Jump to content

Sarah Palin


Recommended Posts

The major problem with not properly vetting a candidate before selection is that the bad news will eventually come out. By many accounts Sarah Palin is secretive, vindictive, devious and values personal loyalty above competence or ethics. Sort of the female version of George W. Bush.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

 

Sure it is the NY Times but aside from the Times' editorial pages, it is still one of America's most respected papers. In the coming weeks there will be more information regarding Palin's past. She was virtually unknown to the vast majority of the country two weeks ago. McCain has made a terrible mistake in picking someone he knew so little about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The major problem with not properly vetting a candidate before selection is that the bad news will eventually come out. By many accounts Sarah Palin is secretive, vindictive, devious and values personal loyalty above competence or ethics. Sort of the female version of George W. Bush.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

 

Sure it is the NY Times but aside from the Times' editorial pages, it is still one of America's most respected papers. In the coming weeks there will be more information regarding Palin's past. She was virtually unknown to the vast majority of the country two weeks ago. McCain has made a terrible mistake in picking someone he knew so little about.

 

It's only respected by liberals...no one anywhere thinks they are unbiased, objective....it's fish wrap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The major problem with not properly vetting a candidate before selection is that the bad news will eventually come out. By many accounts Sarah Palin is secretive, vindictive, devious and values personal loyalty above competence or ethics. Sort of the female version of George W. Bush.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

 

Sure it is the NY Times but aside from the Times' editorial pages, it is still one of America's most respected papers. In the coming weeks there will be more information regarding Palin's past. She was virtually unknown to the vast majority of the country two weeks ago. McCain has made a terrible mistake in picking someone he knew so little about.

Let me see if I follow your logic; you are obviously a liberal, who does not intend to vote for McCain/Palin, so why are you so concerned that McCain has made a mistake? Any reasonable person could easily conclude that you are worried, like the liberal media, that she has fired-up the Republican party's base.

And the "NYT is one of the nation's respected newspapers", what in the hell are abusing? The Times like several other liberal rags is quickly losing readership and laying off staff. Look it up. Throw in the LATimes and the Tribune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only respected by liberals...no one anywhere thinks they are unbiased, objective....it's fish wrap.

 

Worry not, Mulewright.

 

Let them run against Palin. The Presidential candidate is McCain. If Palin keeps Obama and his supporters down in the ditch, digging for dirt, she has served her role very well.

 

Every day, McCain looks more Presidential, while Obama and his supporters allow themselves to be distracted with Palin.

 

Biden has effectively been taken off the radar, and Obama only highlights his own lack of experience everytime he laments Palin's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worry not, Mulewright.

 

Let them run against Palin. The Presidential candidate is McCain. If Palin keeps Obama and his supporters down in the ditch, digging for dirt, she has served her role very well.

 

Every day, McCain looks more Presidential, while Obama and his supporters allow themselves to be distracted with Palin.

 

Biden has effectively been taken off the radar, and Obama only highlights his own lack of experience everytime he laments Palin's.

 

Presidential? The only thing that is big of McCain of late is his whoppers. The guy is either stupid, or worse thinks we are. It's not even up for debate, that is some of his assertions; there outright lies. I have never seen such politics in a presidential race, at least not such falsehoods coming from the candidate. At least in the past, they used surrogates.

 

I only hope McCain stops the distractions and starts debating the issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I follow your logic; you are obviously a liberal, who does not intend to vote for McCain/Palin, so why are you so concerned that McCain has made a mistake? Any reasonable person could easily conclude that you are worried, like the liberal media, that she has fired-up the Republican party's base.

And the "NYT is one of the nation's respected newspapers", what in the hell are abusing? The Times like several other liberal rags is quickly losing readership and laying off staff. Look it up. Throw in the LATimes and the Tribune.

 

 

Of all the Republicans running in the primaries, McCain was the one I could live with. His selection of Palin is troubling to me because if he is elected and dies she will become the President. It is a mistake that McCain will have saddled the country with. I would have seriously considered McCain if he had chosen Tom Ridge who was an excellent Governor of my home state.

 

We have had 8 years of a candidate who fired up the Republican base and the country has suffered greatly for that choice. A choice for which I voted in 2000. I would have much preferred McCain in 2000 when he was a true Maverick. Alas, the McCain of 2000 is gone. The McCain of 2000 decried the lies the Bush campaign told about him like the one about him having a black daughter out of wedlock (his adopted daughter from Bangladesh). Now he has hired on the same Bush opratives to spread lies about Obama. Just check FactCheck.org or PolitiFact.com. John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.

 

I want the best for America and if my choice of candidate loses I still want the next best. Sarah Palin was selected carelessly or cynically. It doesn't matter which. She is not ready for the Presidency and her views are extreme.

 

The so-called liberal media gave Palin a pass for the first two weeks. There has not been a Vice Presidential nominee who has been so successfully sequestered from the press since the advent of the television age. If Biden had refused to go on the Sunday talk shows immediately upon his selection the Republicans would have screamed bloody murder. She certainly didn't do much for herself with Charles Gibson.

 

There are many unanswered questions about Palin. She was hardly on the nation's radar before her surprise appointment. If she can't be trusted by the McCain campaign to handle herself with This Week, Face the Nation, Meet the Press and Fox Sunday, why should we trust her to be a heartbeat away from the most important job in the world?

 

Her next interview is with Sean Hannity. She might as well have her husband conduct the interview. Hannity is her No. 1 fanboy. If Russert were still alive she wouldn't have a chance to dodge questions and change the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presidential? The only thing that is big of McCain of late is his whoppers. The guy is either stupid, or worse thinks we are. It's not even up for debate, that is some of his assertions; there outright lies. I have never seen such politics in a presidential race, at least not such falsehoods coming from the candidate. At least in the past, they used surrogates.

 

I only hope McCain stops the distractions and starts debating the issues.

 

Keep going, you're doing fine.

 

Tell me again, how McCain is a fool, liar, or a decrepit old man. Better, share your feelings on democraticunderground.com. You will find many kindred spirits there.

 

The more you tell us how stupid people who don't share your views are, the more repulsed they will be. Don't you realize this is why Gore and Kerry lost?

 

People don't like to be told they're stupid, and telling people that they're dumb for voting for McCain (or NOT for Obama) only hurts the Democrats.

 

I'm convinced the more vitriol I hear from the left, the better the Republicans will do this Fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

conservatism is like a disease. you get so afraid of change and anything outside of your kitchen window that you just shut down and become a parrot for whatever right wing religious zealot comes along.

 

don't let the conservatism virus get you!!!!

 

See above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worry not, Mulewright.

 

Let them run against Palin. The Presidential candidate is McCain. If Palin keeps Obama and his supporters down in the ditch, digging for dirt, she has served her role very well.

 

That of course is the point, Palin was selected to be a distraction not to help McCain govern. What exactly in her vast experience as a small town Mayor of a town of 7,500 or 20 month Governor of the 48th state in population would McCain put to work in his administration. This from a woman who didn't even know what the VP did just a few months ago. BTW McCain wasn't so impressed with Mayors and Governors back in the ebates against Rudy, Romney and Huckabee.

 

WALLACE: Senator McCain, if I may -- Senator McCain, you didn't like it much when Governor Romney said recently that he spoke for the Republican wing of the Republican party.

 

Who's more conservative: you or Mitt Romney?

 

MCCAIN: I think it's pretty obvious that that statement was a paraphrase of Howard Dean's statement about the Democrat party.

 

The fact is, I'm running on my record as a reliable conservative of 24 years. And the indicators of that, obviously, is that I've fought wasteful spending, I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I've been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism.

 

I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training.

 

I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time. For 20-some years, including leading the largest squadron in the United States Navy, I led. I didn't manage for profit, I led for patriotism.

(APPLAUSE)

 

 

 

Pork List: Alaska #1 Arizona #51

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagena...k2008porkpercap

http://community.adn.com/node/130579

 

Every day, McCain looks more Presidential, while Obama and his supporters allow themselves to be distracted with Palin.

 

There is nothing Presidential about the campaign McCain is running. Ads that contain half truths and outright lies. This isn't the respectful campaign Mccain promised. It is Bush III. The public will see through McCain's desparate attempts to change the subject from substantive issues to nonsense.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

 

McCain was the media darling, he caught every break. Now that he is even they will start to look at him because that's where the story will be.

 

Biden has effectively been taken off the radar, and Obama only highlights his own lack of experience everytime he laments Palin's.

Edited by Mark B. Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep going, you're doing fine.

 

Tell me again, how McCain is a fool, liar, or a decrepit old man. Better, share your feelings on democraticunderground.com. You will find many kindred spirits there.

 

The more you tell us how stupid people who don't share your views are, the more repulsed they will be. Don't you realize this is why Gore and Kerry lost?

 

People don't like to be told they're stupid, and telling people that they're dumb for voting for McCain (or NOT for Obama) only hurts the Democrats.

 

I'm convinced the more vitriol I hear from the left, the better the Republicans will do this Fall.

 

 

Are you kidding? I don't go to underground sites to get my news. How about the Associated Press, where Babington, hardly a liberal declares that "The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak".

 

The list goes on, all the major outlets have dumped on him for his dirty politics as of late. Hell, even Walter's and Company, the View, rattled McCains cage when they confronted him on his lies, and they actually used the word in describing the ads - lies!

 

Here is a video from

on describing some of his earlier whoppers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you kidding? I don't go to underground sites to get my news. How about the Associated Press, where Babington, hardly a liberal declares that "The "Straight Talk Express" has detoured into doublespeak".

 

The list goes on, all the major outlets have dumped on him for his dirty politics as of late. Hell, even Walter's and Company, the View, rattled McCains cage when they confronted him on his lies, and they actually used the word in describing the ads - lies!

 

Here is a video from

on describing some of his earlier whoppers.

 

 

Even Fox isn't buying the Palin spin

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viC6KtGI-P4...feature=related

 

According to the Anchorage Daily News, Palin sought $256 million in earmarks during her first year in office. This year, her office has sought the assistance of the Alaska Congressional delegation in landing $197 million in federal earmarks.

 

A comprehensive list of the governor's latest earmark requests is available at the website of Alaska senator Ted Stevens with a covering letter from Palin's office. The requests range from $71 million for the "Rural Alaska Sanitation Initiative" to $3.2 million for "Sea Lion Biological Research to $7.4 million for "Rural Airport Lighting."

 

http://stevens.senate.gov/earmarks/Approps-StateofAlaska.pdf

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008154532_webpalin02m.html

Edited by Mark B. Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Methos, retro-man, Mark B. Morrow.

 

You still don't realize it. There is a huge portion of this country's voting population that WANTS a divided government. That being a Republican Executive and Democrat Congress, or vice versa. And now, with Palin, many have been given justification for supporting McCain.

 

Until you provide reasons to vote FOR Obama, such accusations of lying, stupidity, or frailty will continue to repulse the electorate.....even if they are/were true.

 

Get this into your mind: It's not enough to show why McCain is bad. You have to show why Obama is good.

 

I am well aware of BOTH sides' distortions. Your argument is not with me.

 

Obama is being beaten (for the moment) at his own pageantry. His biggest shortfall is that pageantry is mostly what he has to run on.

 

Both sides have their "truth squads", resulting in a net zero. And since many perceive the press as biased (one way or another), the press can't help Obama or hurt McCain.

 

At this point, Obama's best opportunity is a hugely successful performance in the debates (a tie won't do, because of McCain's advantage with the white female vote)....or that McCain is found in bed with a live boy or a dead girl.

 

I'll say it again. Every day that Obama/his supporters allow themselves be distracted by Palin, is another day that McCain gets further ahead.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Obama can't run for the US presidency? It seems that Obama might have been born in Kenya. Further information will be coming later this month when the complaints are due to be answered. This could be interesting. Clinton might get her chance.

 

http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid...35536&rfi=8

 

After pouring over material and forensic analyses that supposedly back up the phony birth certificate charge, Berg was convinced the case had substance.

Next, he and his office staff researched legal statutes and put together the case.

Though Berg admits there are no sworn affidavits, he claims Obama's relatives in Kenya believe the Democratic candidate's mother, Ann Dunham, gave birth to him in the African country.

The suit alleges Dunham traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy at age 18 and was prevented from boarding an airline flight back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy.

She reportedly gave birth to Obama in Kenya, then flew home to Hawaii and registered his birth there, according to a memo supporting the motion for the temporary restraining order.

Under U.S. law at the time of the Illinois lawmaker's birth, if he had been born abroad, and one parent was a U.S. citizen, his mother would have had to live ten years in the U.S., five of which after she reached 14 (years of age), according to court papers.

If Dunham was only 18 years old when she gave birth to her son, Berg says, her baby would not have met U.S. citizenship requirements.

"We're absolutely positively sure it's true," he said.

Given that Kenya was a British Colony in 1961, Obama might actually be a British citizen, he said.

To qualify to run as president, candidates must be natives of the United States. Many people born overseas to American parents, however, are U.S. citizens.

Though the immigration law Berg cites was revised in 1986, he insists Obama still has some explaining to do if his mother gave birth in Kenya, then registered his birth in Hawaii.

"(Obama) can't just go back and change history," the attorney said.

When the birth certificate rumors began swirling in June, the Obama campaign posted a "certification of live birth" document on a special section on its web site, "Fight the Smears," that debunks the many questionable stories that have circulated about the senator during the campaign.

 

Here is a website of the lawyer filing the motion

http://obamacrimes.com/

 

And the official docket

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-pae...case_id-281573/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Obama can't run for the US presidency? It seems that Obama might have been born in Kenya. Further information will be coming later this month when the complaints are due to be answered. This could be interesting. Clinton might get her chance.

 

http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid...35536&rfi=8

 

 

 

Here is a website of the lawyer filing the motion

http://obamacrimes.com/

 

And the official docket

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-pae...case_id-281573/

 

 

The Birth Certificate smear has been debunked.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

 

Berg is a well known nutjob who has sued Bush and Cheney for causing 9/11

 

http://www.911forthetruth.com/

Edited by Mark B. Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Birth Certificate smear has been debunked.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

 

Berg is a well known nutjob who has sued Bush and Cheney for causing 9/11

 

http://www.911forthetruth.com/

 

 

Nut job? Maybe. But it is still in the courts to be determined there. If it is true he was born in Kenya and his mom then lied about being born in Hawaii, Obama would not be eligible for the president of the US. Documents exist showing his father registered him as a muslen when he attended school.

 

Don't worry Mark, you will be able to vote for Clinton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who owns NYTimes?

could it be ruppert murdoch?

hes liberal isn't he?

fox news corp liberal media

orielly liberal?

hannity and colmbs liberal?

 

man you guys must be smoking some good sh*t with your time off!

 

 

Murdoch does own a lot of media outlets but the New York Times is not his.

 

"The Times is owned by The New York Times Company, which publishes 18 other newspapers, including the International Herald Tribune and The Boston Globe. The company's chairman is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., whose family has controlled the paper since 1896."

 

You may be confusing the Times with the Wall Street Journal.

 

"The future of the Journal has been widely speculated on since the acquisition of Dow Jones by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. The announcement that managing editor Marcus Brauchli, a 20-year veteran of the newspaper and a former foreign correspondent, would step down reinvigorated speculation that Murdoch would make deeper changes in the newspaper."

 

Quotes from Wikipedia searchs for New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

Edited by Mark B. Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarah's email account was hacked.

 

http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-emails

 

Seems she not only breaks laws by ordering people to be fired for divorcing family members, and now it comes to light that she is illegally conducting state business through non governmental email accounts. :redcard:

 

LMAO, Yeah, because no piece of crap liberal Congressman or Senator has ever used their personal email account to conduct business related to their work in Congress. But then we may never know because liberal hackers won't illegally hack into their accounts and display them all over the internet. When they catch these guys they're going to wish they'd never done that. I just love how you liberals are all about law & order right up until someone breaks the law to benefit your warped political views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMAO, Yeah, because no piece of crap liberal Congressman or Senator has ever used their personal email account to conduct business related to their work in Congress. But then we may never know because liberal hackers won't illegally hack into their accounts and display them all over the internet. When they catch these guys they're going to wish they'd never done that. I just love how you liberals are all about law & order right up until someone breaks the law to benefit your warped political views.

 

 

Nice attempt to change the subject Blackhorse. If Palin tried to sheild government communications by using private e-mails then she violated the law. She should be held accountable. Isn't that what conservatives claim to be all about? Personal responsibility? Palin promised an open and accountable administration. She was advised about the rules regerding record keeping for state business. If she decided she is above the law than she is no better than the worst things the Republicans have said about Bill Clinton. She can't be trusted and should not be the VP.

Edited by Mark B. Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...