OH, now I get it...Palin Snarkets Believe Leakers from McCain's campaign

Discussion in 'Bill Archer's Guestbook' started by Karl K, Nov 8, 2008.

  1. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    You know, all this stuff about Sarah not knowing NAFTA countries, and mistaking Africa for a country, and not a continent...I was wondering where all that came from...

    ...and NOW I find out.

    Bitter incompetent leakers from the McCain campaign.

    In other words, lawyers out there....HEARSAY.

    Of course, when Joe Biden -- ON THE FU_KING RECORD!!! -- in a public debate talks about how the USA and France kicked Hamas out of Lebanon...well that's just peachy fine! Yes siree...because you know it's just old garrulous Joe who really does know about foreign policy, he's right on top it, no question.

    But Sarah, who makes no missteps in her actual debate, is finally slammed via anonymous sources who every Palin hater of course believes immediately, is obviously, you know not very smart.

    See, here's the thing about all you brain dead Obama supports and liberals and lefties in general.

    YOU ARE INTELLECTUALLY INCAPABLE of understanding your own contradictions. You are total hypocrites, bathing is a slimy double standard every single second of your existence.
     
  2. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    You are seriously coming unhinged.
     
  3. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    It's just that I am mad as hell and I can't take it anymore!

    The Obama worship is bull$hit. The Palin bashing is bull$hit. The "tingling leg" media is bull$hit.

    The appointment of Rahm Emmanuel-- who made $18 million in two years "working" for Bruse Wasserstein so he could come back and do "public service" without any money worries -- is bull$hit.

    "Change" and "hope" is bull$shit.

    How's it taste, by the way??
     
  4. FCLouie

    FCLouie Member

    Jan 4, 2006
    Houston, TX
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're in serious denial. I think the energy Palin brought to the funeral march that was McCain's campaign was indisputable. When the "hate filled" crowds meme failed to catch on, outside the brainwashed legions such as yourself, something else had to be done. We're seeing it now...

    Who exactly this crap is really coming from is anybodies guess. Dimocrats afraid of being swept out in four years or a Repuglican trying to clear the field for their own run at the White House. Maybe a media outlet trying to find a way to draw viewers? Which every way, this is the scummiest thing done yet, including what was done to Joe the Plumber.

    If only Biden were a Republican you would get it.

    Now go pray to Obama for guidance... maybe he will grant you wisdom to see the truth, but I doubt it.
     
  5. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Nope. I'm getting ready to welcome in the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama. I think there are some other who are in denial. ;)

    You are correct. Even McCain staffers are now calling it a hail mary and I think there is an argument that he had to throw it. The problem was that it was a hail mary to tie the game and there was still a quarter left to be played.

    Those un-American bastards at the Secret Service disagree:

    The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...e-for-death-threats-against-Barack-Obama.html

    Are you simply chosing to ignore the media reports? I guess that is fine since the media is evil. Still, every story on the flogging of Palin has sourced people from inside the McCain campaign. Frankly, I don't really care what went down but it appears that she was seriously undercutting McCain's message and was refusing to be a team player. She shouldn't then be shocked by the people who's very liveliehoods were dependent on a McCain victory being a little bitter and ready to unload.

    On Biden, I sort of agree. I thought he should have been taken to task more for his statement at the debate about Lebanon. Believe it or not, I agree with Karl to an extent that there needed to be some serious follow up to ask the man what he was thinking. On the other hand, Biden was the ideal team player and understood his role. He went out to Scranton and Akron and other places where he could make a difference and he got votes.

    The rest of your post is too snarky for response. I don't pray to Obama, I vote for him.
     
  6. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    As much I try, I can't see at all how the media is to blame over the recent Palin leaks. Blame the McCain camp.

    Incidentally, you should consider now what his presidency would have been like. Really, that's what I look for in a presidential staff: members who constantly undermine one another via anonymous leaks to the press. The Palin leaks are just the latest in a long series of acts of incompetence and the most recent example of a total lack of discipline.
     
  7. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Here's why the media is to blame.

    One reporter talks to ANONYMOUS McCain staffers -- hmmm....you think their failure to elect their candidate and desire to protect their careers might have...ahem...motivated them to place the blame elsewhere?

    The reporter runs with this report and fails to talk to any McCain staffers ON THE RECORD to get...ahem...a "fair and balanced" view.

    The story that Palin is an "ignoramus" gets blasted all over the place.

    Folks pre-disposed to sneer at Palin, such as Obama worshippers and a certain strain of Big Soccer posters, buy into the whole meme and slurp down the bait like a starving fish.

    Yes, Bo, THAT'S why the liberal-leftist-in-the-tank-for-Obama media, reflected in Chris Matthews desire to "help" the president elect, are, if not evil, then downright scum buckets.
     
  8. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    I've already seen and heard several McCain spokespersons issue on-the-record rebuttals to the rumors. They're all over the media right now.

    Now come on, let's lay blame where it is due. Palin consented to only a couple of interviews, and she bombed them, whiffing at even the slowest-pitched softballs that the interviewers threw her. Perhaps she never really did get confused about Africa, but yes, she honestly, truly failed to name a single Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade.

    You cannot seriously blame Katie Couric for that disaster. "What newspapers do you read" is not a gotcha question.
     
  9. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    I pretty much agree with Bo here. Palin wasn't ready for prime time. McCain was either sloppy in his VP search or engaging in wishful thinking.

    But blaming his loss on her is just gutless scapegoating by McCain staffers. McCain was the reason for the loss. He stunk in debates, can't give a good speech to save his life and his positions on most issues weren't very encouraging. He started the game three goals down thanks to dubya and the inept GOP. His only hope was making Obama into a scary figure, and one look at Obama discredited that strategy. McCain was dead meat from day 1.
     
  10. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago

    A couple of points. I'm not at all a big fan of our media. I have ripped them consistently for more than a decade. They are lemmings and lack the ability to do research and report. I'm also not a fan of annonymous sources. Nevertheless, they are a part of Washington and a part of the story.

    Very few papers now run stories with annonymous sources without a second source -- yes, often annonymous as well. My point is that they don't simply make these things up and it is still very possible to discredit the story. See, the abortion of a story the NYT ran with on McCain and the lobbyist affair. They were rightly torn to shreds on that.

    Second, it is interesting that the Palin people are not exactly screaming about the inaccuracy of the stories. I heard them say that the Africa questions were taken out of context. Personally, I would love to see a context in which those questions don't look frighteningly uninformed but whatever.

    I didn't see much push back from her on the issue of "who's in NAFTA." Hell, how difficult can that one possibly be? If she just breaks away from her front porch view of Russia, she can go to her back door and take a gander at Canada. That just leaves one.

    My bottom line with Palin is this. In two months in the spotlight, she never said an insightful thing. She was the attack dog, and that is cool with me. That is one of the roles of the vp candidate. Her interviews were abyssmal. Here big speech on energy -- where she is supposedly one of the world's experts -- was a bizzare rant that seemed to be intended to show that she new the jargon of the energy industry.

    Honestly, I was looking for a glimmer of some intelligent thought from the woman and got nothing. That is why the sniping and comments from the McCain camp about how unprepared she was are so believeable.

    The loser on the vp side? Gwen Ifel. How in the hell does she let Biden off the hook on Lebanon? How does she let Palin say, "I'm not answering your questions but speaking right to the American People about what I want to talk about."?

    My original position on Palin was that they should have given her a prime speaking spot at this year's convention. Make her a star and then have her go back to Alaska and -- if she was serious about the national stage -- bone up on the rest of the world and for that matter the rest of the nation. Make her the GOP Obama of 2004.

    Now having seen her in action, I'm not sure if that would work. I just don't think there is any substance behind her. What does she care about? What will she fight for? I would have said "pro-life" but really? Is she that committed to it when she answered point blank, "sure" when asked if there was a right of privacy in the constitution? What else? Drill baby drill? Great. She displays a desire to maximize her state's revenues which in turn keeps her popular. What else?

    She will bury herself now that she isn't being managed by McCain. The first few interviews I have seen have been less than coherent and display the real potential to absolutely botch important things in the future. If she subjects herself to a full round of debates in 2012, the likes of Huckabee and Romney will have a field day.
     
  11. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    But the damage is done. Of course, that was the whole point of these interviews: to DO damage


    You bet they were gotcha questions.

    And even more important, they were NOT relevant. These interviews should not be quizzes, that's not the point. But for the elite liberal media, the neanderthal conservatives have to jump through intellectual hoops.

    Take a listen to how Hugh Hewitt just skewers CNN and Katie for the whole piece of nonsense.

    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/01/tsr.hewitt.on.palin.intv.cnn?iref=videosearch

    By the way, have YOU read The Looming Tower?
     
  12. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    I agree with you here.

    But not here. Palin openly and proudly proclaimed her pro-life bona fides and her distaste for "activist" judges. She was simply asked which SCOTUS decisions, other than Roe v Wade, she disagreed with. She couldn't name any.

    Ah yes, Hugh Hewitt, who thought that the market dropped 200 points because Romney dropped out of the presidential race. Lovely man.

    I'll watch the video shortly.

    No. Haven't even heard of it. What is it?
     
  13. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    OK, so I have it on now. He does correctly identify a couple of gotcha questions. Then he later asserts that Couric's question about which newspapers she reads was fair . . . before changing his position and asserting that it was a gotcha question, totally irrelevant.

    He also criticizes the media for failing to ask Obama about Ayers. Jesus, what planet does Hewitt call home? Nobody asked Obama about Ayers?!?!? Everybody asked him about Ayers!!!

    I see that he also describes The Looming Tower. I haven't, but I've been a New Yorker reader for more than a decade and have thus likely read either portions of it or articles that cover similar material by Lawrence Wright. (That is, I know I've read the articles, but I'm not sure whether the book republished them or whether the book consists of entirely new material.)
     
  14. Eric B

    Eric B Member

    Feb 21, 2000
    the LBC
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    FYP
     
  15. FCLouie

    FCLouie Member

    Jan 4, 2006
    Houston, TX
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Oh, I see you don't understand what denial is either.

    Not surprising, it hasn't been explained to you yet by your handlers in the media.

    Your being naive or utterly ridiculous. Of coarse they're saying things like that, they screwed the pooch. But given what is to follow in you last post, I have the feeling you'll have some circular logic to justify yourself.

    Yeah, that's new to the play book isn't it. If a racist does anything while a Republican is running for president, there has to be a connection. :confused: Well, there does, they both hate the same people don't they. :rolleyes: Yeah, no, not quite.

    And you libs think we're paranoid. We're rank amateurs compared to crap like that.

    No, sorry, I've been bitten by believing the media too many times before. I choose to look at the events that unfold and make up my own mind. (Remember that, it's what Americans used to do. You don't? I didn't think so...)

    And since you didn't get it the first time I'll try to reword myself. As much as I can believe McCain's keystone cops were lashing out to transfer blame for that inept piece of crap campaign, you also have to understand something the dynamic that drives campaign staffers. These people are mercenaries, willing to shot their own mothers to get the job of putting a candidate in office. If they know they have no future with Palin, for whatever reason, they will already be selling themselves out for the next go-round. They are already, more or less, stringing together the '12 elections and damage they do now will be forgiven if it sets their new candidate up with a clear field ahead. In fact, given the extremely long burn them alive primaries we've been headed towards, I wouldn't be surprised if they've been brought on board to end Palin now before she starts get all the positive press, and maybe fund raising dollars too, before their horse even leaves the chute.

    On the other hand, which is sadly just as likely, these reporters may just be making it up. I mean, why not, who's going to prove they made it up? Nobody was "there" to know what was or wasn't said, so they can fill in the blanks with the prejudices they already carry. High school crap, but it does work. See, and unnamed source just told me you're registered to vote under 15 different names! What do you have to say for yourself(ves)!

    The thing you have to face about this is that you believe it because it reinforces your preconceived notions.

    Sometimes there are just so many things to bring up, your brain goes into a kind of frozen state. The years of gaffs that man has made is impossible to address in a single year much less a single debate.

    Awwww, I'm not even close to sorry you didn't get that.
     
  16. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago

    I'm not the one making some blind, baseless correlation argument. Look, Palin believed that the only way to chip away at Obama's lead in key states was to play to the fears of people in those states. McCain's people did their research long and hard on Obama as did the Clintons. There wasn't much to the Ayers story beyond what had been out there for months. Obama attended a coffee at his house for the purpose of meeting prominent democrats in the district where he was going to run for his first office. Prior to that he attended a similar coffee at the home of his local Rabbi.

    Then they served on a board together along with some prominent local republicans. That was it.

    Given that info and knowing there was nothing more, Palin made the decision to attack on this and created and repeated the "palling around with terrorists" line. Mailers went out that blurred the line for those who didn't know the details so that it appeared that Obama was associating with Ayers while he was a "terrorist."

    Now, my post and the link that goes with it provides some simple facts. Once she started down that road, the serious threats against Obama and his family increased dramatically. This is from one of the least partisan organizations in the history of our country. The Secret Service.

    Were the people who made the threats predisposed to dislike or even hate Obama prior to the emergence of Palin? Of course. I'm not blaming her for creating these people. The point is that she inflammed them. She got them from a point of passive dislike to the point of thinking that a President Obama would be a huge threat to their way of life -- to the point of inspiring actual threats.

    I'm not going to take the time to look now, but there were several prominent republicans who asked McCain/Palin to tone it down out of fear that they were whipping up a dangerous situation.
     
  17. HerthaBerwyn

    HerthaBerwyn Member+

    May 24, 2003
    Chicago
    There is no such thing as a 'Gotcha' question.

    Either the candidate can or cannot respond intelligently to a query. "Ill find out" is perfectly acceptable. "What are you asking that for"? is perfectly acceptable. Besides, I want someone poised to take a leading role in foreign policy to know the capitol of Belarus, who is the potentate there and how it is relevant to the US. Remember that stuff about 'Who is ready for the phone to ring at 3AM"? It all speaks to that. All of it.

    There is no such thing as a 'gotcha' question.
     
  18. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Let me interview you, and I will create so many gotcha questions your head will swim...
     
  19. HerthaBerwyn

    HerthaBerwyn Member+

    May 24, 2003
    Chicago
    No doubt. But a national candidate with gravitas can deal with it easily.

    Ms. Palin. What is the capitol of Malta? can be easily dealt with.
     
  20. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999
    Obama did the same thing by using the Americans simpleton beliefs that the economy is directly tied to the President. So Obama talking about the "Bush economy" was fear mongering and it worked. My personal fear is that Interest rates will go really low again to get us out of the credit crunch and it will be another imaginary short term fix that will make things worse.
     
  21. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    So, death threats against McCain jumped significantly because obama talked about the bush economy? Come on Ted, I get your point however, campaign policy arguments don't quite inspire the hatred that "pallin' around with terrorists" does and that was where this conversation was going.
     
  22. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    And, directly on your point, the economy is not tied by umbilical chord to a president, however, there are many points of action or inaction on the part of the administration that can be tied directly to bush. For one, the tax cuts were meant to be a way of distributing the surplus back to the tax payers and were, therefore, temporary. When the surplus vanished, the nation was at war, and revenues dropped, there could have been some action to slow our incredible deficit spending. Add to that the off the books borrowing of 10 billion a month to fund the war we didn't need to fight and bush policies have directly tied the hands of our government to deal with the current problem.

    On that current problem, the first mention of a "housing bubble" had to have been back near the beginning of bush's term, no? It is a problem that screamed for regulation from a republican congress and a republican president. The problem was that it would have put the brakes on the one positive aspect of our economy (positive in the very short term) and that was real estate sales. Cue Karl to come in and scream about the 2005 bill that failed. That is fine, but just because one bill does not pass (even though you still had control of both houses and the White House) does not mean you give up on the problem.

    So, is it fair to say "the bush economy" in the context of a campaign, sure, why not?
     
  23. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999

    1 - Revenues did NOT drop after the tax cuts, they never do. In fact tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4% of the GDP, which is actually above the average for the past 60 years. This has happened after every major tax cut from JFK to Ronnie to Dubya.

    2- The Iraq war spending is a good point but it mostly just devalued the dollar and debt and has not had a big effect on jobs or inflation.

    3- The Housing Bubble started in 1991. That is when home prices started a 16 year on year rise. It was under Bush when people started mentioning it was going to burst and yeah Bush should have done more but so should Clinton and Obama has said nothing to suggest he is aware of what caused the housing bubble. All he says is "the failed Bush economy". I'm fairly certain any Banker at my work would defeat Obama in an economic debate in a matter of minutes and his advisors like Volcker aren't even acting like they used to act.

    4- Are you suggesting fear mongering on a false premise is ok as long as it doesn't lead to death threats?
     
  24. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999
  25. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    So we should be fine with tax cuts for the middle class and corresponding increases for the top 5%.

    Agreed, but you forgot one thing. It also does and will tremendously impact our ability to keep borrowing on the world market to service our debt. I just saw something this morning that our US treasuries might get bumped down from their triple A rating meaning it will be more expensive to borrow in the future. I don't think that would be the case without the hundreds of billions (are we at trillion yet?) spent on the Iraq adventure.

    I'm not sure you can flag it to home prices rising. Hell, they should rise. Real estate should provide a nice steady growth over time, particularly when people use the sale of their primary residence to slide comfortably into retirement. The problem is when people's home values started rising 30% or more a year. That should have set off alarm bells and yes, that did start under Clinton, no doubt, but I believe it was much later in his presidency. On your next point, I think you are wrong. I have heard Obama talk about housing without simply saying "it's bush's fault." I heard him talk about the lack of diligence by lenders who don't give a damn about the solvency of their borrowers because they will turn around the paper at the closing table. On your last point, I would not be shocked. Presidents by definition have to be jacks of all trades. My guess is that Obama could school your bankers on a discussion of Syrian influence on Sunni tribes in western Iraq. Having said that, he clearly has had his learning cap on and is far more conversant on the problems with the economy now than he was a year ago and far more knowledgable than John McCain is or ever was.

    First, I would argue the definition of a "false premise" in a political campaign. There is an expectation that arguments get stretched around the desired message. If bush (or clinton for that matter) had simply required lenders to require mortgage insurance payments for any property owner that slipped below 20% equity, much of the problems we are now seeing would not have occurred. You can argue that more regulation is not needed, but I think that Obama is within his rights to say that more regulation from the administration could have had a net positive effect.

    Second, my bigger problem with you saying "the other side does it too" is an equivalency problem. Someone on here suggested that it was anti-palin, inaccurate spin to say that her rallies had any effect on crazy people. I cited the Secret Service who believes otherwise. Then you come back with Obama blaming bush for the economy. These aren't even same ball park arguments.
     

Share This Page