Time for Palin to Bow Out?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

There is another thread on this. Her answers show funadmental lack of comprehension on any crucial issue facing this nation. Have you been listening to her speak? Beyond that, she’s no fiscally conservative reformer. Her record in Wasilla is atrocious. Her record as governor is not much better.

In Wasilla, she ran up a $20 million debt. Brokered an atrocious sports complex deal that cost the city millions and led to protracted litigation and costs additional millions because she failed to determine whether the city had title to the land. And it didn’t.

As governor, the pipeline deal she brokered is also in very real danger of failing because she failed to include an important constiutency in the negotiations (the Native Americans) who have very good grounds to defeat the deal. She campaigned for and received millions in pork. She championed for the Bridge to Nowhere often and loudly until it became clear it would be political suicide.

There is just SO much more that is wrong with this women. She simply has no redeeming qualities and would be the worst president I could imagine.

Congrats on the cherry picking and half truths. Just keep posting this over and over again. How many times is this now? 4 or 5?

No one has yet offered an adequate response. You want to be the one who does?

Probably becuase it is so obviously dishonest. I usually wouldn’t spend much time responding to something as weak as this but I can be the first one if you would like. Probalby won’t be today[/quote]

Don’t worried about it. I’ve done a lot of digging on Palin. I’m pretty dissappointed in her record as governor and mayor. Her disingenuousness, cluelessness, etc…We don’t have to argue about it.

82

[quote]dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

That’s why he’s not running for president. Substantively, he’s ok. Otherwise not so much. It’s precisely these ‘gaffes’ which actually have been publicized and are known to the public that are his greatest failing. Anyhow, the point is that Biden’s been around for years. His vies are known. His qualifications speak for themselves. And his pros and cons are known. Sarah Palin is a newcomer on the scene. Her views and fundamental understanding of the issues she would be facing as VP or president are just being explored. And her record as mayor and governor is just coming to light as well. It’s not pretty.

I agree with most of this but it is really tit for tat. The complaints you have of Palin as VP are the same one you should have of Obama for POTUS. Obama has had a chance to work through his naivete` in the primaries. I can show you clips of him looking much worse than Palin.

You have to remember that we have essentially two tickets to choose from. It is easy to level criticizm at any one of them, but if you truly do want to be intellectually honest, you have to assess them relative to the only real alternative.

I have many qualms about Obama. He’s far too liberal for my tastes. And I agree that he’s looked bad in many an interview. But never have I found him so fundamentally uninformed and lacking as Palin. I prefer him to Palin. What do you mean by ‘the only real alternative?’

I mean we don’t have the luxury of a third party that stands a chance.[/quote]

Agreed

83

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

That’s why he’s not running for president. Substantively, he’s ok. Otherwise not so much. It’s precisely these ‘gaffes’ which actually have been publicized and are known to the public that are his greatest failing. Anyhow, the point is that Biden’s been around for years. His vies are known. His qualifications speak for themselves. And his pros and cons are known. Sarah Palin is a newcomer on the scene. Her views and fundamental understanding of the issues she would be facing as VP or president are just being explored. And her record as mayor and governor is just coming to light as well. It’s not pretty.

I agree with most of this but it is really tit for tat. The complaints you have of Palin as VP are the same one you should have of Obama for POTUS. Obama has had a chance to work through his naivete` in the primaries. I can show you clips of him looking much worse than Palin.

You have to remember that we have essentially two tickets to choose from. It is easy to level criticizm at any one of them, but if you truly do want to be intellectually honest, you have to assess them relative to the only real alternative.

I have many qualms about Obama. He’s far too liberal for my tastes. And I agree that he’s looked bad in many an interview. But never have I found him so fundamentally uninformed and lacking as Palin. I prefer him to Palin. What do you mean by ‘the only real alternative?’[/quote]

Did you not watch the O’Riley (sp?) interview? The guy was lost - especially when he had to defend his vote against The Surge.

His philosophy on soaking the rich was pathetic - made him look very, very bad.

And McCain schooling him on foreign policy should have been a clue to anyone with a functioning brain that the only thing Opie has on Palin is a sycophantic supporting press, and ability to handle himself in an interview.

I guess all this shit is subjective, but geez - to say that he is not fundamentally uninformed?

84

[quote]rainjack wrote:
<<< the only thing Opie has on Palin is a sycophantic supporting press, and ability to handle himself in an interview.

I guess all this shit is subjective, but geez - to say that he is not fundamentally uninformed?

[/quote]

Pretty Much.

I don’t even find him that engaging or charismatic. With Clinton it was a lot easier to understand why a substance-less weakling was gaining all this support.

His strength is NOT being a Republican.

85

New thread title:

Time for VP Debate “Moderator” to Bow Out?

or

Biased Debate Moderator in Tank for Obama

VP debate moderator Ifill releasing pro-Obama book
Focuses on blacks who are ‘forging a bold new path to political power’

The moderator of tomorrow’s vice-presidential debate is writing a book to come out on the day the next president takes the oath of office that aims to “shed new light” on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and other “emerging young African American politicians” who are “forging a bold new path to political power.”

Full Story:

87

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

That’s why he’s not running for president. Substantively, he’s ok. Otherwise not so much. It’s precisely these ‘gaffes’ which actually have been publicized and are known to the public that are his greatest failing. Anyhow, the point is that Biden’s been around for years. His vies are known. His qualifications speak for themselves. And his pros and cons are known. Sarah Palin is a newcomer on the scene. Her views and fundamental understanding of the issues she would be facing as VP or president are just being explored. And her record as mayor and governor is just coming to light as well. It’s not pretty.

I agree with most of this but it is really tit for tat. The complaints you have of Palin as VP are the same one you should have of Obama for POTUS. Obama has had a chance to work through his naivete` in the primaries. I can show you clips of him looking much worse than Palin.

You have to remember that we have essentially two tickets to choose from. It is easy to level criticizm at any one of them, but if you truly do want to be intellectually honest, you have to assess them relative to the only real alternative.

I have many qualms about Obama. He’s far too liberal for my tastes. And I agree that he’s looked bad in many an interview. But never have I found him so fundamentally uninformed and lacking as Palin. I prefer him to Palin. What do you mean by ‘the only real alternative?’

Did you not watch the O’Riley (sp?) interview? The guy was lost - especially when he had to defend his vote against The Surge.

His philosophy on soaking the rich was pathetic - made him look very, very bad.

And McCain schooling him on foreign policy should have been a clue to anyone with a functioning brain that the only thing Opie has on Palin is a sycophantic supporting press, and ability to handle himself in an interview.

I guess all this shit is subjective, but geez - to say that he is not fundamentally uninformed?

[/quote]

Hey, Obama’s no prize. Never said he was. Obama looked bad in the O’Reilly interview. Partly because O’Reilly kept interrupting and wouldn’t let him speak. But he still made himself look bad with what he did say. The Surge talk looked to me like bad poltics. Doesn’t seem to me it demonstrates lack of understanding. He just doesn’t want to admit that he made a mistake and that it has been effective. It’s a bad decision. He could still maintain that we should not have started a war in Iraq in the first place and acknowledge that the Surge has done good. I definitely agree that McCain schooled him on the debate. Certainly on foreign policy issues. But I don’t know how you can be watching what I’m watching over the last several weeks with both Obama and Palin and conclude that he is as clueless and naive as she is. I guess there’s nothing more to say about that…

88

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
New thread title:

Time for VP Debate “Moderator” to Bow Out?

or

Biased Debate Moderator in Tank for Obama

VP debate moderator Ifill releasing pro-Obama book
Focuses on blacks who are ‘forging a bold new path to political power’

The moderator of tomorrow’s vice-presidential debate is writing a book to come out on the day the next president takes the oath of office that aims to “shed new light” on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and other “emerging young African American politicians” who are “forging a bold new path to political power.”

Full Story:

[/quote]

Probably should bow out. Who screens these people?

89

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
New thread title:

Time for VP Debate “Moderator” to Bow Out?

or

Biased Debate Moderator in Tank for Obama

VP debate moderator Ifill releasing pro-Obama book
Focuses on blacks who are ‘forging a bold new path to political power’

The moderator of tomorrow’s vice-presidential debate is writing a book to come out on the day the next president takes the oath of office that aims to “shed new light” on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and other “emerging young African American politicians” who are “forging a bold new path to political power.”

Full Story:

Probably should bow out. Who screens these people?[/quote]

Not when we have Mccain saying he doesn’t know anything about a book and that he’s sure whoever moderates will be fair. I don’t know how this guy can have been in DC this long and be this naive.

90

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

That’s why he’s not running for president. Substantively, he’s ok. Otherwise not so much. It’s precisely these ‘gaffes’ which actually have been publicized and are known to the public that are his greatest failing. Anyhow, the point is that Biden’s been around for years. His vies are known. His qualifications speak for themselves. And his pros and cons are known. Sarah Palin is a newcomer on the scene. Her views and fundamental understanding of the issues she would be facing as VP or president are just being explored. And her record as mayor and governor is just coming to light as well. It’s not pretty.

I agree with most of this but it is really tit for tat. The complaints you have of Palin as VP are the same one you should have of Obama for POTUS. Obama has had a chance to work through his naivete` in the primaries. I can show you clips of him looking much worse than Palin.

You have to remember that we have essentially two tickets to choose from. It is easy to level criticizm at any one of them, but if you truly do want to be intellectually honest, you have to assess them relative to the only real alternative.

I have many qualms about Obama. He’s far too liberal for my tastes. And I agree that he’s looked bad in many an interview. But never have I found him so fundamentally uninformed and lacking as Palin. I prefer him to Palin. What do you mean by ‘the only real alternative?’

Did you not watch the O’Riley (sp?) interview? The guy was lost - especially when he had to defend his vote against The Surge.

His philosophy on soaking the rich was pathetic - made him look very, very bad.

And McCain schooling him on foreign policy should have been a clue to anyone with a functioning brain that the only thing Opie has on Palin is a sycophantic supporting press, and ability to handle himself in an interview.

I guess all this shit is subjective, but geez - to say that he is not fundamentally uninformed?

Hey, Obama’s no prize. Never said he was. Obama looked bad in the O’Reilly interview. Partly because O’Reilly kept interrupting and wouldn’t let him speak. But he still made himself look bad with what he did say. The Surge talk looked to me like bad poltics. Doesn’t seem to me it demonstrates lack of understanding. He just doesn’t want to admit that he made a mistake and that it has been effective. It’s a bad decision. He could still maintain that we should not have started a war in Iraq in the first place and acknowledge that the Surge has done good. I definitely agree that McCain schooled him on the debate. Certainly on foreign policy issues. But I don’t know how you can be watching what I’m watching over the last several weeks with both Obama and Palin and conclude that he is as clueless and naive as she is. I guess there’s nothing more to say about that…[/quote]

I don’t remember you defending Palin over the “Bush Doctrine” ambush, or any of Couric’s bitch moves.

For the most part O’Riley served up very simple questions - nothing anywhere ner as specific as Palin was asked, yet you want to defend Obama because of O’Riley’s personality?

Come on.

91

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

That’s why he’s not running for president. Substantively, he’s ok. Otherwise not so much. It’s precisely these ‘gaffes’ which actually have been publicized and are known to the public that are his greatest failing. Anyhow, the point is that Biden’s been around for years. His vies are known. His qualifications speak for themselves. And his pros and cons are known. Sarah Palin is a newcomer on the scene. Her views and fundamental understanding of the issues she would be facing as VP or president are just being explored. And her record as mayor and governor is just coming to light as well. It’s not pretty.

I agree with most of this but it is really tit for tat. The complaints you have of Palin as VP are the same one you should have of Obama for POTUS. Obama has had a chance to work through his naivete` in the primaries. I can show you clips of him looking much worse than Palin.

You have to remember that we have essentially two tickets to choose from. It is easy to level criticizm at any one of them, but if you truly do want to be intellectually honest, you have to assess them relative to the only real alternative.

I have many qualms about Obama. He’s far too liberal for my tastes. And I agree that he’s looked bad in many an interview. But never have I found him so fundamentally uninformed and lacking as Palin. I prefer him to Palin. What do you mean by ‘the only real alternative?’

Did you not watch the O’Riley (sp?) interview? The guy was lost - especially when he had to defend his vote against The Surge.

His philosophy on soaking the rich was pathetic - made him look very, very bad.

And McCain schooling him on foreign policy should have been a clue to anyone with a functioning brain that the only thing Opie has on Palin is a sycophantic supporting press, and ability to handle himself in an interview.

I guess all this shit is subjective, but geez - to say that he is not fundamentally uninformed?

Hey, Obama’s no prize. Never said he was. Obama looked bad in the O’Reilly interview. Partly because O’Reilly kept interrupting and wouldn’t let him speak. But he still made himself look bad with what he did say. The Surge talk looked to me like bad poltics. Doesn’t seem to me it demonstrates lack of understanding. He just doesn’t want to admit that he made a mistake and that it has been effective. It’s a bad decision. He could still maintain that we should not have started a war in Iraq in the first place and acknowledge that the Surge has done good. I definitely agree that McCain schooled him on the debate. Certainly on foreign policy issues. But I don’t know how you can be watching what I’m watching over the last several weeks with both Obama and Palin and conclude that he is as clueless and naive as she is. I guess there’s nothing more to say about that…

I don’t remember you defending Palin over the “Bush Doctrine” ambush, or any of Couric’s bitch moves.

For the most part O’Riley served up very simple questions - nothing anywhere ner as specific as Palin was asked, yet you want to defend Obama because of O’Riley’s personality?

Come on.

[/quote]

I’m not defending Obama. I said his own answers made him look bad. Not simply O’Reilly’s (lack of) interview skills.

92

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

That’s why he’s not running for president. Substantively, he’s ok. Otherwise not so much. It’s precisely these ‘gaffes’ which actually have been publicized and are known to the public that are his greatest failing. Anyhow, the point is that Biden’s been around for years. His vies are known. His qualifications speak for themselves. And his pros and cons are known. Sarah Palin is a newcomer on the scene. Her views and fundamental understanding of the issues she would be facing as VP or president are just being explored. And her record as mayor and governor is just coming to light as well. It’s not pretty.

I agree with most of this but it is really tit for tat. The complaints you have of Palin as VP are the same one you should have of Obama for POTUS. Obama has had a chance to work through his naivete` in the primaries. I can show you clips of him looking much worse than Palin.

You have to remember that we have essentially two tickets to choose from. It is easy to level criticizm at any one of them, but if you truly do want to be intellectually honest, you have to assess them relative to the only real alternative.

I have many qualms about Obama. He’s far too liberal for my tastes. And I agree that he’s looked bad in many an interview. But never have I found him so fundamentally uninformed and lacking as Palin. I prefer him to Palin. What do you mean by ‘the only real alternative?’

Did you not watch the O’Riley (sp?) interview? The guy was lost - especially when he had to defend his vote against The Surge.

His philosophy on soaking the rich was pathetic - made him look very, very bad.

And McCain schooling him on foreign policy should have been a clue to anyone with a functioning brain that the only thing Opie has on Palin is a sycophantic supporting press, and ability to handle himself in an interview.

I guess all this shit is subjective, but geez - to say that he is not fundamentally uninformed?

Hey, Obama’s no prize. Never said he was. Obama looked bad in the O’Reilly interview. Partly because O’Reilly kept interrupting and wouldn’t let him speak. But he still made himself look bad with what he did say. The Surge talk looked to me like bad poltics. Doesn’t seem to me it demonstrates lack of understanding. He just doesn’t want to admit that he made a mistake and that it has been effective. It’s a bad decision. He could still maintain that we should not have started a war in Iraq in the first place and acknowledge that the Surge has done good. I definitely agree that McCain schooled him on the debate. Certainly on foreign policy issues. But I don’t know how you can be watching what I’m watching over the last several weeks with both Obama and Palin and conclude that he is as clueless and naive as she is. I guess there’s nothing more to say about that…

I don’t remember you defending Palin over the “Bush Doctrine” ambush, or any of Couric’s bitch moves.

For the most part O’Riley served up very simple questions - nothing anywhere ner as specific as Palin was asked, yet you want to defend Obama because of O’Riley’s personality?

Come on.

[/quote]

And I defended Palin against Gibson’s interview. It was an ambush and the presentation to the public was misleading. I think Couric’s interview was entirely appropriate in content, tone, and presentation.

93

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tom, let’s see if we can improve your post to one that actually smacks of honesty:

Floortom wrote:
Obama is a total imbecile who is spectacularly ignorant of national and international issues. Only the most ardent partisan hacks havent come around to that yet. You’re starting to see a lot of anger/disappointment from reasonable moderates at the total recklessness and cynicism that the Democratic Party displayed in selecting him as its presidential candidate.

[/quote]

LOL@ this total partisan hack. God it must kill him when his “team” is losing.

94

[quote]Floortom wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Tom, let’s see if we can improve your post to one that actually smacks of honesty:

Floortom wrote:
Obama is a total imbecile who is spectacularly ignorant of national and international issues. Only the most ardent partisan hacks havent come around to that yet. You’re starting to see a lot of anger/disappointment from reasonable moderates at the total recklessness and cynicism that the Democratic Party displayed in selecting him as its presidential candidate.

LOL@ this total partisan hack. God it must kill him when his “team” is losing.

[/quote]

I hope you at least have a mirror close to you when you are saying shit about being a partisan hack. If it weren’t for your hackery, you would have nothing to say. Not that your talking points are worth reading in the first place.

95

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Floortom wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Tom, let’s see if we can improve your post to one that actually smacks of honesty:

Floortom wrote:
Obama is a total imbecile who is spectacularly ignorant of national and international issues. Only the most ardent partisan hacks havent come around to that yet. You’re starting to see a lot of anger/disappointment from reasonable moderates at the total recklessness and cynicism that the Democratic Party displayed in selecting him as its presidential candidate.

LOL@ this total partisan hack. God it must kill him when his “team” is losing.

I hope you at least have a mirror close to you when you are saying shit about being a partisan hack. If it weren’t for your hackery, you would have nothing to say. Not that your talking points are worth reading in the first place. [/quote]

LOL@ this partisan hack totally incapable of fathoming independent thought…poor guy.

Bush Sr, Perot, Dole, Bush Jr., Kerry, Obama…does that sound like the votes of a partisan hack?

97

[quote]Floortom wrote:
Bush Sr, Perot, Dole, Bush Jr., Kerry, Obama…does that sound like the votes of a partisan hack?

[/quote]

It looks more like you don’t really have any political conviction.

98

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Floortom wrote:
Bush Sr, Perot, Dole, Bush Jr., Kerry, Obama…does that sound like the votes of a partisan hack?

It looks more like you don’t really have any political conviction.[/quote]

Sounds to me like somebody gradually losing their sanity.

99

[quote]Floortom wrote:

Bush Sr, Perot, Dole, Bush Jr., Kerry, Obama…does that sound like the votes of a partisan hack?

[/quote]

So… you saw the light in 2004 and haven’t looked back?

It’s alright amigo. St. Peter will forgive you for the pre-2004 years at the pearly gates.

100

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Floortom wrote:
Bush Sr, Perot, Dole, Bush Jr., Kerry, Obama…does that sound like the votes of a partisan hack?

It looks more like you don’t really have any political conviction.[/quote]

Someone who is silly enough to fall for campaign ads.