the17sss, whatever you said, YOU'R WRONG!

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss You have to give her credit for something though- her state runs a surplus while so many others are begging for help.

her state also owns the alaskan pipeline and charges a toll fee for moving petroleum through the pipeline. The state also gets to tax the shit out of unsympathetic oil companies such as Exxon and BP. Plus, alaska is one of the big red states that gets back in federal money more than its citizens contributed to the federal treasury. I know you saw my lengthy post on that issue in another thread.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss show me one Democrat in the McCain mold (he/she doesn't exist) and tell me their party would even keep them around

joe lieberman - the only reason he isn't embraced by dems is because after he lost in the CT primary, he ran against the democrat.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss or that we can appoint someone to head the Treasury who doesn't think his own W-2 matters...

geihtner didn't get a W-2 because he worked for an international organization that was exempt from withholding. he didn't ignore a W-2.

Aren't you the person who said he could avoid US taxes by being paid into a Malaysian bank account?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Constitutional law degree

what's that? I've never heard of those

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I mean, the point is there are plenty of examples on both sides of deceit... Larry Craig and Mark Sanford aren't going to change voters' minds in 2010 and 2012 elections as much as Elliot Spitzer and John Edwards didn't change them in 2008.

agree - shit like that gets way overblown, however, if it appears to be systematic, voters will certain react.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I think the sign of someone who is effective in the Republican opposition is how they are treated by Democrats. They know she can rally people and drum up a lot of support, so they overcompensate on her with the insane attacks. Why are they still doing hit pieces on her? Why do the tabloids care so much about every detail of her family? I've never seen a politician in any party get so abused... seriously. And she's not a bad person. Although I don't want her on the ticket, I respect that she stays true to her values and doesn't vote based on the weekly polling data.

her values and personality are exactly what we don't like. she's very bush[esk], without a fancy college degree, which makes it even worse. At least harvard and yale "apparently" signed off on bush. In Palin's case, it took 5 years and 5 colleges to get her virtually wortheless piece of paper, and the sign off in her case came from what amounts to be a glorified community college (i.e., idaho - or some other mountain state shithole). And then there are the other four college's she went to, none of them are particularly noteworthy: Hawaii Pacific, North Idaho College, Matanuska-Susitna college, and U of Idaho - Moscow. If it was not for the college being named after the state, all of the schools Palin attended would be unidentifiable by the vast majority of the public. In short, the bitch is a twit, and my 15 year old sister-in-law is a mental powerhouse compared to Palin (and yes, in case you were going to comment, i do think it's fair to judge her intelligence based the campaing).

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Jul-01-2009 at 08:31

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I think she needs to fade away for a while and get a lot more experience

experience doesn't fix stupid.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN experience doesn't fix stupid.

lol, so true. The dumb bimbo behind the eyes will never change..no matter what she does over the next few years.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 I could accept a mitt romney as US president, but if that woman somehow becomes US president I would seriously consider moving to london, toronto, or vancouver for the length of her term, if i could secure employment in any of those locations. Perhaps my current job would grant me a secondment to an english speaking country. i know people say these things all the time, but palin being elected would run counter to almost everything i stand for and for pure principle i would move out of country (thus, contributing as little as possible to the US treasury and her administration).

I agree with everything you say here. Romney is acceptable; Palin is the worst thing imaginable.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Let me start by saying, in many ways, I agree with you that Palin isn't ready to be, and shouldn't the POTUS any time soon if at all. Like you, I also do not want her as the leader of the Republican party (I'm not sure if you actually care who is the leader since you will always vote Democrat)... not because of her conservative and traditional values because those are really strong and are part of the foundation I would like a POTUS to have at their core. But it kills me when the conservative base goes out of their way to prop her up... because she is better served being Governor of Alaska than being the sideshow her presence has become. I think she needs to fade away for a while and get a lot more experience if she wants to make a serious political run in the future. You have to give her credit for something though- her state runs a surplus while so many others are begging for help.

Did you read the article? Almost everything you say here is off.

First of all, I haven't always voted Democrat - that was a huge assumption on your part. I've always voted Dem in Presidential elections, yes, but a vote against George W. Bush hardly counts as being partisan. Hell, I worked on Capitol Hill for a Republican, not a Democrat.

Second, what conservative principles does Palin adhere to? I'm very curious on this one - it seems to me she just spouts off nonsense that she thinks people want to hear. As the article notes (and these are quotes, so author "bias" is more or less irrelevant):

quote:

In a June interview with Sean Hannity, she sounded like a New Dealer when she proudly proclaimed that “a share of our oil-resource revenue goes back to the people who own the resources—imagine that.” In the next breath, sounding like a “starve the beast” conservative, she said she hoped the price of oil, the principal variable of state revenue, would not rise too much. “The fewer dollars that the state of Alaska government has, the fewer dollars we spend, and that’s good for our families and the private sector.”

Third, in regards to Alaska running a surplus... well duh. You know how much money they make off the oil industry? It's insane that she is given real conservative credit for that. And anyway, that's beside the point, as in 2008 (and likely 2009), Alaska's state budget ran a deficit.

quote:

Now, for some defense... I've never seen a political party like today's Dems that are so interested in the polling numbers/data for the party that just lost a presidential election. I mean, we are 7 months past the election and the Left is obsessed with who's approval ratings are where in the Republican party for an election 4 years away, as if all kinds of shit isn't going to change by then. Hell, they even poll and publish approval numbers for unelected people like Rush regularly and put those into the national news outlets.

So independent polling groups constitute "Democrats", or just me? Honestly, this defense is pretty weak. Politics always necessitates an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. You think Republicans didn't constantly read polling data on Democrats in 2001?

quote:

Honestly, who gives a shit right now... elections going in cycles and the losing party always has to go through internal strife, re-organize, and come up with new strategies. Acting like Democrats to get elected (McCain) isn't the right strategy. One thing I can be sure of- the last people I'm going to listen to on "what's wrong with the Republican party" and "what the Republicans need to do to be more appealing" is the Democrats... as if they would really push for the opposition to figure out how to beat them in the future.

Who has been giving advice? Seriously, do you read threads or articles before you post?

quote:

I'm sorry, Lebez, but you couldn't have picked a more horrible author to make a serious, intellectual, thought provoking commentary about. But don't take my word for it... let's see what Bill Clinton has to say about Todd Purdum after last year's VF piece Purdum did on him:

I love how you always use Bill Clinton to defend your allegations of liberal bias... as if that makes any sense!

quote:

Now to some of the portions of note: She won't be avoiding the press. And why doesn't anyone talk about the $500,000 advance Obama took on a book deal AFTER being sworn in as president?

She won't be avoiding the press? Are you of the opinion that she hasn't thusfar then? The book deal is hardly a problem - the problem, as pointed out in the article, is that her spokeswoman, Meg Whitman, is already using the upcoming book as a reason for Palin to decline interview invitations - "Gov. Palin will be discussing those issues substantively in her book."

quote:

She is 15 for 15 in defeating these wasteful ethics complaints on the grounds of them being baseless... does that even matter?

Wow.

quote:

Heresay... and from lots of "anonymous" sources.

Such as Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter? Not to mention all the quoted people who used to work for Palin during campaigns and political offices held in Alaska. Keep wishing it away.

quote:

A Rassmussen poll a couple weeks ago showed that 41% of the public identify themselves as being conservative... 27% as liberal. I guess the favorable view of her at 44% is because a lot of people like her core conservative values. But that doesn't mean they would want her as the 2012 nominee. One could ask the same types of questions about the Democrat side; what does it say about the state of politics when Obama is viewed with high personal popularity, but his actual policies are not, and losing steam each day?

Health care has fairly overwhelming public approval. You're probably referring solely to the stimulus here, which makes some sense since a lot of people are probably fooled by conservative claims of "socialism."

quote:

This statement doesn't really say a whole lot... there are scandals on both sides of the aisle all the time. How many times do I have to explain the thing about the "moderate voices" in the party? We had the very epitome of the "moderate" as our presidential candidate, and that strategy obviously did not work. No Republican candidate will win by trying to adopt more and more liberal/democrat policies because if that's what the people want, they will always vote with the original and not the charlatan pandering to the other side. It is disingenious to say people are "far right" if they simply don't adopt policies Democrats believe in. McCain made a name for himself by going aginst his party... show me one Democrat in the McCain mold (he/she doesn't exist) and tell me their party would even keep them around. Colin Powell is another example... he is the "moderate" voice you think the Republicans need? We have no idea about anything he even stands for on any of the important issues; he can't even say why he's a Republican, but he's more than happy to say "American's want bigger government and higher taxes". I'm sorry but that is not helpful to a party that believes in less government and lower taxes (theoretically I should say). We just don't have any serious leadership, but Jesus there's 3.5 years left till the next election.... these things take time. I actually think it's more disturbing that Democrats like Chris Dodd is still in power after lying and fueling the AIG bonus nonsense and his Friends of Angello sweetheart mortgage deal... or that Charlie Rangle even HAS a job after his financial scandals involving taxpayer money... or that we can appoint someone to head the Treasury who doesn't think his own W-2 matters... or that William "cold cash" Jefferson was found with over $80K in his freezer and allowed to keep his job... or that the IG Walpin got illegally fired for doing his job and it's being ignored... or that a president with a Constitutional law degree will blatantly ignore a soverign democratic country's Constitution and call for a dictator to be put back into office... or that a President can promise 95% of Americans will not see a dime in taxes raised, while we're about to witness inevitable tax increases; hell, even the press corp can't help but laugh at Robert Gibbs trying to talk around it ----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTmk...player_embedded I mean, the point is there are plenty of examples on both sides of deceit... Larry Craig and Mark Sanford aren't going to change voters' minds in 2010 and 2012 elections as much as Elliot Spitzer and John Edwards didn't change them in 2008.

So you see no problem with moderates like Sanford and Pawlenty fade away and radicals like Palin, Paul, and Limbaugh rise in legitimacy? You actually believe the party should continue to move to the right? I've mentioned before that I'm completely non-plussed by your interpretation of the McCain campaign. Acting like a Democrat, to you, is not acting like a Democrat to anyone else.

quote:

I think the sign of someone who is effective in the Republican opposition is how they are treated by Democrats. They know she can rally people and drum up a lot of support, so they overcompensate on her with the insane attacks. Why are they still doing hit pieces on her?

Jesus Christ, who is "they"? Is this another media conspiracy? Is Purdum being funded by Nancy Pelosi now?

quote:

Why do the tabloids care so much about every detail of her family?

Because it's a trainwreck!

quote:

I've never seen a politician in any party get so abused... seriously.

Oh, just shut it. Hillary Clinton?

quote:

And she's not a bad person. Although I don't want her on the ticket, I respect that she stays true to her values and doesn't vote based on the weekly polling data.

So in your ultimate opinion, she's a raw talent viable for consideration in future elections as a "true" conservative? This is what Clovis was talking about - truly frightening.

___________________

speaking of palin:

quote:

(CNN) – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is confident Barack Obama can be beaten — in a long distance run. The former Republican vice presidential candidate told Runner's World Magazine if it came down to a foot race between the two famous politicians, she'd likely come out on top. "I betcha I'd have more endurance," Palin said in an interview published on the magazine's Web site Tuesday. "My one claim to fame in my own little internal running circle is a sub-four marathon. It wasn't necessarily a good running time, but it proves I have the endurance within me to at least gut it out and that is something. "If you ever talk to my old coaches they'd tell you, too," she continued. "What I lacked in physical strength or skill I made up for in determination and endurance. So if [it] were a long race that required a lot of endurance I'd win." The avid runner also revealed an accident she had only days before the vice presidential debate last fall, when she fell on a trail while jogging at Sen. John McCain's Arizona ranch. "I was so stinkin' embarrassed that a golf cart full of Secret Service guys had to pull up beside me," she said of the fall. "My hands just got torn up and I was dripping blood. In the debate you could see a big fat ugly Band-Aid on my right hand." Declaring "sweat is my sanity," Palin also said some of her worst days on the campaign trail were those when McCain staffers did not schedule time for her to run.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...outrun-obama-2/

LO f'in L


i cringe when I hear "betcha," "stinkin'," "got torn up." Her grammar skills are terrible!

quote:

Palin story sparks GOP family feud By: Jonathan Martin June 30, 2009 09:06 PM EST A hard-hitting piece on Sarah Palin in the new Vanity Fair has touched off a blistering exchange of insults among high-profile Republicans over last year’s GOP ticket – tearing open fresh wounds about leaks surrounding Palin and revealing for the first time some of the internal wars that paralyzed the campaign in its final days. Rival factions close to the McCain campaign have been feuding since last fall over Palin, usually waging the battle in the shadows with anonymous quotes. Now, however, some of the most well-known names in Republican politics are going on-the-record with personal attacks and blame-casting. William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and at times an informal adviser to Sen. John McCain, touched off the latest back-and-forth Tuesday morning with a post on his magazine’s blog criticizing the Todd Purdum-authored Palin story and pointing a finger at Steve Schmidt, McCain’s campaign manager. Kristol cited a passage in Purdum’s piece in which “some top aides” were said to worry about the Alaska governor’s “mental state” and the prospect that the Alaska governor may be suffering from post-partum depression following the birth of her son Trig. “In fact, one aide who raised this possibility in the course of trashing Palin’s mental state to others in the McCain-Palin campaign was Steve Schmidt,” Kristol wrote. Asked about the accusation, Schmidt fired back in an e-mail: “I'm sure John McCain would be president today if only Bill Kristol had been in charge of the campaign.” “After all, his management of [former Vice President] Dan Quayle’s public image as his chief of staff is still something that takes your breath away,” Schmidt continued. “His attack on me is categorically false.” Asked directly in a telephone interview if he brought up the prospect of Palin suffering from post-partum depression, Schmidt said: “His allegation that I was defaming Palin by alleging post-partum depression at the campaign headquarters is categorically untrue. In fact, I think it rises to the level of a slander because it’s about the worst thing you can say about somebody who does what I do for a living.” But Kristol’s charge was seconded by Randy Scheunemann, a longtime foreign policy adviser to McCain who is also close to the Standard editor and was thought to be a Palin ally within the campaign. “Steve Schmidt has a congenital aversion to the truth,” Scheunemann said. “On two separate and distinct occasions, he speculated about about Governor Palin having post-partum depression, and on the second he threatened that if more negative publicity about the handling of Governor Palin emerged that he would leak his speculation [about post-partum depression] to the press. It was like meeting Tony Soprano.” Schmidt said Scheunemann’s charges were “categorically untrue.” “It is inappropriate for me to discuss personnel issues from the campaign,” Schmidt continued. “But suffice it to say Randy is saying these things not because they’re true but because he wants to damage my reputation because of consequences he faced for actions he took.” Schmidt is alluding, without saying so directly, to the stories that emerged after the campaign that Scheunemann had been fired. Scheunemann said Schmidt did try to fire him but added: “I’ve got a pay stub through November 15th.” The questions about Scheunemann being terminated are central to the larger battle about who was trashing Palin, something that quickly came to the surface in the back and forth between Schmidt and Kristol on Tuesday. The vitriol also suggests the degree to which Palin remains a Rorschach test not simply to Republicans nationally but within a tight circle of elite operatives and commentators, many of whom seem ready to carry their arguments in 2012. Was Palin a fresh talent whose debut was mishandled by self-serving campaign insiders, or an eccentric “diva” who had no business on the national stage? Going forward, does she offer a conservative and charismatic face for a demoralized and star-less party? Or is she a loose cannon who should be consigned to the tabloids where she can reside in perpetuity with other flash-in-the-pan sensations? Schmidt, who has returned to his California-based political and public affairs consulting business, said that he “worked incredibly hard during the campaign to defend Sarah Palin and her family against a lot of attacks that I thought then and think today were very unfair.” And he got in a dig at Kristol, who frequently offered unvarnished assessments of McCain’s campaign from his perch at the Standard, on Fox News, where he is a contributor, and in his then-New York Times column. “Bill Kristol, going back to the time of the campaign, has taken a lot of cheap shots at the campaign without ever offering a plausible path to victory,” Schmidt said. “He’s in the business of ad hominem insults and criticism.” Responding to Schmidt’s counterattack, Kristol directly fingered Schmidt: “It’s simply a fact that when the going got tough, Steve Schmidt trashed Sarah Palin, both within the campaign and (on background) to journalists. This was after Steve took credit for the Palin pick when, at first, he thought it made him look good. John McCain deserved better.” At this, Schmidt unloaded in a lengthy telephone interview, suggesting that Kristol was carrying out a personal vendetta based out of anger over the attempt to fire Scheunemann in the final days of the campaign. In doing so, Schmidt revealed what has been whispered about for months following the campaign: that he and another top aide had ordered a leak hunt in the campaign’s internal e-mail system. “What this is about is a personal issue that happened late in the campaign relating to a close, personal friend of Bill Kristol and people at The Weekly Standard,” Schmidt said, refusing to use Scheunemann’s name. “At the end of the campaign there were a series of leaks that were so damaging that it was consuming the 24-hour cable news cycle. Leaks to reporters where Sarah Palin was called all manner of names. [McCain senior adviser] Rick Davis and I jointly felt that was outrageous. So we made an attempt for the first time in the campaign to try to ID who was leaking information that was so damaging and demoralizing to a campaign that was in very difficult circumstances,” Schmidt said, noting that an IT professional executed a system-wide search by keyword. “What was discovered was an e-mail from a very senior staff member to Bill Kristol that then entered into the news current and continued the negative in-fighting stories for an additional news cycles. I recommended tough medicine for that individual that was carried out,” Schmidt said, again referring to Scheunemann. “Bill Kristol might not have liked that decision, and he might be mad about what happened to his friend, but going all the way back he has been a part of this story and I’ve preserved his confidentiality in that until now. But his use of his public forums to take a personal fight and make character attacks is just simply dishonest and wrong.” Scheunemann, confirming that his e-mail had been searched, accused Schmidt of “acting in a manner of Iranian secret police” in going to his account. The foreign policy hand said what was discovered was a message from Kristol inquiring who was the source in the campaign of the “diva” leak, the now-famous complaint from a senior McCain campaign official to CNN’s Dana Bash that Palin was acting like a spoiled and selfish celebrity. Schmidt suggested that Scheunemann had fingered Nicolle Wallace, a senior McCain adviser who helped work with Palin, to Kristol in the message. “It led to a whole another round of speculation, including Fred Barnes the next night attacking Nicolle Wallace on the air,” Schmidt said, suggesting without saying directly that was why an effort was made to terminate Scheunemann. Barnes, another Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor, accused Wallace on Fox News in late October of being “a coward” for running up tens of thousands of dollars in high-end clothes for Palin and then letting the governor take the blame for the purchases. After Wallace denied she had purchased the clothes, Barnes apologized on the air the following night. But Scheunemann said the clothes controversy was an entirely separate issue and one which he made no mention of in his e-mail to Kristol. Asked directly if he accused Nicolle Wallace of being the source behind the “diva” leak in his message to Kristol, Scheunemann said: “My e-mail did not accuse Nicolle Wallace. It said something very disparaging about Nicolle but it did not accuse her of being the leak.” A source familiar with the contents of the e-mail said that Scheunemann actually accused Nicolle Wallace’s husband, Mark Wallace, of being the source of the leak. When Kristol questioned the likelihood of a male like Mark Wallace using such a gossipy term as diva, this source said, Scheunemann wrote back that Mark Wallace knows something about divas because he’s married to a diva. Asked about the e-mail, Nicolle Wallace said: “I did not have any knowledge of this. This is all news to me.” As for being called a “diva,” Wallace laughed for a few seconds. “I don’t have anything to say on that,” she said. Mark Wallace, taking the phone from his wife, also laughed about the diva accusation but wouldn’t respond when asked whether he had been the source of the “diva” leak. He explained that he had followed a "zero talk policy with the press" regarding the campaign and wanted to honor that. But, after an early version of this story was posted on-line, he made an exception and offered a flat denial: "No, never. I don't think Sarah Palin is a diva." The leak-hunting, Scheunemann said, began after POLITICO’s Ben Smith wrote a story in late October suggesting that Palin had ”gone rogue” and began ignoring the advice of her campaign handlers. “So after that, they went nuclear with ‘diva’ the next day,” Scheunemann said, referring to the Palin-bashing done to CNN’s Bash the day after the POLITICO story. “But did anybody search Mark or Nicolle Wallace’s e-mails for leaks to Dana Bash?” Schmidt said Kristol was driven by a personal vendetta over the attempted termination of his decades-long friend, Scheunemann. “Nonsense,” Kristol replied. “My post today was (self-evidently) triggered by the Todd Purdum article that appeared today, which had Schmidt’s fingerprints all over it. I hadn’t thought about Schmidt in months, and will be happy now to return to more pressing issues, like the presidency of Barack Obama.” As for the charges of being a sunshine soldier with regard to Palin, Schmidt said: “Nonsense. I’m a team player. That’s a reflection of [Kristol’s] values. He’s the Washington, D.C., talking head and glitterati. I live in Northern California and I really don’t give a s--- about that stuff.” The nasty back-and-forth between the two well-known Republicans and re-litigating of internal backbiting underscores the degree to which the internecine and very personal battle over last fall’s ticket between those seen as Palin allies and Palin detractors still rages on nearly six months into President Obama’s term. And it comes as Palin struggles to find her footing, at times appearing to want to take a strictly Alaska-first approach, but then re-emerging on the national stage – something chronicled in the nearly 10,000-word Vanity Fair article. Loyalists to Palin, including Kristol, were outraged at Purdum’s piece, believing it to be another example of what they see as elite media contempt for the Wasilla native. In his post, Kristol also criticized Purdum for writing that several Alaskans had told him during the reporting of the piece that they had checked the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders definition of “narcissistic personality disorder” and found it fit their governor. “Is there any real chance that ‘several’ Alaskans independently told Purdum that they had consulted the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders?” Kristol wrote. “I don’t believe it for a moment. I’ve (for better or worse) moved in pretty well-educated circles in my life, and I’ve gone decades without ‘several’ people telling me they had consulted the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.” In response, Purdum, a Princeton graduate, wrote of his Harvard-degreed critic: “I'm not nearly as well-educated as Bill, but the great Irving Berlin taught me that ‘you don't have to go to a private school not to pick up a penny near a stubborn mule.’ In the age of Google, I'm confident that plenty of Alaskans know more about finding medical reference works – and all sorts of other knowledge – than Bill thinks they do.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24392.html

___________________

quote:

A hard-hitting piece on Sarah Palin in the new Vanity Fair has touched off a blistering exchange of insults among high-profile Republicans over last year’s GOP ticket – tearing open fresh wounds about leaks surrounding Palin and revealing for the first time some of the internal wars that paralyzed the campaign in its final days.

ahhh, good to see the liberal media hitting a nerve!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ahhh, good to see the liberal media hitting a nerve!

And yet, remarkably, the denial that in-fighting ever occurred continues among Republicans that weren't associated with the campaign. It's obviously still a part of the liberal media conspiracy, despite the fact that it actually happened (and continues).

___________________