Sarah Palin and the Coming American Election.

[Jonut]

To explain my reasoning, I am too liberal minded to vote for such a anti-gay, anti-open minded, pro gun toting party, no matter who was running for them.

 

[Airam]

To explain my reasoning, I am too liberal minded to vote for such a anti-gay, anti-open minded, pro gun toting party, no matter who was running for them.

EXACTLY! I do not presume to be very well versed in the specific ideals of McCain or Palin. I don't follow their policies or listen to their speeches because I don't need to, they are a part of the REpublican party I know what they stand for and its things that I could NEVER stand for. Bush has run our country into the ground for the past 8 years and why anyone, even republicans, would want to elect someone into office who shares so many of Bush's political viewpoints is SO beyond me. Our economy is in serious serious trouble and from what I hear McCain believes there is no problem at all, i mean its ludicrous.

Another shrewd maneuver by McCain if you ask me. He's playing the democrats like a fiddle. It may have looked good on paper for the young inexperienced BO before it began, but now the cagey old veteran will begin to fight the actual fight, and polls mean nothing at this point. I loved the way he totally stole the thunder from the Democrats who we're riding their high coming out of their convention in Denver. They were arrogantly feeling invincible. McCain announced Sarah Palin for VP the following day, and suddenly the media forgot any convention had even taken place. All the big talk in Denver was instantly forgotten. Now the day after that the Dems are scrabbling around through the dark recesses of the internet looking for some smudge they can muddy into a smear against the hockey mom of five with an 80% approval rating as Governor. Good luck with that. They tried it in Alaska when she ran for Governor. You saw how successful that was.

That proves EXACTLY that he only chose her as a strategic move to bring attention his way to divert attention from Obama immediately after the convention because he is threatened, very, anybody would be after Obama's speech. But come on, I mean seriously, do we want someone that plays mind games with the public and the media? McCain should have shot back with thev issues not a media ploy. His moves only indicate that he thinks we are stupid and his supporters are playing right into it. I mean I guess opinions are opinions but it is just so hard for me to understand how anyone could follow republican ideals.

And, nerd4hire, I'm a little curious you aren't American but you wish you could vote republican if you could. I really thought that the resounding opinion most everywhere overseas was that the Americans were stupid for electing and re-electing Bush. I really believed that most foreigners were really down on Bush, so wouldn't they be against going down the same route again. Or maybe you're just not part of the most....

 

[Buffanator]

I hate her. Yes, with a passion. McCain probably wouldn't get my vote anyway, but NOW he definitely won't.

Looks like another "write-in" election for Clark Griswold on Buffantor's vote. :biggrin:

 

[UnKle]

Kind tough to vote in this poll when there really isn't much of a 'nay' in the options.

I don't like her. She looks like one of those conservative Christian politicians that tries to ramrod their personal politics down the throat of the masses while painting pretty pictures about the reasons for doing it. I think McCain is trying to lean as far to the right as he can so he can get the eccentric evangelical vote to counter Obama, and that he picked her because she's a woman and Obama didn't pick a female VP. I don't feel like he picked her for any other reasons.

Neither candidate gets a whooping wahoo from me. I really don't like either of them, and I feel like I'm just going to vote for the lesser of two gits.

 

[Tueuse de Vampires]

I've never heard if her before, to be honest.
And no, I wouldn't vote for her. I don't know how exactly the system works in other countries, but in germany you still mainly vote for the party, not the person, and there's no way in hell I would vote Republican (not to offend anyone, but I just don't believe in anything they do).

 

[Airam]

nerd4hire agrees: And if the 72 year old cancer prone McCain dies, what's Sarah?
Relic agrees: I could not agree with nerd4hire more, especially with mcacins health being an issue in the past.

Yeah and that makes it even worse! Here's McCain placing someone he chose purely as gimmick, as an attention grabber, just a heartbeat away from presidency, from being the ruler of MY country... that just makes me dislike him even more, especially taking his health issues into consideration. As much as I might disagree with his views and policies, at least McCain has the experience, but to make the governor of Alaska next in line, Alaska? There's barely half a million people living in that whole state and she's expected to be capable of running an entire country of 300 million?! It seems a little crazy to me. Not to mention that McCain had only met Palin, what was it, twice before appointing her?! Really?! Yeah i'm sure he can have full faith in her capabilities to run the United States after meeting her TWICE! It's flabbergasting. Gimmick, I say again. Some might say that Obama lacks some experience, but at least he backed himself up with someone plenty capable, knowledgable and experienced.

 

[nerd4hire]

Whoah, there seems to be a lot of hate pouring in here from people openly admitting they know nothing about the issues.

And you know what? From a strategy viewpoint this is a good thing. It confirms McCain knew what he was doing when he chose Palin.

But on that subject of strategy, tell me this. Why is political strategy supposed to be such a bad thing? The choice of Palin for VP was a great, political strategy. This is supposed to be wrong. It's countered by the word "just". The argument is McCain chose Palin "just" to do this, or "just" to do that. However those saying it are missing a key point. This campaign is just beginning. There are a couple of months left to go. As it continues we're seeing there's a lot more to Palin than the word "just" justifies. As Palin's strength, and ability becomes steadily more evident the opposing argument and the lame lack of strategy opposing it is revealed. The Democrat's political strategy begins to look like one based on muck rucking, and posturing, and a stupidly misplaced, smug, belief they already have the election in the bag, so they don't have to pay attention.

On the other hand, Palin will be revealed over time as the candidate with the actual executive experience, and the person with the actual ability to get the job done. Obama and Biden will be left at the end looking to be naive, and out of their depth, with nothing more than childish accusations as a platform. It's a masterful plan from 2 cagey political opponents. There's no "just" about it, because ultimately who do you want in charge of your country? The guys who can be suckered in by superior strategy, or the guys who can master it? At the end of all this the muck-raking served up against Palin will only reveal her strength, as she counters it.

The real question is can Palin play this game. Can she slap the attacks against, hersef, her career, and her family away, then reveal herself to have the kind of strength, and ability necessary to be VP?

Last night Sarah Palin spoke at the Republican National Convention. She answered her critics. She's plenty tough. She's smart. She's capable. Say what you want about how she got things done in her political career. The unmistakable fact is she got things done.

Here's a link to Governor Palin's speech last night. Check it out.

YouTube - Remarks by Sarah Palin

 

[randiann]

Here's McCain placing someone he chose purely as gimmick, as an attention grabber, just a heartbeat away from presidency, from being the ruler of MY country... Gimmick, I say again.

My word exactly! That's what I've been arguing with some thickheaded people lately. It's a gimmick to win a popularity contest. McCain didn't pick her because she would make a great leader. He picked her so that he wouldn't seem so stuffy. The democrats have a (half) Black guy as their candidate, so he's got to one up them by picking a chick for the VP candidate. That's all it is. At least Obama picked somebody with some experience so that if he is elected and something happens to him (because really something would as close minded as people still are. I mean, how long have they had secret service with him already?) we will have somebody in office who will have a tiny bit of notion as to what to do. Whether or not I agree with his notion of what to do with this country is another issue entirely.

I know one thing though, I do not agree with Sarah Palin. Firstly, she wants to drill for oil and disrupt more wildlife in Alaska instead of exploring other venues of alternate renewable energy. Oil's not going to last forever. It is a finite resource and there is no sense in digging for more and more oil instead of putting our efforts elsewhere, because after that oil is gone, then what? We'll be right back in the same boat.

Second, she is anti-abortion. Now, I think abortion is morally and ethically wrong. But I in no way wish to impose my views on others. Just because I could never choose to do it simply because I did not want the child (and I very nearly did with my son; I'm so glad I decided not to) doesn't mean I should tell someone else not to. As much as I believe abortion is murder, I also rather that child not suffer than have to live with a parent who cannot care for them or with a deformity that will cause them misery thoughout their entire life. Abortion is a double edged sword for me. I think it is wrong, but I also think people should have the choice available to them.

As for the pro-gun statement earlier: I do not see this as a negative. I feel the same way for guns as I do for abortion. I would never want to own a gun as I have no use for a gun. I do not hunt, or go shooting for fun. I've got an alarm system and a very big dog trained for bitework (my Boyfriend's dog, he does protection and ring sport with her). I don't need a gun. But I'm not going to tell Joe Schmoe down the street that he shouldn't own a gun because guns are bad.

As for gay marriage: see above. People should have the choice to do what makes them happy and secure in life.

I think the real issues politicians should concern themselves with is making sure the American people are taken care of, that they have access to the facilities they need. Healthcare, education, a sound economy; these issues should all come before issues about restricting (sp?) rights. In my opinion, politicians should worry about the nation as a whole (say, economy?) instead of telling people what is right and what is wrong. People should be smart enough to figure out by themselves what is morally acceptable instead of having somebody there to tell them what to do all the time. But people are not. I wish I could find the quote from Buffy about how a person is smart, but people as a whole are stupid (I think Angel said it). That is what frustrates me about government. Basically, I don't believe it should exist because we should be smart enough to govern ourselves without killing each other, and we are not. So therefore, I have to pick the lesser of the evils. I don't think Sarah Palin is part of that "lesser" section.

I was listening to the radio this morning when I heard something that made sense to me. They were talking about Palin's speech, and saying that while it was a good speech, it was simply that. A SPEECH. It was written for her, and she delivered it well. But it was not her spur of the moment thoughts. It was a well crafted and well delivered talk about why republicans are good, Obama is bad, blah blah. And I feel the same way they do; I can't wait for the debates because that is when she will get her ass handed to her. All she has shown me so far is that she can make petty attacks against her opponents, who even stood up for her in the media frenzy and said "kids are off limits"

Now, do I support Obama? No. But that's a whole different issue. This has turned into a pretty long post already for somebody that considers herself to be apolitical.

Who said Clark Griswald? I'm beginning to think he may not be so bad!

 

[white avenger]

And,as far as I'm concerned,he made the wrong choice. If he wanted to pick a female candidate,he could do worse than go with Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Granted,she's conservative,but she also has some brains.


On behalf of conservatives everywhere, I find this statement offensive. I would never accuse a liberal of not having a brain. Granted, their brains are in somewhat better condition than the average conservative's but that's mostly from lack of use.

 

[ckg927]

My oh my,do I love to stir the pot....

n4h: If Palin has "the actual executive experience",then please explain why,as mayor of Wasalla(a town of 8,000 or so),she shot the town's revenue base down the drain-thus forcing the town to raise taxes four fold. Now,as we all know,raising taxes is like the one thing that will sign your death warrant with the voting public. It's quite different to compare running a town of that size than to be President(if,heaven forbid,McCain dies in office). And,I'm sorry,but vetting a candidate does not consist of just 2 meetings. McCain lost whatever chance he had to put forth a good image of his running mate. And since he failed to vet the candidate,the media's doing it for him.

Yes,it's early in the campaign,but let's not fool ourselves: This pick is little more than a sop to the American Taliban(aka the religious right),who McCain himself ripped 8 years ago as "agents of intolerance". Now he's in bed with them,having had a couple of other choices-Lieberman and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge-rejected because they were pro-choice. That part of the party was happy,but other parts of the GOP are not. I take it people have heard Peggy Noonan(former GOP speechwriter)and ex-McCain staffer Mike Murphy dissing the pick on MSNBC? If not,the video's out there. Noonan uses some frank language in her thoughts on the pick,which I won't repeat here(lest I get dinged).

wa: I'll take that comment back about the brains. However,I still think Hutchinson would have been a better choice if he were to reach out to female voters(who,BTW,vote in larger numbers than men do). She has enough conservative cred and would no doubt be OK with the evangelicals. And....BTW,don't rip me for not using my brain,OK? Only I can do that. 🙂

 

[goldenboy]

I still think Hutchinson would have been a better choice if he were to reach out to female voters(who,BTW,vote in larger numbers than men do). She has enough conservative cred and would no doubt be OK with the evangelicals.

I just can't picture a Hutchinson/McCain ticket doing the trick against the Obama factor. Or Lieberman...Pawlenty...anyone, really. I dunno. How much of an election comes down to the intangibles...people's irrational exuberance about a personality? However shaky Palin is as a viable VP...she energized the entire GOP with her speech and her story. I keep hearing "Reaganesque" in reference to her style. That's a bit much, but I get the comparison. If the vetting doesn't crush her, this will be really interesting.

 

[Buffanator]

Palin is a nightmare!!! Her christian "ethics" is something we definitely DON'T need in the white house. For the past 8 years, this country has been driven into the dirt. While McCain seems like a sincere & all around "good guy", his choosing Palin for his running mate has many people - especially REAL feminists - scared ****less.

This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.

Palin opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." Nice.

On national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, she has about one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.

McCain chose poorly.


So what we, the American public have to deal with is Obama's non-experience/Biden's great experience compared to McCain's great experience/Palin's pathetic experience....

Politics can be some scary ****. :bite-cha:

 

[nerd4hire]

Ya know...I've been trying so hard not to really get into this. I've been sitting here reading all these half-baked, unreferenced allegations presented as immutable truths, and thinking to myself. Oh well, there's no way of telling how much fact there is in any of that, at this point, so just let the accusations fly. They're either more true than false, or they're not. Eventually all these slurs will be addressed by the people involved, and if the rebuttal is good, it will only serve to make the point of those making those offering the attacks weaker. Why should I offer spoilers, and ruin the effect of the eventual reveal?

But congratulations. You just pushed the right button. Now it's an actual debate. Here's the button, and thanks for underlining it.

She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming.

Creationism isn't the button. I could care less about that. It's the last 2 words. That fraudulent global warming swindle nonsense really gets me going.

First of all your statement is, as usual with this kind of stuff, a simplification taken out of context, to suggest a truth that doesn't exist.

She was asked a question on her personal belief on whether creationism should be taught rather than evolution. She said she thought both should be taught. Now how she thinks it should be taught, or in what context, religion, science, or social phenomena, we don't know, although you appear to think you do. We do know teaching of creationism was never legislated in Alaska, so what we're really talking about is somebody's private opinion, rather than an insinuation of an agenda of public policy.

Also, if you're saying allegations of creationist belief automatically neuters the persons ability to recognize hard science, I disagree. I see those, "he's a creationist, therefore the facts he offers don't matter" announcements against people like Roy Spencer. In case you don't know who Roy Spencer is, he's one of the who guys who put the technology together for NASA which allows satellites to monitor weather. But, apparently we're not allowed to believe this guy when he shows us actual satellite data showing how negative climate sensitivity from clouds pretty much disproves the effectiveness of current climate models, because he made a comment one time suggesting an open mind to some aspect of creationism. Similar attacks are made against James Inhoef, and even science fiction writer Orson Scott Card. All those guys know more about the hard science on both sides of the global warming debate than those attacking him.

All those other twisted facts, quotes taken out of context, and outright fabrications concerning Palin I'll deal with one by one as this continues. There's just too many of them to deal with all in one spot. However, don't you find it curious we suddenly know so much about somebody we hadn't heard of a few days ago.

For now this is just an announcement, the free ride on unsupported slurs is over. You wanna debate stuff that may, or may not be true. Fine let's do it.

Let's start here. It's tricky when you start stating allegations as facts. There are no allegations against Palin as bad as those made against Obama. If you want to accept the Palin slurs as unchallengeable truth, the Obama slurs become similarly true.

Here's a link Video listing Obama's lies, and worse.

Did you know Obama thinks America has 59 states? Watch the video if you don't believe me. You can see him saying it.

 

[ckg927]

Only problem is....when it comes to the Obama stuff,when you actually do some digging,they turn out to be so much BS.

Like that "Obama's birth certificate is fake" meme? Even WorldNetDaily,which is in on the conservative side of the ledger,has reported that the certificate is legit. (Of course,they still report that it's fake.)

Back to Palin: I find it hard to believe her rhetoric about refusing earmarks when,as governor,she got spitloads of them for her state. If memory serves,that places Alaska in the top 10 states of those who get the most bang for the buck when it comes to money coming into the state versus money going out of the state in taxes.

 

[nerd4hire]

Only problem is....when it comes to the Obama stuff,when you actually do some digging,they turn out to be so much BS.

Yeah, because there's no possibility the liberal press could get these convenient little factoids which suddenly appeared concerning Palin wrong is there?

Nevertheless, crazy as the idea is of say the Associated Press warping a story to tar Sarah Palin, and wait for the feathers, let's consider the possibility. Here's a fun little nugget...

According to the AP, Sarah Palin said this about the troops while at church:

“Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,"

According to real life, Sarah Palin said this about the troops while at church (with the AP’s selective quoting underlined):

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God,”

The AP quote means “Iraq is a mission from God.”

The actual quote means “We pray Iraq is a mission from God.”

The headline is even more misleading.

Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'

The AP not only doesn't mention the previous sentence, or the first part of the sentence they quote, they also essentially ignore the meaning of the very next sentence as well. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

This is a statement of humble reflection from Palin. To translate into terms the media might understand, its "I hope we're doing the right thing."

This story is bad enough that the AP really should issue a correction on it, if not a full retraction. There's no story unless you butcher the quote. It's based on half (or a quarter) of a quote, mentally ignoring the previous and following sentences, and even presenting the trimmed quote as the start of a sentence --forcing them to capitalize a word that actually appeared in the middle of the sentence.

Stu Blog

But that's from the right wing Glenn Beck so it must be wrong, right? I disagree. I find him every bit as credible as the AP which I remember as the guys who tried propping up the Green Helmet Guy, even though it was clearly demonstrated with video evidence he was manipulating news concerning the disaster in Lebanon with flat out fabrications meant to inspire a more emotional response.

In fact if Beck is lying prove it on this one.

Obama 101

It's a transcript of yesterday's show where Beck interviewed four writers who have been digging into Obama's history. One is the writer of Obama Nation which has been 4 weeks #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.

There are some allegations which make Sarah Palin, even with all these warped, sudden attacks from the left wing media seem the sainted mother of all things righteous.

Among the suggestions from the researchers is Obama's connection to the domestic terrorist, Bomber William Ayers.

There are a lot of Barack Obama`s friends, and as my mother used to say, show me your friends and I`ll show you your future. William Ayers is always dismissed. Lay the case out on William Ayers, please.

CORSI: Well, William Ayers, of course, is the Weather Underground bomber. And Obama began his career, his coming out party in 1995, at Ayers and Bernadine Dorns home.

And then for, you know, some 20 years, Obama has been working with Ayers, certainly since 1995, on a series of foundations: the Annenberg Foundation and the Woods Foundation. The boards of directors together, or in the Annenberg Foundation, Ayers created it, and Obama was on it. And together they spent the money of these foundations to implement their radical socialist agenda.

BECK: OK. Tell me, if you will, because a lot of people say, no, they just know each other. They`re not friends. Just because -- you know, just because they worked on boards together. Explain a little bit about the introduction of his candidacy at the Ayers home.

CORSI: Obama was in 1995 going to take the seat of Alice Palmer, who is also an extreme socialist. She`s an African-American who had actually gone to Russia and had attended communist party meetings and reported on them. And it was all very much of a leftist gathering.

Ayers and Dorns were like the stamp of approval on Obama, introducing them to their click of leftist friends for funding and for advancing his candidacy. So that very beginning was a chosen intentionally association with Ayers and Dorns to launch Obama`s career, and Obama knew exactly what he was doing picking him.

BECK: What are we missing here on this?

DAVID FREDDOSO, AUTHOR, "THE CASE AGAINST BARACK OBAMA": It`s -- I mean, that`s an accurate description of the relationship with William Ayers. We`re going to find out more soon, through the work of Stanley Kurtz at "National Review," who`s going through the Annenberg Challenge documents.

Senator Obama is the one who`s saying that "This is just another guy in my neighborhood," but in fact, that`s not true at all. It may turn out to be that they had a much closer relationship through their work together on the Annenberg Challenge.

BECK: What -- and what is the Annenberg Challenge?

FREDDOSO: This is what Doctor Corsi was mentioning. This is an educational philanthropy project in which they were trying to -- they were trying to change the way that schools were run, bringing in outside groups to help with them in Chicago.

BECK: Can either of you address the books that William Ayers has written on school? Some of the direct quotes of what he has said in his books?

CORSI: Well, his agenda -- I guess the most famous book is "Fugitive Days" that he published, I believe, in 2001, in which Ayers was unrepentant, saying that he wished he bombed more.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/04/gb.01.html

This stuff is based on actual research over a period of time. The Sarah Palin attacks appeared in a number of days. Tell me then, why is the right wing in depth research less credible than the sudden appearance of these reams of unverified allegations from the left favoring media? You're going have to do better than, because the other ones are from the right.

And c'mon man. Merely presenting yourself as the possessor of some sort of superior knowledge isn't going to fly here. If you've got it, produce it.

Statements like "when you actually do some digging" are only going to serve to give you large passages of information to read.

 

[ckg927]

Don't tempt me.

First off....Corsi's book is so loaded with inaccuracies,etc. that it would take more time than it's worth for me,specifically,to rebut it point by point.

But I'll do my best.

(HT to Media Matters.)

The first charge that Corsi makes in the book says that Obama never revealed in his first autobiography when and if he stopped using drugs,after he admitted to using them when younger. Oops! Obama added that he stopped using them shortly after arriving in New York City to attend Columbia University.

Oh,hell...I'll just point you to the rebuttal...

Media Matters - Unfit for Publication: Corsis The Obama Nation filled with falsehoods

And about Glenn Beck? Here's the guy's exact words on Obama(8/6/08),while discussing what he thinks America's catching on about Obama: "This guy really is a Marxist. He believes in the redistribution of wealth." No bias there,either,hmmm?

As for Ayers....I take it Corsi forgot to mention that Obama has denounced Ayers many times and in many locations. But,you don't care about that,I guess.

One more thing....and here's the dirty little secret you might not know about WHY Corsi's book debuted at #1 in the New York Times: It was bought in bulk by conservative book clubs...got pub on conservative talk shows,Fox News,et al. Quite the little racket they have going on. Would that the media have half the effect at moving a book that these guys do. (USA Today's top books has listed it in the top 10,but NOT #1;it's currently #33.)

 

[nerd4hire]

But you still don't get my point. I'm not saying left, or right are the holders of the eternal light of truth.

I'm saying smears are just that - smears. It doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum they come from.

For example you say in an aghast unbelieving breath Beck actually suggested Obama might be a communist. I could answer "Why not? There's reason to believe that based on the company he kept, and the circle he traveled in".

CORSI: Obama was in 1995 going to take the seat of Alice Palmer, who is also an extreme socialist. She`s an African-American who had actually gone to Russia and had attended communist party meetings and reported on them. And it was all very much of a leftist gathering.

You say the right wing writer, Corsi, can't be believed, because the left wing critics Boehlert and Foser say he's not in possession of the truth like they are.

I say well if we're going to step on stretchers of the truth, where did you get the idea taxes in Wasilla rose 4 fold. Didn't you link me to a previous story saying.

As with much of Palin's sun-kissed career, her timing was ideal: She was able to cut property taxes by three-fourths because sales tax revenues from the city's new big-box stores were soaring. She even pushed for a sales tax increase to build a pet project, a new sports complex for ice hockey.

That's not quite as black and white as taxes raising 4 fold, and wasn't Palin elected as mayor of Wasilla for a second term. Wasn't she quite popular. In fact if you click here, you'll discover she's still popular in Wasilla. If they were really taxed 4 fold wouldn't one expect some sort of dissent.

Actually there was dissent, wasn't there? And that's where we come back to stretchers of the truth, if not outright liars. Doesn't that exorbitant taxes story source from a letter written to a writer of the left-leaning Washington Post from one Anne Kilkenny - a resident of Wasilla? Kilkenny is by her own admission a woman who likes to hang around town hall meetings in Wasilla, but has never actually been elected to anything. She's also the source of the "Sarah's a book burner" story which can't seem to be verified, and the ludicrous insinuation Sarah is actually her down's syndrome baby's grandmother, not her mother. Anybody who has ever lived in a small northern town knows somebody like Anne Kilkenny, and if the left is so desperate for smears they quote her as fact they must need dirt pretty bad.

But you see that's my point. There's smears. There's rebuttal, and counter-smears from both sides. What I object to is this attitude from the left that only their smears should be accepted as unquestionable truth.

It's one of those things I hear from the left all to often, where I just want to say "how dumb do you think we are?". Now me I don't believe everything Corsi says. I don't believe Anne Kilkenny. Maybe there's some sort of layer of truth buried in there somewhere, but so what. What I object to is either smear artist being presented as the soul purveyor of unquestionable truth.

At this moment we don't know a whole lot about Sarah Palin. Stop trying to suggest you do. You don't. I'd like to see any links you have to all these smears you're collecting though. I collect them too. They're fun. I might bring them out for a chuckle after Sarah cleans Biden's clock in the VP debate.

BTW, I have to tell you, it turns out I'm a prophet. Remember at the beginning of this thread when you said...

And don't worry,at least not right now,about it being close. About every electoral site and poll I've noticed all say the same thing: It's not going to happen for the Repubs this year.

and I said...

polls are only considered accurate to liberals when they say they're winning.

Well tonight Michael Moore was on CNN. He was asked to comment on how the polls are saying the race is getting close since Sarah turned up. Apparently Moore doesn't believe in polls this week. 🙂

 

[Buffanator]

Dear Nerd:

while I don't begrudge you for your beliefs, I do oppose them, as has been stated in more ways (and threads) than one - but the simplest fact of the simplest matter is that "smears" and "counter-smears" - that's what politics is all about. The Repukelicans smear the Demoncrats, and vice versa. Whatever Palin said or didn't say, & whatever Obama said or didn't say, is often left up to the people - FACTS & TRUTH are two different things. Facts are facts. One person's TRUTH can be anybody else's lie. That's humanity.

You have made it clear that you don't believe in global warming, & that's your prerogative. I do believe it - whole heartedly, & that's my prerogative. But Palin's belief that "creationism" should be taught in schools, whether or not she politically pushes for it, is one of those christian-hype things that make my skin crawl. You see, I'm one of those "freaks" that doesn't appreciate anything religious in the public school system. They can teach creationism all they want in PRIVATE CATHOLIC or BAPTIST schools.

...and we all know how I feel about the critters of the world. Palin is well known for her "aerial killing of wolves" support in Alaska, & suing to remove the polar bears off the endangered list... is that the BEST way for YOUR tax dollars to be spent?

And hey guess what? I used to live in Alaska. So I know all about the "Bridge to Nowhere" & other such crap. Alaska is a HUGE state. With very few people. She is no where NEAR being ready as a VP. Biden has it all over her. And McCain has it all over Obama. IF this race were to come down to "the most/best experience"... I'd rather Obama/Biden any day of the week than McCain/Palin. And yeah, I'm a full blooded liberal, & proud of it.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

There's something I've always wondered, and although it's slightly off topic, it fits in with this discussion. Now, I'm not American, and as such, have not been following the capaigns anywhere near enough to join in this debate, but one thing that keeps coming up is this issue of "teaching creationism in schools". Now what exactly does this mean? Over here, I was "taught creationism", but always in the context of "this is what the Bible says". I was also taught evolution, in the context of "this is the current forerunner in scientific theory". Is it different in the USA? Cause, I really don't have a problem about how I was taught it. Is it more like "This is what happened, it is the truth" than "Here's what the Bible says, it's up to you to decide if you believe or not"? Or do people just hate the idea of kids being taught about religion. I don't understand.

 

[Buffanator]

In general, people who have an "aversion" to religion don't want any such thing being taught to their kids in PUBLIC schools. We're all for "reading, 'riting, & 'rithmatic" - science is good & fine - as far as SCIENCE goes, but leave "theories" and esp. religious crap out of it all together.

And here's another nice "Palinism"

Pray Away the Gays

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD... :drunk: