posted
Orincoro, if the way you describe Bill O'Reilly as an interviewer were correct, then how do you account for the fact that he has had the top-rated prime time show for week after week for over seven straight years?
I think he is a good interviewer, quite fair. He gets impatient when the subject of the interview just gets into reciting his rehearsed talking points, instead of directly answering the question. I haven't heard that Sen. Obama complained that O'Reilly treated him unfairly. I think the complaints just come from some of his supporters who feel that O'Reilly was committing sacrilege by presuming to interrupt their "Messiah," Obama.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orincoro, if the way you describe Bill O'Reilly as an interviewer were correct, then how do you account for the fact that he has had the top-rated prime time show for week after week for over seven straight years?
I think he is a good interviewer, quite fair. He gets impatient when the subject of the interview just gets into reciting his rehearsed talking points, instead of directly answering the question. I haven't heard that Sen. Obama complained that O'Reilly treated him unfairly. I think the complaints just come from some of his supporters who feel that O'Reilly was committing sacrilege by presuming to interrupt their "Messiah," Obama.
Ron: Out of all the publications I read on a regular basis only Newsweek even mentioned the O'Reilly interview. I haven't heard anybody complain about him bullying Obama, there was some interest in Obama admitting that surge accomplished more than his wildest dreams. I'm glad O'Reilly stuck to that point longer than others.
But O'Reilly is certainly not above being rude or sometimes unnecessarily impatient with those he interviews. He's a human being, so like other news reporters he doesn't act like a robot all the time. Having the most watched news show on the most watched news channel certainly indicates that there must be something people enjoy watching, otherwise they wouldn't tune in. But sheer numbers doesn't always indicate pure quality.
The Colosseum was far and away the most popular form of entertainment at it's peak, but I'd attribute it's allure to moral degeneracy rather than, "It had something important to say."
Not that I think Fox News attracts moral degenerates, but a explanation might be that those who prefer a bit of a conservative slant to their news might already prefer the television as their medium of information. Whereas those who are more liberal prefer to use newspapers or the internet. I don't know that's the case, but that seems plausible to me. I'm just one example, but I only watch my news on TV when they are broadcasting a significant event live.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt Damon's beef with Palin seems to stem on many things, but what he articulated was he belief in the world being less than 6,000 years old, and that rape victims must carry the child to term. (that latter part I might be merging Damon with somebody else.) Then in a bit of dark humor saying, "She's gonna have the nuke launch codes you know."
I don't think Damon was even trying to give a carefully crafted critique of Palin, rather, he made some facetious stereotypical points and then withdrew.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I had a post in there, then I remembered how much I hate this thread and deleted it. I apologize to you in particular, Blackblade.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Sorry, I had a post in there, then I remembered how much I hate this thread and deleted it. I apologize to you in particular, Blackblade.
Heh, you can hate a thread as much as you want. I'm glad none of it seems to spill over onto me. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mentioned it in another thread. Not exactly the behavior I would expect for a champion of accountable, transparent government. So far, none of her behavior has been what I would expect from a champion of accountable, transparent government. See also e-mails.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is no one else interested in Palin's refusal to cooperate with the Monegan investigation?
I think it's a non-starter. It's more of a non-issue than Whitewater was. I wouldn't even care if Palin said, "Yes, I tried to get him fired. The guy was a jerk to my sister, and I'm worried about her kids." It's a sympathetic position for her to carve out, and I think the Democrats would do more harm than good by highlighting it. I can't think of any of her supporters who would be turned by such behavior, and I can think of some people who'd appreciate it.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mentioned it way back on 35... But I think what it comes down to is that all Palin needs to do is stall on the issue for two months, and I don't see anyone preventing her from doing so.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I mentioned it way back on 35... But I think what it comes down to is that all Palin needs to do is stall on the issue for two months, and I don't see anyone preventing her from doing so.
Heck a complete investigation could take longer than 2 months anyway. Strategically stalling the investigation would give less for the Democrats to scream about than what they might find were they unfettered.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Monegan thing is meaningless. We're talking about a small-town family squabble, and the guy she wanted fired is by all accounts a jerk. Sure, it's petty and possibly illegal, but of all the things to ding her on, this one's meaningless.
More relevant is actually her use of Yahoo webmail, which the current presidential administration likes to do, too.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Strategically stalling the investigation would give less for the Democrats to scream about than what they might find were they unfettered.
The problem with that argument is it brings about the "well then what's she hiding?" question. If she really has nothing to hide, then even a vicious partisan investigation shouldn't be a problem, which I don't think by any means it would be. On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the Hardy Boys solving a crime and 10 being what the Republicans did to Clinton in the 90's, it's looking like a 3 or 4.
Refusing to comply as an automatic response to me looks just awful, especially from a supposed reformer bringing change. And I'm absolutely sure that if Democrats touch it at all (which they will, possibly linking her to other scandalized Alaskan Republicans), they'll frame it exactly that way.
I think there are far, far better and more substantive ways to go after her that are perfectly fair, but come on, this election thus far has hardly been about substance.
I'm sure most of you have seen Palin's effect on the type of crowds that gather at GOP campaign events now yes? She's bringing in nearly the crowds that Obama always brings in (celebrity what?), but the odd thing is that McCain is pretty much taking a back seat. They chant "Sarah! Sarah!" while he's talking, and when they campaign separately, he can't fill a high school gym while she packs an airport hanger to the brim with people who drove hours to see her. Now, I'll set aside the fact that Republicans were ranting about how silly it was when people treated Obama like this, and Palin is even less known than he was when he started to run for office, but it's a pretty stark contrast to see the VP garnering so much more attention and support than the actual guy running for president.
I wonder how long it will be before someone starts to really point that out and make an issue out of it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orincoro, if the way you describe Bill O'Reilly as an interviewer were correct, then how do you account for the fact that he has had the top-rated prime time show for week after week for over seven straight years?
The same way I account for "The Hills" being a top rated show.
quote: I think he is a good interviewer, quite fair. He gets impatient when the subject of the interview just gets into reciting his rehearsed talking points, instead of directly answering the question. I haven't heard that Sen. Obama complained that O'Reilly treated him unfairly. I think the complaints just come from some of his supporters who feel that O'Reilly was committing sacrilege by presuming to interrupt their "Messiah," Obama.
Your perception, then, is quit seriously skewed. If you believe that the skills of a good interviewer include droning on and lecturing in a bored and dismissive tone to a guest you don't allow to speak, then yes, O'Reilly has those abilities. It's not that he presumed to interrupt, but that he quite clearly made no effort to allow Obama to speak, and when he did, made absolutely no show of listening to him. That's a bad interview. That's embarrassing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with that argument is it brings about the "well then what's she hiding?" question. If she really has nothing to hide, then even a vicious partisan investigation shouldn't be a problem, which I don't think by any means it would be. On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the Hardy Boys solving a crime and 10 being what the Republicans did to Clinton in the 90's, it's looking like a 3 or 4.
Refusing to comply as an automatic response to me looks just awful, especially from a supposed reformer bringing change. And I'm absolutely sure that if Democrats touch it at all (which they will, possibly linking her to other scandalized Alaskan Republicans), they'll frame it exactly that way.
This is just how I see the situation. I don't think McCain was aware of Bristol's pregnancy, or even some things that are showing up in her background. Her first interview demonstrated some glaring inadequacies, and I doubt even McCain realized just how suddenly the conservative base would rally behind Palin. The McCain campaign (McCampain?) need to steady her so that she wont crash and burn in the coming weeks. McCain's support shot up, after he announced Palin as his running mate, but I think the honeymoon is going to end and we will see the race tighten up again.
My money is that she will be underwhelming at the debates and that will bury the McCampaign. But then again Biden may very well find himself slugging a girl and women across America not liking it.
quote:I wonder how long it will be before someone starts to really point that out and make an issue out of it.
Columnists are already pointing it out. I expect that if it continues, television anchors will start discussing it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This will all implode when Palin is put heads-up with Biden in a debate. He'll destroy her, if her very small number of interviews is any indication whatsoever.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This will all implode when Palin is put heads-up with Biden in a debate. He'll destroy her, if her very small number of interviews is any indication whatsoever.
Again, that good back fire in Biden's face if he "destroys" her. If he can manage to make her destroy herself, I think that would be far more effective.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a fine line to walk. I think he's much better off pulling out all the stops and then cleaning it up in the spin room afterwards.
If anyone says "but he was so mean to her!" then the Obama campaign will say "As opposed to Vladimir Putin and Ahmadinijad who'll treat her with kid gloves if she becomes president? This woman can skin a moose but she can't handle a debate?"
They're presenting her as tough. They can hardly turn around and say that Biden was too rough with her. Republicans are great at framing arguments so they get to play both (even polar opposite) sides of an issue, but that's often because Democrats rarely hold their feet to the fire.
Part of the problem with "readiness" and "experience" being such huge buzzwords this time around, is that if Palin does indeed come off as unready or inexperienced in the debate, it will be easy to make them look silly over it. Why do you think she's spending all her time now regurgitating the party line at every campaign stop? She's learning how to be VP by rote memorization, and in debates that might be all she needs, though I suspect Biden will be excellent at carving her up on little mistakes and generalized answers. If McCain wants to keep criticizing Obama for being all talk and no plan (which is already a dubious claim), then again, it will be easy to make them look silly for sending in their VP with platitudes instead of policies (ooo, that'd be a good slogan!).
I can't wait for the debates. Much as Palin energized things, it's all come back to earth. Obama has the same 2 point lead that he had a month ago, as if Palin had never come along, although her effect on the base is certainly noticeable. But I think people who've been paying attention this whole time are burned out. Outrage fatigue, if you will. And a lot of others haven't started paying attention yet, and won't until the first debate. I think a week from tomorrow starts a new chapter in the campaign.
Anyone else see Obama's full two minute ad? It's just him talking into the camera, and there's not a single negative barb in it. It's just him talking about his plans (rather specifically), what he wants to do and why. I don't know if it'll work or not. I think it'll be a decent test of people's ability to look at something that lasts longer than 30 seconds, but it's the first message like it in either campaign thus far. I think Obama realizes that the last couple negative attack ads he tried in response to McCain's ads really didn't do what he wanted. He just can't muster up the same kind of, whatever, that McCain does, so he's going back to positive issues oriented ads. We'll see how it goes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is no one else interested in Palin's refusal to cooperate with the Monegan investigation?
I think it's a non-starter. It's more of a non-issue than Whitewater was. I wouldn't even care if Palin said, "Yes, I tried to get him fired. The guy was a jerk to my sister, and I'm worried about her kids." It's a sympathetic position for her to carve out, and I think the Democrats would do more harm than good by highlighting it. I can't think of any of her supporters who would be turned by such behavior, and I can think of some people who'd appreciate it.
See the thing is, this isn't about the trooper, this is about the boss. If the allegations against the ex-brother-in-law are true, there isn't going to be a lot of sympathy there.
The problem is that she fired the guy she pressured to fire the ex-brother-in-law, when he refused to do so (since disciplinary action had already taken place).
This isn't about "wah, wah, she fired a jerk" but "hey, you fired a guy who looked at the situation and used his professional judgment to not cave to your demand... Oh, and then you replace that guy with someone who had known sexual harassment allegations against him."
Ironically, "Troopergate" isn't actually about the trooper.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This will all implode when Palin is put heads-up with Biden in a debate. He'll destroy her, if her very small number of interviews is any indication whatsoever.
Again, that good back fire in Biden's face if he "destroys" her. If he can manage to make her destroy herself, I think that would be far more effective.
I would hope the Obama campaign is telling him to make heavy use of rhetorical questioning to make implications about Palin without directly addressing her.
Things like, "Not all of us could afford to take 6 years to get though college".
posted
Okay they could, but I think it's easily dispelled.
"Look how tough she is!"
"Biden was mean to her! Beating up on a poor woman!"
She can't be She-Ra in one breath and a damsel in distress in another. Frankly, I think the whole "Biden was mean to a woman" argument would be just as sexist as what they are claiming. They're saying women aren't equal to men and require special protections because they aren't tough enough. If Obama or Biden or whoever can frame the issue that way (really that's up to the media I guess), then they'll be fine.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't you talking about an entirely hypothetical situation, here? Give Palin a chance to actually debate Biden before condemning her for handling it poorly and speculating upon how her party can and cannot do to clean up the mess.
quote:Things like, "Not all of us could afford to take 6 years to get though college".
Comes off as sarcasm. Not a good plan.
Debate fairly, about real issues. Be straightforward. Don't mention the person's personal life unless they bring it up themselves. Don't rise to any attempts to make you angry or look silly; stay calm.
If you don't know the answer, don't hedge even in trying to discern what the question is. Be specific about what you're confused about.
Admit when the other fellow is right.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
You are expecting reason, again. Woman can so do that. We shouldn't, but we can. Especially attractive women.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: She can't be She-Ra in one breath and a damsel in distress in another.
Have you not been watching this election? Or the Bush years? It is very easy to be one thing one moment and the exact opposite the next. Infact, it seems that is the winnable strategy.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyways, the issue wouldn't be that Biden was "beating up on her" so much as he was losing her cool while she stayed calm and collective. If she can stick to her guns, know how to dismantle some of his particularly outrageous assertions, and stay calm, he can be beaten pretty easily.
Which is unfortunate, because I think she is not a particularly good vice presidential candidate, given the various direct evidence that has amounted.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're presenting her as tough. They can hardly turn around and say that Biden was too rough with her.
... sure they could.
It isn't a question of what "they" say, it is a question of how people will react at an emotional level to Biden if/when he attacks. If he is very aggressive in the debate and she flounders, many people will see him as a bully.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're presenting her as tough. They can hardly turn around and say that Biden was too rough with her.
... sure they could.
It isn't a question of what "they" say, it is a question of how people will react at an emotional level to Biden if/when he attacks. If he is very aggressive in the debate and she flounders, many people will see him as a bully.
Probably true- but if that happens, I think the bigger question is how it comes up on replay (not on Fox News). Would the pundits show the footage of Palin floundering and speculate at her toughness and readiness for high-pressure situations, or would they focus on Biden and comment on how cruel and unlikable he is in his attack? I don't think the first impression is necessarily as key as the message that gets repeated over time.
ADD: Also, is there only one debate planned for the VPs? If Palin plays the "that ruthless jerk" card once, it might work; if she comes out of more than one debate wringing her hands about how she wasn't expecting to be treated so cruelly, it becomes self-parody.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Aren't you talking about an entirely hypothetical situation, here? Give Palin a chance to actually debate Biden before condemning her for handling it poorly and speculating upon how her party can and cannot do to clean up the mess.
quote:Things like, "Not all of us could afford to take 6 years to get though college".
Comes off as sarcasm. Not a good plan.
Debate fairly, about real issues. Be straightforward. Don't mention the person's personal life unless they bring it up themselves. Don't rise to any attempts to make you angry or look silly; stay calm.
If you don't know the answer, don't hedge even in trying to discern what the question is. Be specific about what you're confused about.
Admit when the other fellow is right.
This has been proven to drop you in the polls, which in turn creates a sense of insecurity about the candidate, that often leads to defeat. See Gore/Bush debates, re: lockbox. Turns out Gore was probably right on that particular policy, but Bush won because he was personable.
Dealing solely on the issues is a losing proposition too. Most of the general public can't be bothered to understand the nuance of policy positions on either side, so if Biden goes policy wonk, Palin can give a sound bite (which can be true or false, it doesn't matter, because few bother to check all of the claims made) with folksy charm, which is a strength of hers, and she wins the point on "beer-ability". --
Lyrhawn, as we speak, the Republicans are having certain surrogates (hi Carly!) shout about sexism, while at the same time touting her as a tough reformer/Hockey Mom/moose hunter. She can be seen as tough, and still get the "beat up a woman" sympathy vote.
quote:This has been proven to drop you in the polls, which in turn creates a sense of insecurity about the candidate, that often leads to defeat. See Gore/Bush debates, re: lockbox. Turns out Gore was probably right on that particular policy, but Bush won because he was personable.
I think its a gross over simplification to say Bush won the 2000 election because he was personable in the debates. Its far more accurate to say that Bush won the 2000 election because he had his campaign manager and brother counting the votes in Florida and we have a supreme court that said that was OK.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Its far more accurate to say that Bush won the 2000 election because he had his campaign manager and brother counting the votes in Florida and we have a supreme court that said that was OK.
I believe you meant to say that the conspiracy theory nuts believe that Bush won the 2000 election because he had his campaign manager and brother counting the votes in Florida and we have a supreme court that said that was OK. You statement was hardly accurate.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Documentation released by the McCain-Palin campaign supports Palin's contention that the commissioner was fired for refusing to accept her budget cuts, and being dismissive of her authority.
The investigation or inquiry, according to a lawsuit filed a couple of days ago, is illegal, because such an investigation requires a vote of the state legislature, and such a vote was never taken. It is also obvious that the investigation has been taken over by partisan Democrats.
Fox News is almost unique among news channels, because it alone regularly provides people with the conservative viewpoint. It also gives the liberal viewpoint in balance. The problem is that the political and newsmedia left do not want the conservative viewpoint given any publicity, so they denounce and denigate Fox News all they can.
The negative descriptions some here have given of Bill O'Reilly as an inerviewer are not true. I watch them frequently myself, including the major recent one of Sen. Obama, and I see for myself that he was soundly and properly professional. He never shouted down Obama, and only interrupted him when he was repeating himself, or resorting to a canned talking point rather than responding directly to the question. The real complaint some people have is that O'Reilly talked back to Obama, and did not accept what he said at face value. That is how he got Obama to admit that "the surge [in Iraq] has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." This is a stark reversal of Obama's statements only a few months ago that the war in Iraq had failed, and was lost. O'Reilly deserves credit for keeping after Obama until he made this admission.
Those who think Sen. Biden will handle Gov. Palin easily are vastly underestimating Palin. In my estimation she has twice his I.Q., is an extremely fast learner who has been well-prepared by the McCain advisors, she has already shown herself to be very articulate, confident, and poised, and they don't call her "Sara Barracuda" for nothing.
[ September 18, 2008, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fox News is almost unique among news channels, because it alone regularly provides people with the conservative viewpoint. It also gives the liberal viewpoint in balance. The problem is that the political and newsmedia left do not want the conservative viewpoint given any publicity, so they denounce and denigate Fox News all they can.
Hey, come back to Earth. The weather is great down here.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Those who think Sen. Biden will handle Gov. Palin easily are vastly underestimating Palin. In my estimation she has twice his I.Q.,
Just out of morbid curiosity, what evidence are you using to determine that she has 'twice' Biden's IQ?
To be clear, I don't think Palin is unintelligent. But I have seen absolutely nothing that indicates that she has twice the IQ of anyone involved in these campaigns.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strider, guess what, the earth is round! You're just living on the left side, and you think that is all there is.
Ask the people in Galveston, Texas, and thereabouts, and see if they agree with what you say about the weather being great.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know that the average is about 110 and 150 is freaking scary genius level, right?
There's no need to make stuff up about a candidate, not if there is something to them to begin with.
You might as well claim she runs a two-minute mile, can hold her breath for five minutes, and has calculated the final digit of pi.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other news, do we think that Senator McCain was taking a hard line with Spain or that he was confused about the question. If the former, that is a much tougher stance than the current administration has or that Sen. McCain took in April. I'm inclined to think the latter, but the former is possible.
posted
How am I able to evaluate Gov. Palin as having twice the I.Q. of Sen. Biden? (Ha! What an opening!) It takes one to know one.
Unlike Biden, Palin is not known as a "serial plagiarist," for one thing.
For another, how many people could have enough smarts, not to mention grit, to demolish the statewide "Good Ol' Boys" network, run out of office an allegedly corrupt Attorney General, force the oil industry to toe HER line and change the way it does business in her state, replace an allegedly corrupt governor from her own party (by beating him in the primary), and defeat a Democrat who was a former governor and had some questions about corruption over his head--AND DO IT IN ONLY 18 MONTHS AS GOVERNOR? Talk about effective! This lady is for real. I wish she were running for president. She would be the Margaret Thatcher of the USA.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, since you mention I.Q. figures, I believe that by definition 100 is average. I tested 150 on my last I.Q. test, administered just before I left college in the middle of my junior year, but since I only missed two questions, it was not definitive. It is standard practice to administer a series of additional, advanced tests to measure higher I.Q.s. My mother had that done when she graduated from high school, and after three days of testing, her I.Q. was determined to be 185.
Actually, I would like to know what Palin's I.Q. scores were. I wouldn't go by her grade score. I could pass any course with a C without making any effort, so I only got A's in the classes I was interested in. I figured I was actually grading the teacher.
Oh, and she may not have run a two-minute mile, but she was point guard and captain of the Wisilla High School Women's basketball team that won the state championship, and she was the one who made the winning free-throw in the championship game. She also won the Miss Wasilla beauty contest, and placed second in the state competition for Miss Alaska--which was good enough to win her a college scholarship.
Then her husband, Todd (the "First Dude" of Alaska) has won--FOUR TIMES--the 1,971-mile Tesoro Iron Dog Snow Machine championship. Talk about a marriage of winners!
[ September 18, 2008, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care what anyone's IQ is. The entire measurement is, at best, controversial. As if you can sum up someone's entire potential with a single number! I care far more about real achievement.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever the definition, Americans today score over 110 on average. Stupid grade creep strikes everywhere.
Oh, honey, you can proclaim her credentials without making up numbers.
I love that her husband winning a dogsledding race is the best triumphant credential you can come up with.
I hear Big Brother just ended - perhaps McCain will declare his intention to appoint the winner of that Secretary of State.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK Christine, look at her achievements--all she has accomplished in just 18 months as governor! Most politicians do not succeed on this scale during their entire careers!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure - most would wait until their second term to fire their enemies and install a tanning bed.
The next headline on CNN: McCain Declares Michael Phelps Would Be a Perfect Attorney General
For the head of the CIA, I hear Tyra Banks is open to the idea. She's won Emmys! And RUNS a televised beauty pageant!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:look at her achievements--all she has accomplished in just 18 months as governor!
Ron, the "list of achievements" you gave for her 18 months as governor basically amounted to being elected to the position in the first place. She ran against the "Good Ole Boys" network, won a primary, won the general, and replaced the AG with one of her own people. That's what most governors do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, Todd also is a supervisor in his job on the North Slope. And how about this more indefinable acheivement--Todd Palin apparently seems to be loved by everyone in Alaska. He sets a high standard for the role played by the husband of the chief executive. Nothing wimpy about him, despite the fact that he changes diapers and whatever else is needed.
Maybe that is why the loonie ultra-feminist left on the left coast hates the Palins so passionately. They both exemplify conservative, Christian ideals of what it means to be a good man and woman, and they look really attractive--sort of living, breathing refutations of the hedonistic, self-first, amoral "ideals" of the above-mentioned LUFL on the LC.
Granted, the example the Palins set is a hard one to live up to. But it is more inspiring and more worthy of trying to emulate, than what the loony left in Hollywood ever envisioned.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you're just being ridiculous. How many governors defeat "the Good Ol' Boy" system? You're not supposed to run against the incumbent in your own party! How many governors force the oil industry to cave in and toe the line? She demanded that they pay increased taxes on their windfall profits, and they forked it over. She then gave that money to Alaskan citizens--giving each one checks that so far total something like $5,000. Now that's an "economic stimulus package"!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are two reasons to run against corruption in your own party. One, you don't like corruption. Two, you are ambitious and out to make a name for yourself.
As I've said before, I'm trying to reserve judgement on Gov. Palin (and still waiting for someone to even try to make a serious case that she is qualified for the VP slot), but what has come out so far seems to me to be more indicative of the latter.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not sure - did you just call me a (hilariously-innacurate) epithet to distract from the fact that apparently Palin's primary qualification is that her husband is no longer entry-level in his job, which proves that he has serious testosterone.
Heck with the debates. Bring on the rulers.
You just have to be a parody. You can't seriously base your political decisions on beauty pageants.
I actually suspect that you like that Sarah Palin was chosen to be the spokesmodel for the campaign and that she isn't allowed to campaign on her own. She's a Barbie that can be trotted out for empty points but not actually taken seriously.
If McCain's campaign trusted her to not make a fool of herself, she'd be campaigning by herself.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They both exemplify conservative, Christian ideals of what it means to be a good man and woman, and they look really attractive--sort of living, breathing refutations of the hedonistic, self-first, amoral "ideals" of the above-mentioned LUFL on the LC.
I won't argue that they're attractive.
But if "exemplifying conservative Christian ideals" includes persistently lying (that whole, "I said no to earmarks" thing), then I'm pleased that most folks consider me to be non-conservative Christian.
Unless she comes out as much more intelligent than she has so far been projecting then I won't support her at all.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
