds, win the raw emotions of the purile American voters. Question is whether even the American voter is this vapid.

    Reply

  52. Chris says:

    Of *course* there’s sizzle at the RNC about the Palin pick, Steve. She’s a conservative wacko who likes to abuse power to reshape her political environment, and that’s what we’ve had for the last eight years of Bush/Cheney/etc., and that’s what the conventioneers *want* to continue doing to the country.
    If I have to come back with a list of all the examples because you were off listening to Steve Schmidt whine about the mean old media, I’m going to be very, very disappointed.

    Reply

  53. N says:

    I still can’t believe how badly McCain dropped the ball on this one.
    If Republicans are honest with themselves, they’ll realize how short-sighted and cynical this choice was. Peggy Noonan realized it, but she could only bring herself to say it when she thought no one was listening. It’s a shame – politics always comes first.

    Reply

  54. JohnH says:

    McCain dislikes staying on message and has trouble doing it. Palin is obviously used to speaking her mind, and her ability to stay on message has never been tested in a high pressure environment, which is probably why she’s confined to speechifying. Plus, McCain’s bursts of temper and petulance can get him into trouble visually and verbally.
    Looks like we have two loose cannons ready to crash into each other or through the hull, sinking the ship.
    Democrats should sit back, grab a beer, and enjoy this season’s best sit-com…

    Reply

  55. Dan Kervick says:

    Ok, Steve, you asked for it. And you must already know the next question: Does the former speaker from the party of TR DeLay carry a big stick, or is he all bluster?

    Reply

  56. DonS says:

    McCain and surrogates are in a full court press to intimidate, well, the press. Real Orwellian up is downism. Will this just piss off the press? Or make them back off?
    Its intimidation to cover up “gimick-gate”.
    McCain team screams that Palin’s family life is PRIVATE. Then McCain hugs up to redneck boy, and gonna have him on stage.
    What’s the 24 hour switcheroo story line? “The press made me do it”? “Real social conservative American families don’t have to practice what they preach”? “Abortion rights advocates promoted this environment of permissive behavior”?
    Can’t wait for more McCain/Rove desperation.

    Reply

  57. Beth in VA says:

    Damn, wierdest name drop ever:
    “In fact, I stood at a urinal next to Tom DeLay today at the St. Paul Hotel as we, well, you know. . .into a bunch of ice.”

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *