Republican division point
Saturday, November 8, 2008
THE FIRST STAGE of the Republican Party’s soul-searching after Tuesday’s loss of the presidency — the search for a scapegoat — seems to have Gov. Sarah Palin as its focus.
Less than a day after Sen. John McCain’s becoming concession speech, McCain campaign aides were talking trash to reporters about his running mate.
One aide, resurrecting the issue of Palin’s campaign wardrobe, offered this scathing assessment:
“Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast.”
Aides were also quoted as saying that Palin was so woefully untutored on international matters that she was not aware that Africa was a continent instead of a country and that she could not name the three nations — the United States, Canada and Mexico — in the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Such deep ignorance seems unlikely for someone who is both a college graduate and the governor of a state. But the truth of the allegations matters less at this point than that they are being made and who is making them.
Just a week ago, anyone who said such things about Palin would have been considered to be a Democrat of a particularly venomous sort. But these criticisms are coming from within Palin’s own political family, not from the Democrats.
At the same time some Republicans are fitting Palin for the scapegoat costume, others are touting her as the future of their party. Even before the end of the McCain campaign, some people were suggesting that the governor would make a fine presidential candidate in 2012. That speculation is still alive in the narrow but powerful segment of the party that GOP candidates continue to refer to as “the base.”
There are those people on the far right of the party who think that the only thing wrong with the McCain-Palin campaign was that the wrong politician got top billing.
It cannot be healthy for one wing of a political party to make a scapegoat of a politician who another wing considers to be necessary to the party’s future success. The resulting schism could leave the Republican Party scarred and shaky for years.
For the rest of the nation, Sarah Palin — now thousands of miles away in her frozen kingdom — is fading into the status of political footnote, along with most other unsuccessful candidates for vice president. The election is past and Sen. Joe Biden will be the next vice president. With the campaign over, Tina Fey, who made headlines with her Palin impression on “Saturday Night Live,” says she is retiring the character.
Aside from Alaska, the only place Palin seems to matter any more is within the Republican Party. And there, she is a cause for division.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
good riddance, I really hope the attacks do stop, I don't want to hear anymore about her.
November 8, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
For the sake of a healthy political climate for both parties in the democracy we all hold dear, I too hope the attacks stop. They seem petty and vulgar in their search for culpability for their candidate's loss. Too bad. They're making fools of themselves.
November 8, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
First of all, since the source is "anonymous", how do you know for SURE it is someone within the McCain campaign? You splashed a big story about someone yelling "Kill Him" at a McCain rally, which turned out to apparently be a false made-up story by one Democrat reporter, and I have yet to see a retraction on that. I also find it extremely interesting that within the campaign she impressed many people with her knowledge of the Darfur situation...... yet now they claim she didn't know Africa was a continent. Is there anyone besides me that sees more than just a little diconnect there?
But most of all, I'm glad to see that Mr. Kelley considers the conservative base to be a "narrow" segment. Good. Keep up the ignorance, Pat. For half your article there I though you might actually might have taken your narrow-filter blinders off. Scared me for a second.
November 8, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
As far as anyone knows, it was one person who made these accusations, and we have no proof whatsoever that it was even someone inside the party. And Mr. Kelley's wonderful "math", somehow extrapolates that to "an entire wing" of the GOP.
From Rasmussen reports - even during the latest Palin news:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi...
"Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable."
"Over two-thirds of Republicans describe themselves as conservative in terms of foreign policy, fiscal and social issues."
(How's that for "narrow"????)
The same poll, different article at
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi...
"Among Democrats, Obama’s ratings are +64 (74% Strongly Approve, 10% Strongly Disapprove). "
--------------------------------------------------
So, polls show that MORE democrats disapprove of Obama than GOP that disapprove of Palin. THAT means, according to Mr. Kelley, that Obama has caused a bigger schism, alienated a larger "wing", and more "unhealthiness" in the Democratic party than Palin has in the GOP.
Does this guy EVER do ANY research before he spouts off on his usual leftist drivel? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What an embarrassment.
November 9, 2008 at 12:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
In case anyone missed Face the Nation this morning, here's a link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?i...
David Brooks, New York Times writer and Reagan conservative, describes the Repubs as a "circular firing squad" right now, that they have no set of beliefs, and no idealogical message. On whether Sarah Palin will be the party's answer, he said that "she has not spent her life preparing for the intellectual revolution to lead the party out of the wilderness."
If you missed the program, it was a good one. They usually are.
November 9, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
create, I'll agree with the fact that the GOP right now has lost their message and have no leadership. I've stated that myself previously. That is separate from this "firing squad" notion that Patrick & all the left are trying to advance because 1 or 2 people apparently in the McCain campaign are pointing fingers trying to place blame and save their own skins. One or 2 anonymous unnamed sources start acting like children pointing fingers and suddenly everyone under the sun is buying into the GOP is tearing itself apart. Funny how people here decide what is "newsworthy" and what isn't. Just like the "Kill Him" claim I've brought up many times. Patrick, all the news orgs, YOU, many here, jumped all over it and were pointing fingers - it was deemed "newsworthy". ONE news org as far as I can tell dug into it deeply and reported all the findings that there were to find - as near as I can tell no other news org deemed it "newsworthy" that it apparently turned out to be a fake story. Not a peep from anyone here that was all bent out of shape over it, not a single peep from Pat - of course, he deemed it "newsworthy" when the rumor started, but actual hard facts afterwards were apparently NOT deemed "newsworthy". Just like he deemed Powell's support for Obama newsworthy, but the 2000 Dem VP supporting McCain wasn't as newsworthy, somehow.
Sometimes all the silence by everyone that screamed the loudest at the onset says alot more than your words ever could.
Goes back to my earlier question - who gets to decide FOR US what is newsworthy and what isn't? What ever happened to the days when they just printed all the news that was fit to print and let US decide?
My main point was his claims about "narrow", and how this has caused a big "wing" of the party to divide. He started out fine, but he couldn't resist his primal urge to act like a second-grader on the playground himself (or, should I say, act EXACTLY like those he is deriding) and fall back into his own wallow of snipy comments like her "icy kingdom".
Well, narrow is a subjective definition - but I have a mathematics minor, and I can offer concrete mathematical proof to back up my claim that 10 is over 3 times greater than 3. So if he wants to look at the FACTS - and claim that Palin has divided the party - then he must admit that Obama has divided HIS party over 3 times as much, based on what the PEOPLE are saying, not the pundits. I might add, also, that Rasmussen, the poll from above, was the most accurate of the final polls in predicting the final outcome of the presidential election.
November 9, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yet another study on media bias:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11012008/...
And for everyone here who didn't believe those claiming the media was biased, now that they've safely gotten Obama elected, the media THEMSELVES are coming out and admitting their bias: The Washington Post just admitted their bias towards Obama:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-she...
Chevy Chase admitted recently how they intentionally skewered their SNL skits in Carter's favor to try to help get Carter elected back during his campaign:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/11...
And everyone that thought there was media bias was just dreaming..... yeah right.....
I find the statement that Palin "has not spent her life preparing for the intellectual revolution to lead the party out of the wilderness." completely hilarious, and TRUE - I certainly HOPE she has not spent her whole life doing that. I challenge anyone to prove to me that Obama has spent HIS entire life preparing for that role as well. Sometimes, people have greatness thrust upon them. Sometimes they are in the right place at the right time. Sometimes, they discover it in themselves. But I don't know of anyone that has spent their whole life preparing what was described above. Have any of our presidents? Ever? Their whole life, knowing and preparing that they were going to be the savior of their party? Get real.
November 9, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
I am lifelong GOP and I will tell you the main problem in my opinion, the GOP is completely out of touch with ordinary people. If you doubt me, try to contact either the state or national party. As the election wore on, I became more and more disillusioned with the party, and tried to air my grievances. To my surprise, there seemed to be no way to air them. I cannot help but think in this the "information age" a cornerstone of any party that wants to be successful would be an easy way to get your voice heard. The GOP needs an overhaul, from top to bottom.
November 9, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Once again, alfalfa - I agree.
November 9, 2008 at 11:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, I don't think the Palin statement had anything to do with spending a lifetime preparing to be president. It was yet another Palin jab saying that she's not too swift. And no, I don't approve; the woman should be left alone, period. McCain was desperately looking for youthful good looks to ramp up the GOP ticket.
Now I thought John McCain did the right thing that day on stage when he corrected that woman who said she was afraid of Obama because he was Muslim. What he did at that moment defined him as a decent man. That took courage and I admire him for doing that. I'm guessing he took some heat for that because it was played over and over again on TV.
Many GOP folks who are angry with their party right now. I hope they can figure out how to be more communicative. alfalfa is right, no one could reach them.
I'm an independent. I voted for Pat Roberts because I think he has always done a great job. I also voted for Moran who has worked very hard for veterans and brought health care to western Kansas and even Emporia so those guys don't have to drive all the way to Topeka for healthcare. Maybe those two have some ideas about helping the state GOP.
I don't agree with you about media bias, open_eyes. My opinion comes from hanging around several newspaper reporters in my younger days in Hawaii; I admired them and I was a wannabe. My very best buddy was the late Gene Hunter, prize winning city editor of the Honolulu Advertiser. In fact, when he learned we were coming to Emporia, the first words out of his mouth were "Ahhhh, William Allen White."
Of the two dailies there, one leans Democrat, one leans Republican on their opinion pages. It was always fun to see which way either paper would present opinions on the same subject. Your question "who gets to decide FOR US what is newsworthy and what isn't?" is relative. Actually, you the reader or viewer gets to decide. Just because some editor offers his wares doesn't mean you have to buy them. You're a pretty akamai (astute) thinker, I'm assuming you make your own decisions and don't just accept what others say.
Now what about Schwartzenegger picking on Obama's physical stature, saying his legs were too skinny and that he needed some muscle. I thought the whole thing was distasteful. Who made the rules that we all have to be so muscle-bound that a suit doesn't even look good on our frames? See where I'm going with this?
Yeah, I saw the Chevy Chase interview when he admitted that he ramped up his portrayal of Ford to give Carter a boost. If people vote according to what they see on SNL, then I guess we should all be modeling our marketing campaigns on comedic hyperbole.
November 10, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
I think the GOP "downfall", in addition to not being in touch with us ordinary people (the middle class, tax paying people), was do to the fact that they failed to convince me that "they" had a plan to address the economic, employment, health care and security issues. Rather they spent more time telling me why I shouldn't vote for Obama or twisted his plans to say why his plans wouldn't work. They focused on the "lack of experience" and frankly, I don't think anyone that takes the office (presidency) for the first time, has "experience".
I'm a registered Republican, and I was very disappointed (often angry) at how the Republicans handled this whole campaign. On the other hand, I'm pleased with the outcome, I believe President-elect Obama is going to make every effort to get this country back on it's feet.
November 10, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, create, I think he was looking for someone, who, like all vp picks, he hoped would appeal to the segment he himself may not have appealed as much to, and also, he recognized the dissatisfaction with the GOP among voters, and was looking for someone who, like himself, was not afraid to stand up against their own party. You think he picked her because she was young and hot. Hahaha, Now THAT'S funny.
However, you made my point EXACTLY with your next comment about media bias. "In your younger days" - that says it all. What part of what I have been saying about how it is NOT how it USED to be has been escaping you? Sometimes it's like I talk to the wall here....
Once again, you make my point for me. What you have described about the dailies THERE, is what I wish for HERE. I don't get or read the Hawaii Advertiser. I'm talking about THIS HERE. Sure, I know we can all go hand-pick a few news orgs and papers around the country that are balanced - but for the one-billionth time, finding a few does not balance out the majority. I recently went back 2 months and counted editorials here - 11 to 2 slanted one way. THAT's what I'm looking for here - I'm perfectly willing to sit here and watch Mr. Kelley skew things, print deceptions, make statements that can easily be proved to be factually false - ALL I'm asking for is the other side to be presented, just like it is in your Hawaii paper, just like it is on FoxNews. I also find it somewhat ironic you like that format in your paper, but dislike a cable outlet with a similar format. That is EXACTLY why I watch a big chunk of my news there, becuase the decision on what is relevent, newsworthy, and true is left to ME. HOW in the world have you missed that point in the zillion+ times I have stated that here? Did you read my link about how the Washington paper has now admitted they deliberately were biased in their reporting? Yet another study came out the other day showing overwhelming media bias this last election, and yet another media outlet admitted they deliberately were slanted. And I can offset that by pointing out 1 small paper that isn't? (No disrespect intended - let's just but things in perspective and be honest about things).
November 10, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
You like Fox, I don't. I prefer CNN. How simple. You continue to believe everyone has to think the way you do. Here, talk to the wall.
November 10, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I honestly don't know if you are being serious or not about Arnold's comments. It's so ludicrous I have a hard time believing anyone in the known universe could hav been serious about it. But you found it "distasteful", so I'll assume your were. Good grief, the man's a former body-building champ. He was cracking jokes and making fun. And you took that seriously? So, by your logic, we are all supposed to take all the SNL and late-night jokes seriously as well? You REALLY thought he was not joking? HONEST???????? I wasn't offended by all the Tina Fey impersonations. I was just hoping for some balance in the jokes there. READ THOSE LAST 2 SENTENCES CLOSELY to see WHERE I'M GOING WITH ALL THIS. According to you, I should have seen it all as distateful. Gosh, it is just hilarious to me how both sides view jokes. It's ok to run 90% jokes at one party, that's all in fun, 1 single joke the other way is taken seriously and viewed as distateful. You have GOT to be kidding me. And then you turn right around and complain that people shouldn't vote based on Chevy Chase and SNL, because that's comedic hyperbole. Which is it? You are making me dizzy. I've gotta sit down before I fall. Sometimes the contradictions of their own selves people here make in 2 consecutive sentences absolutely stuns me.
I'm an independent. I voted for 3 Dems this last election. And I've repeatedly agreed the GOP has lost touch.
nutsabouttools, I agree with you in part - but I also went the longest time waiting to hear what Obama stood for. Obama also spent alot of his time pointing out that we shouldn't vote for McCain because it would be more George Bush. Which part of Bush - the part that tried to reign in Fannie & Freddie and the Dems wouldn't allow it?
I agree - nobody that takes the presidency for the first time has "experience". But if you're going to complain that they focused on OBAMA's lack of experience, then don't complain that the VP pick "lacked experience". One or the other. Picking one side to feel offended about by jokes, bias, lack of experience, but not being honest about the exact same things on the other side is, I will say it, flat-out hypocritical. Debate the ISSUES. And be adult enough to admit alot of the rest of the crap is flowing the exact same way from both directions.
Once again, anyone see where I'm "going with all this"? Or am I talking to the wall again?
I've said many times I was very disappointed with the GOP campaign. VERY poorly run. And Obama's was EXTREMELY well-run.
November 10, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Let me give you some "balanced" comedy. Either you find the WHOLE thing funny, or the WHOLE thing distasteful. No jumping around and picking spots allowed.
WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?
BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for change! The chicken wanted change!
JOHN MCCAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he was a maverick chicken, and he wanted to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.
SARAH PALIN: The chicken had to cross the road because he was not able to find a bridge. Alaskans do not build bridges to nowhere. If he wanted a bridge, he'd have to build it himself.
JOE BIDEN: The chicken crossed the road because he was heading back to Scranton .
HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qu ali fied to ensure right from Day One that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn't about me.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either for us or against us. There is no middle ground here.
DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?
COLIN POWELL: Now, to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken. What is your definition of chicken?
AL GORE: I invented the chicken.
JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.
AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white? We need some black chickens.
DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won't re ali ze that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him re ali ze how stupid he's acting by not taking on his current problems before adding new problems.
OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
continued...
November 10, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
continued....
NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I've not been told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.
GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.
BARBARA WALTERS: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.
ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.
BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2008, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2008. This new platform is much more stable and will never reboot.
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?
November 10, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
No, everyone doesn't have to think the way I do. I just hope that they open their minds enough to see both sides. Because our news organizations can't be trusted to show us the whole picture. Nothing wrong with CNN, or not liking Fox. As long as you get both sides, I don't care where you get it from. Be it the Hawaii paper, the web, or wherever. I just find it ironic. We certainly don't get both sides from editorials in the Gazette.
I say I talk to the wall because the wall doesn't realize that it has 2 sides. It refuses to believe that in the next room is its other side. It only wants to hear what is in this room, on this side. Any jokes cracked in this room are funny. Any jokes in the other room are distasteful. Any spin in this room is opinion. Any spin in the other room is a lie. It's ok that people in this room are inexperienced, nobody is first time they are president. But those in the other room should be. Nobody in this room has to lay out a concrete plan. But the other room should. People in this room can blame everything on somebody else. People in the other room should only look at themselves. People in the other room make wild accusations that they can't back up and they're crazy. People in this room make the same kind of accusations, but become suddenly mute when they are proved wrong. People in the other room find a few crazies in this room and stereotype everyone in the room. People in this room find a few crazies in the other and stereotype the whole room. People hear a rumor that a couple of people in the other room aren't happy and claim the entire room is fighting amongst itself. A couple of people in this room that aren't happy are conveniently ignored.
I feel sorry for the poor wall. Caught in the middle of 2 sides that will only stubbornly talk to their side of the wall until h-e-double-toothpicks freezes over. It isn't the glass ceiling that needed to be broken this last election, it's the glass wall - it needs to have both sides mirrored, so each side can look into it and realize exactly who and what they are complaining about.
November 10, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Since when does comedy have to be balanced? Comedy is what it is, I saw a number of comedians on CNN talking about how boring Obama is, in a sense they don't have any good material for him yet. McCain and Palin were comic gold and the fact that the GOP is so out of touch most likely led to them getting skewered more. Bottom line is if its funny people will watch, if not then it dies a quick death.
As far the the whole aides and media situation goes, The truth will come to pass in time, I'll wager it is some people in the McCain campaign, currently they are under fire for losing and running a poor campaign, they are trying to save their skins, but my god if some of the things they said where true then its a blessing that Palin is nowhere near the presidency. Again the media is biased towards to the left, not denying that, but again how did it get that way? The media in this country has not always been this way, and again I say that anyone who takes the time and care to educate themselves on the candidates will see through it all, continue to beat a dead horse all like though if deem it necessary.
November 10, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I never said comedy HAD to be balanced, only that I WISHED it was. What NEEDS to be balanced is how people view it - too many people can only laugh at jokes at the other side - jokes against THEIR side they view "distasteful". THAT is the point of what I am talking about regarding comedy.
Probably IS some sour grapes in the McCain campaign. I have no doubt that as poorly run as that campaign was, there are some people doing anything they can to save their butts. But, IF you have watched both sides, not only has pretty much every claim been debunked by insiders that were THERE, but some of it should be obvious to a second grader. Please tell me HOW someone is EXTREMELY knowledgable about the particulars of the Darfur situation...... but yet doesn't know Africa is a continent? If we're going to jump on every slip and innuendo and say it's a blessing that Palin is nowhere near the presidency, then mabye we should take Obama's slip about 58 states and state it as fact that he doesn't even know how many states there are?
Finally. Someone agrees that not only is the media biased, but that it has not always been this way. Now we can have a decent debate. Personally, I look at society and education. Our universities are increasingly pushing more and more liberal views. I remember the stories about students complaining about the professors pushing their views on the students, and grading accordingly. You may not have seen those stories, I'm not surprised that alot of people haven't. Which comes to the last point. You're right - people that take the time and care to educate themselves see through it all.
Unfortunately, just from these boards if nothing else, not that many do. If one person takes the time to step back and educate themselves because of my rantings, then I will consider my "beating a dead horse" to have been worth it. If on person who formerly believed every deception Mr. Kelley tries to put forth (since the Gazette does not have a counterpoint like the Hawaiian paper) steps back and looks at the facts and thinks about it, then I'll keep on beating this dead horse as long as I have strength to raise the whip. They don't have to agree with me. Just look at both sides, educate yourself, separate the fact from fiction, and then decide. If you don't agree with me, fine. Show me some facts I've missed, and you just might convince me of YOUR side.
November 10, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Goodoleboy, did you or anyone else here watch the Palin interview tonight?
November 10, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
You can wish in one hand and crap in the other, people laugh at what is funny, and they laughed at Clinton MANY times in the 90's. If SNL had someone that could come do Obama as well as Tina Fey did Palin I would welcome it, I watch those shows to have a laugh, they have no factor in my decision making.
You might blame society and education, I blame people like Bush and cronies who have lied to us time and time again, and just an FYI I took a few college courses a few years ago at the ESU school of business and I can tell you this the professors there were not promoting anything liberal, quite the opposite actually.
Far as Palin goes one can simply look at the facts and circumstances and make an educated guess as to how true those accusations the aides are making, simply look at her past and her evolution over this campaign plus what she is spouting now I think we could go beyond reasonable doubt that much of this is true.
November 10, 2008 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I also have an ESU degree, with my own experiences to recount, which don't all agree with yours. But I was talking about the larger picture across the country. Obviously there are many news stories you are unaware of regarding education along these lines, but that is understandable, I realize not every media outlet reports the same news as another. From a recent study "By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative" - but we've got good old ESU to completely refute that nationwide, eh? LOL
And, of course, the good old "Bush lied". Of course.
I got the exact opposite impression about Palin. The more I find out and see about her, the more I realize she's a whole lot smarter than those that constantly refer to her as an idiot. I would wager that I have done alot more research into her past, studied and watched more on her than alot of people here. I don't just get my filtered news from orgs that admit after the fact they were against her. Nor do I instantly jump on every rumor and innuendo and run with it as gospel fact, like many here. I agree that one can simply look at the facts and circumstances and make an educated guess - except that I would say it goes beyond reasonable doubt that pretty much all if it is false.
So, it is "reasonable" to believe that someone could be a "near-expert" on Darfur, but not know Africa was a continent. Uhm.... ok..... I fail to see where any reasonable or educated person could disconnect those 2, but you claim its reasonable..... ok....
Reputable people that were actually at the discussions in question have all said these are absolutely untrue. But reasonable and educated people apparently put more faith in anonymous sources. Ok. Here's the best one: The Palin's ran their own commercial salmon fishing business for years. They would also have had to miss the fact that in 2002, the federal government decided to make commercial salmon fishermen on Alaska's Bristol Bay eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance under NAFTA due to the impact Canada's farmed-salmon had on the industry." And you're telling me that any reasonable educated person would believe they didn't know that. Plus, since Canada is one of the biggest trading partners of Alaska as part of NAFTA, you're telling me its reasonable to assume the governor of the state doesn't know that.
You're starting to scare me. I'm beginning to wonder if my degree from ESU is legit, if that's where this education and reason came from.
But, of course, only what we want to believe is to believed, I understand how things are. Anything and everything that fits the view we want is taken as gospel truth without question - everything that does not fit our view is rejected as a lie.
Once one understands these basic concepts of how humans come to their conclusions, the only thing I can say is it fills one with great sadness.
November 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Did I ever say that my experience at ESU was to be taken as the gospel? Funny I don't recall saying that refuted anything other than MY experience, guess you failed to read that eh?
The sum total of everything that I read about Palin does not add up, linking the plethora of articles and media I have absorbed about her would be near impossible in the context of these forums. I believe her to be a joke, that is my opinion, why go into detail about her anymore when she does not matter? At this point I really do not care what is true and what is false with her because she was not chosen to lead anything other than Alaska, all my attention will be focused on the current government and the incoming President, not on caribou barbie.
Cry, whine and moan all you like about other's line of thinking, in your world someone that votes on faith would be lunatic simply because there are no facts to support faith eh? There is ALWAYS an "X" factor in decision making and to belittle those that do not agree with your line of thinking or logic yet actually educate and participate actively in current event shows how close minded you really are. Your lack of being able to "agree to disagree" fills one with great sadness.
November 11, 2008 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Good grief people- Is everyone so closed minded and closed eyed that you cannot see or understand that the so-called democratic political system in the U.S. is totally power oriented on both sides, and has been for decades that neither political party gives a hoot about the common ordinary citizen of this country. Who has power, is in power at the time, and how to regain power is all either political party cares about and their is no need to mention the overwhelming Avarice (greed) of both political parties.
Since the Republican party lost the election and balance of power in Washington, they are already planning on how to win the next election ( power struggle) , which may or may not include "Gerrymandering", which has been done in past elections.
Neither political party has the will nor it seems, could or is able to work together to do whats best and fair for the country or all of its citizens.
I don't think that just because Obama has been elected things will change a whole lot, because the washington power struggle is still alive and well.
November 11, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
To all those who have served our nation in uniform, I thank you. What you did allows all of us to post here in free speech.
November 11, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Oh, I'm never overly concerned that anyone agrees with me. As I've said before, as long as it is "out there". People can read and make up their own minds. That's my focus. I'd rather look at each particular and disseminate it logically and think thru it than make a broad general statement. That's just my style. To each their own.
Methusla and create, you both nailed it dead-on. :)
November 11, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
Politics seldom experience an acceleration. Therefor they continue on in a straight line at a constant speed (in their own plane) and I expect little difference now. The next incarnation of Congress will open myriad investigations into anything and everything they hope to realize political gain from, while denigrating anything to the contrary. Someone will suggest impeachment and others will continue to work for the common good. Business as usual, except for the reigning ideology. Disagreeing "experts" will climb out of various holes in various walls and spout gibberish. I will hope and pray for sunny days but will not discard my raincoat nor my umbrella.
November 11, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
USNretired & all who have seen this political circus for the past several decades and are still around to talk about it and are freely able to express your (our) opinions about it, are what I have deemed "survivors" and God willing we will continue to survive the continuing political circus. I have basically resigned myself to the ideal that all I can do is live for today and hope and pray for a better tomorrow and possibly do or say something that will make tomorrow better.
November 11, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Speaking of the "political circus"....
"MSNBC retracts false Palin story; others duped"
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/2008...
November 13, 2008 at 12:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zeus (anonymous) says...
I must say open eyes, that's good stuff. Hope there is more to follow in the future because good humor is exactly what this forum needs from time to time.
November 13, 2008 at 3:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )