JerrySeinfeld

Bush's presidency is for another thread. This thread pertains to Governor Palin as McCain's VP selection. The recent posts have focussed upon experience and readiness to lead. I have pointed out that Governor Palin has more executive experience Barack Obama. Shall we discuss?

the tpoic is pretty straightforward. Palin answers questions better than hillary and has more executive experience than barack obama. next.

Bush never comes off well but he's been a fantastic president. It was her first national interview. I think she'll get better exponentially as she does more of these. Frankly Charlie Gibson sat there like a beauty contest judge, looking down his nose at her, unlike the gushing east coast media cush given to The Annointed One (Obama), even though he's never led anything in his life. At least Palin has been a governor. What has Barack ever led?

You know, you inadvertantly pointed out the obvious: the "justified" question is a weaker question. It's not asking what Hillary would do, it's just asking if she thinks it's justified. And yet she still refused to answer the question. Hillary was merely asked "what would you think", whereas Palin was asked "would would your administration do" - a much more direct question. So in this particular comparison between Hillary and Palin, Palin answered more directly than did Hillary; Hillary refused to answer at all, while Palin indeed did provide some insight into her thinking. So to summarize: Hillary refused to answer a less direct question. Palin tactfully answered a more direct question. Palin 1 Hillary 0

How can you have a position on an Israeli act of war without answering whether or not that act was justified?

Well, seeing as Israel is attacked by rockets pretty much every other day, I suppose it would be completely within your support to see them strike back then....right?

Well, please correct me wherever the logic fails, but wouldn't the logical choice of answers to "what position would you take" be: 1. We would support Israel (in varying degrees) because they would be justified in such an attack. or 2. We would condemn / not support Israel because they would not be justified in such an attack. ???

There is? Ok. Let's assume your Bill Clinton imitation (ie. "it depends on what you mean by the word 'the' ") is accurate. Can you, for the rest of us 5th graders, please explain the precise difference between the administration passing judgement on and Israeli attack against Iran, and the administration having a position on an Israeli attack against Iran ? Can you pass judgement without having a position? Can you have a position without passing judgement? Can you judge positions without passing gas? Can you position your judgement without having a passing? Please enlighten us all.

From the Atlantic - on the five "question traps" to avoid stepping into as a candidate...and NOT answering ANY hypothetical: Link to the whole articlae - very interesting by the way: Link

Oh come on AM. Everyone knows rule number one in politics is don't answer the media's hypothetical questions. Look back at any candidate's answer during the primaries to questions like: Senator John Edwards, would you support the death penalty if your wife was raped and killed? Repeatedly you will see that what a seasoned politician should and virtually always does, is to refuse to answer a wild hypothetical. Sarah should have been even more firm in her refusal. Gibson was setting an all too familiar trap and she almost fell in. That's to her discredit. However, her answer is actually remarkably clear and honest and, frankly, true. Israel sits within spitting distance of myriad countries who want to see her destroyed. She lives in a completely different world than those media pundits who toss the issue back and forth at cocktail parties. Given Israel's precarious circumstances and Iran's explicit desire to 1. see her wiped off the map and 2. develope nulear weapons, Palin's answer (which she shouldn't even have given) was bang on.

Wow. I looooove this little exchange about lipstick on a pig for two main reasons: 1. It's pleasingly hilarious to watch democrats squirm when they aren't playing the victim card and instead someone is playing it on them. So used to being "The Victim" (ie. I take serious offense to (insert politically correct drivel here)), their world is turned upside down when the shoe is on the other foot, or the lipstick is on the other pig. 2. It's exposing Obama for the opportunist politician he has, for months, claimed not to be. Have you seen this change in him? In the face of McCain's resurgence on the backs of Palin, his recent appearances are closely resembling a weasly kid who just had his fruit loops taken away. Whiney, smarmy and downright even...mean (heaven forbid the messiah is...human?) Beating the Dems at the victim game and watching the curtain draw back as "The Messiah" become extremely ordinary before our eyes...love it love it love it.

Actually, this analysis is way off the mark. Right wing "babies" have no problem with left wing hate-drivel in-and-of-itself. What we can't stand is subsidizing these wingnuts with our tax dollars.

From Mark Steyn: As for her beliefe in God or "God's plan", you lefty libs can debate the merits of this all day long. Remember we live in a VERY secular country here in Canada. You need to remember her chosen style of faith will play far differently, more favourably, in the US where 25% of the population describe themselves as evangelical and the rest is certainly more amenable to Christianity than your average secular post-modern Toronto/Vancouver liberal. As for the people in the US who actually WILL give a shit, they all live in New York and California anyway - states long ago won by the Democrats. In other words, move along to a new reason to hate her, please, because this one ain't playin. Seen the polls lately?

Last night wasn't about that. Obama's been making love to the public with rhetoric for months. It's only fair the Reps even the score a bit. But your comment is revealing: as republicans, we believe in cycles and laissez fair. Sure, there4 may be some good policy changes that could tweak up the confidence in the financial system or ensure solid future lending practices, but to expect the government to rescue you from the plight of your now extinct GMC truck manufacturing job is a democratic sentiment, not a republican one.

Careful with that. Lines like that could be used to bring down the entire Obama campaign. Didn't Hitler used to give rousing stadium addresses?

Palin did a great job last night! Actually, if you watched the whole night, it was jab after stunning jab at Obama. And it had to be done by somebody. Every time someone has attacked Obama - for going to a racist church, for example - he finds it "offensive" as if he is the messiah and above such meanial discussion. I am interested to see how he will handle such a barage of attacks - mostly accurate ones. Many may say about last night "where is the substance - what are the specifics?" Well, I think last night was largely meant to be about defining this race - the two men involved. One a war hero with an extensive track record, and one a "community orgnizer" who hasn't penned more than a couple of laws in his lifetime. As well, last night was meant to bring perceptions of Obama back down to earth. Part of what this barage of attacks is intended for is to say to the country "this guy isn't a messiah above attacks, he's a thin-resume junior senator of four years with a nice smile and a good stage presence." If this was the goal, it was successful.

"Some politicians use "change" to advance their careers. Others use their careers to advance change" - Sarah Palin "I guess being a mayor is kind of like being a "community organizer" ....except it has actual resposibilities" - Sarah Palin "Republicans aren't all rich. (After describing his meagre beginings) I'm not a Republican because I am rich. I am a Republican because I don't want to stay poor waiting for the government to give me a hand out." - Mike Huckabee "Change is not a destination. Hope is not a plan." - Rudy Giuliani "Barack Obama has never been in charge of anything. Nothing. Nada" - Rudy Giuliani "Barack Obama mocks Sarah Palin as mayor of a small town. But Sarah Palin got more votes as mayor of Wasila than Joe Biden did as a candidate for president of the United States." - Mitt Romney "Here is a man who can talk for 2 hours about the war our country is involved in, without once using the word victory, except to describe his own campaign." - Sarah Palin "Here is a man who has written two memoirs, yet has never once written a piece of meaningful legislation as a legislator" - Sarah Palin

That's bang on. She is a serious threat to the left. They will try everything to kill her. But you can't deny her appeal. Elections are almost always about likeability, which is why Bush beat Kerry and why Bush beat Gore, and why Clinton beat Dole and Clinton beat GHW Bush and Reagan beat everybody. When asked who they'd like to have over for a barbeque, americans picked Bush over Kerry bigtime. Obama is likeable, but as with all of Oprah's hand picks, such as Dr. Phil, they start off folksy and end up being tell all blow hards. Barack is dangerously walking that fine line between "hey, let's all love the cute fresh articulate black kid" and "quit tryign to tell us all how to live our lives you smug ingrate". In this vein Palin comes off more as the "real deal" likeability whereas Obama is starting to look like a know-it-all smart ass. SHould be interesting.

Homes owned by candidate in question is a non-issue. The real story here is how Obama has tried to turn this into a talking point. Seems to be politics as usual for a candidate who defines his very being as someone who doesn't play politics. I guess the "messiah" is pretty much like everyone else after all. Keep it up, Barry. Your true colours are starting to show.

ha! touche AM. I knew I was opening myself up to this (and more to come I'm sure) by using personal anecdotes. oh well. but in my experience right wing types are more fun, more easygoing and alot more positive about the world and the opportunities it presents, wheras the lefties that I have been exposed to are curmudgeons, negative thinkers, complainers and whiners - and a little agressive too. My $0.02 (p.s. all conservatives - shall we have a pool as to how long it takes the balconey old man in the muppets - ie. Black Dog - to quote "my $0.02" and wittingly type in "that's about all it's worth, too") which would obviously prove my point in this thread BTW haha

Agreed, but in my opinion, there is something special about left wingers who feel it's their moral right to demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them. "Racist", "Nazi" "Bigot" are common discussion-enders used by the left wing. This is uncalled for as most conservatives tend to be more level headed - as YOU have been in your post BC Chick I can relate to the lefties, though. Because in my college and high school days, I too was an angry bullying idealist feel-gooder lefty surrounded by the same I know of what I speak from pure experience.

Can we hold on a second here? As per another thread, what is the point in increasing taxes on carbon? The world hasn't warmed in ten years. Can we address the REASON for a tax increase before talking about it's merits please? As well, anyone who thinks the Liberals are going to cut taxes by the same amount that they increase carbon taxes is living in a fantasy world. Sure. Trust us. Elect us and we'll cut your taxes? Haven't we heard this before, in the RED BOOK which promised to eliminate the GST?

Fine. However the question remains, why isn't this big news? Has any of the major networks covered this FACT? I saw on a site cloesly linked to David Suzuki www.desmogblog.com they are raving on and on about a hot summer in UK. If a AGW website thinks a hot summer is an important and material FACT, then why wouldn't an entire decade of global cooling be relevant? The fact that this major flaw in the Al Gore ointment has been largely ignored by the major north american media media is yet another example of the media blindly drinking the left wing koolaid. This halt in global warming is a FACT. Given the immense amount of attention given to the "warming" of the earth, including major government policy, tax, emission and other legislation, it is outrageous that this has not been given it's due attention and being discussed at length.

You clearly haven't recently had a conversatyion with someone who lived in Los Angeles in 1980.

I love this quote. Inadvertantly, you have gotten to the base reason for left wing bullying. All too often the left wing act in a bullying fashion out of some perceived (actually misperceieved) feeling of oppression and "fighting the power". When in reality, this is an antiquated notion, evidenced purely by the outdateness of their "causes". McCarthyism was 50 years ago. Gay marriage? It's legal. Abortion? On demand. Climate Change? Have you read the newspaper lately? This is the root problem with so many lefties: they take on this aggressive "speaking truth to power" stance because they've watched too many McCarthy movies of past eras or drank the "Brokeback"Kool-Aid. But in reality, what power are they speaking truth to? These battles are all long won. The tables have turned, and they ARE the power, and they use it to bully people, which is what this thread is about.