Cynical Nation

Well, I hate to disagree with your headline, but your accuser was wrong, in this instance.

What's as funny as the liberals all uniformly denouncing her is how the conservatives are all uniformly praising her. A mere ten days after many had first heard of her, she's now the next coming of Ronald Reagan.

She's the fighter against pork barrel spending, even though she used Stevens lobbyists. Don't you ever mind that Alaska receives more federal project money per citizen than any state in the union, she's the one putting down Obama for his paltry earmarks.

Everyone is singing from their own hymnbook right now, Democrat and Republican alike, and this blog is doing its part, denouncing the left for its hysterics while ignoring the bluster coming from the right.

Well if you're accusing me of political bias, I plead guilty. I'm not sure why so many conservatives are fawning over Ms Palin now, unless, like me, they are merely grateful to her for breathing new life and viability into the McCain campaign.

But I do object to base lies. And believe me, I have responded in kind to a number of unsolicited emails to be detailing how Obama was sworn into the Senate on the Koran and other such nonsense. We all disagree, but let's at least do so based on facts.

I've seen far more rallying around Palin AFTER her being slimed and smeared by the goofey MSM, which didn't even understand that Palin WASN'T picked to appeal to disaffected "Hillary-women," but to energize the Conservative base.

The MSM has certainly sped that process along.

NOTHING makes a person more beloved to Conservatives than being attacked by a MSM that is admittedly over 80% Liberal and Democratic.

In the midst of all this, I can't help but feel bad for Charles Schumer, who, along with Rahm Emmanuel, developped the Dems "New (Blue Dog) Democrat" strategy - exclusively running Conservative Democrats down South and out West...and who, in his recent book, Positively American said, "The Democratic Party has been hopelessly liberal, shamefully liberal and liberal for far too long."

The Palin nomination SHOULD'VE taken "experience" off the table on both sides, BUT the Democrats have actually opened the door for Obama to be attacked on his most galring weakness - he and Sarah Palin have exactly the SAME amount of experience in higher office (both were sworn in just twenty months ago) and Palin's less than two years in the Governorship amounts (sadly so) to more executive experience than any of the other three candidates in the race.

It's astounding that the Left was dumb enough to go down that road.

Yes, Barry, you are at times very fair and we are all biased, more or less.

And keep your chin up. You don't really suck. ;)

As I used to say while involved in drug research, people (be it the chief surgeon or a hillbilly grandmother) never let evidence get in the way of an anecdote they choose to believe.

With politics, apparently we must first decide who's the Good Guy and who's the Bad Guy, and after that my Good Guy can do no wrong (no matter what the evidence), and your Bad Guy can do no right (ditto).

How dare you consider facts when making up your mind! You're supposed to make up your mind first, then filter out (or attack) anything that doesn't support your position.

But I do object to base lies. And believe me, I have responded in kind to a number of unsolicited emails to be detailing how Obama was sworn into the Senate on the Koran and other such nonsense. We all disagree, but let's at least do so based on facts.

Barry,
Well, thats good. BUT be honest with yourself. Your vote is not really based on information or positions (thats my opinion based on the obvious). You have decided to ignore facts in this election. I ve been reading your posts in CN for years now. And one thing is obvious to me. You seem to vote for people you disagree with, just based on tax policies or just based on the fact that they are republican.

If I were you, I would be totally embarrassed to be openly supporting a marginally educated theocrat from a small town in Alaske who believes that the Iraq war was simply "Gods wish". Someone who is anti-choice and thinks it is OK to teach creationism in schools. And I would be even more embarrassed if I had voted for Bush in 2004 (like you did) and was about to repeat the same mistake (as you will).

Did you forget to remind her that it's about McCain, not Palin? Clearly someone hadn't received their new marching orders.

For a few hours there, I was praising Palin as the next coming of ... until I realized that I was faxed the wrong marching orders. ;)

Unfortunately, with these rumors proving to be untrue, the real abuse of power issues like Trooper-gate are likely to be ignored as well.

BTW, did I mention that Karl Rove has signed on as an advisor to Palin? Not a rumor, it was reported on KYW news radio 1060 AM in Philly last week.

Reports from Alaska say that "There were no violations on the part of Sarah Palin but but there were many by her former Brother-in-Law."

"Governor Palin's former brother-in-law Mike Wooten was investigated and found in gross violation of the rules;

"Mike Wooten's behavior leading up to the divorce led Palin's and McCann's father, Chuck Heath, to file a formal complaint about him to the state police.

"Heath and Sarah Palin, who was not yet governor, said that Wooten had threatened to kill Heath — telling investigators that Heath "would eat a f***ing lead bullet" if he hired a lawyer for her. They also charged that he had used a Taser on his own 11-year-old stepson, had drunk beer in his patrol car and had shot a cow moose without a license (the latter a crime in Alaska, where such licenses are not easy to come by).
The state police investigated these charges and substantiated all of them. Col. Julia Grimes, then head of the Alaska State Troopers, suspended Wooten for 10 days and wrote, "The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession."

"So, of course Governor Palin wanted Wooten fired, anything less would have been a gross violation of her duties."

As for Karl Rove, he's merely the Republican equivalent of James Carville, nothing more, or less.

>Unfortunately, with these rumors proving to be untrue, the real abuse of power issues like Trooper-gate are likely to be ignored as well.

Well I think you're right in one sense. The way the media screwed the pooch right of the bat sort of poisoned the atmosphere, and made it less likely that anyone will still be listening when and if they start asking reasonable questions.

That being said, I think the only "scandal" in troopergate is that the trooper in question still has a job.

"...a marginally educated theocrat from a small town in Alaske who believes that the Iraq war was simply "Gods wish". Someone who is anti-choice and thinks it is OK to teach creationism in schools..." (BW)


In this case, "marginally educated" apparently means ANYONE who didn't get an Ivy League degree.

She is anti-abortion and has said that in her view, "That matter should be left to the people via a binding referendum."

I think most Americans would be on board with that.

The idea that she "wants creationism taught in schools" is another LIE. "Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members. She has kept this pledge, according to the Associated Press.

Palin has spoken in favor of classroom discussions of Intelligent Design, in some cases. “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum,” Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview.

THAT'S the very same view the vast majority of Liberals and Moderates hold!

Abiogenesis is, like Intelligent Design, an unproven theorem.

There is NO actual evidence for either theory, so yes, discussions on both should be fine.

Banning a theorem that one doesn't agree with, IS, ironically enough, very much akin to book burning.

What's next, banning those who believe that global warming is NOT anthropomorphic (man-made), from speaking?

Good luck, the "father of Climatology" (Reid Bryson) is one of the army of those who DO NOT believe that global warming is manmade.

The issue that will most likely take the wind out Palin's sails will be the "bridge to nowhere". She's bigged her part up in that to the point of now appearing disingenuous if not dishonest. Unless she can counter the record with some further information, she'll now be properly regarded as a normal, cynical, opportunistic politician (just like the three other candidates).

Of course, the media will make this a bigger issue than it is whilst continuing to not bother investigating the nature of Obama's connections to William Ayers. Such is life.

The earmarks is fair game, even though EVERY local politician is duty-bound to bring in as much $$$ to their locale is possible.

Mayors who run for Governor routinely switch positions on that - going from being in favor of maximum $$$ for the city to being the stingiest Governor ever...happens all the time and is just good politics.

As to Ayers, I don't think he'll be Obama's biggest problem - Tony Rezko and Rezko's ties to Nahdmi Auchi may be a HUGE problem.

Rezko lent the Obama's $ to buy a property they couldn't afford and the Rezko's didn't have much cash on hand UNTIL Auchi (an Iraqi whose U.S. Visa was pulled for running arms to Saddam's regime during the Coalition invasion and profiting from the Oil-for_Food scandal)...Rezko tried to get Auchi's Visa restored and the best Obama's been able to say when questioned on whether anyone on his staff helped Rezko in that regard is, "Not to my knowledge."

SEE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122005063234084813.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Left out a line;

Rezko lent the Obama's $ to buy a property they couldn't afford and the Rezko's didn't have much cash on hand UNTIL Auchi (an Iraqi whose U.S. Visa was pulled for running arms to Saddam's regime during the Coalition invasion and profiting from the Oil-for_Food scandal)..."lent" Rezko some $3.8 Million....

"Mayors who run for Governor routinely switch positions on that - going from being in favor of maximum $$$ for the city to being the stingiest Governor ever...happens all the time and is just good politics."

Perhaps, but the damage isn't from what she did but from what she says she did. It's a character issue for a candidate that has made a big play on character.

It's certainly not fatal, and if it deflates her celebrity status before that gets out of hand it might actually help long term.

The earmarks she culled for as Mayor and Governor (to bring $$$ to her state) are very definitely fair game, and her stance is definitely misleading, "She is portrayed as a crusader for the thrifty use of tax dollars who turned down an offer from Washington to build an expensive bridge of little value to the state.

"I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere," she said in her convention speech last week.

"That's not what she told Alaskans when she announced a year ago that she was ordering state transportation officials to ditch the project. Her explanation then was that it would be fruitless to try to persuade Congress to come up with the money.

"It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said then.

She'll definitely get dinged up along the way in this process. I don't disagree on that.

I have a feeling that this race COULD, very easily, become a real slime-fest over the next two months.

The Obama camp is going to HAVE to attack (with the recent polls as they are) and the McCain camp has a ton of ammunition to go back with on BOTH Obama AND Biden.

Personally, and I know this is heresy, BUT I'd much prefer and even trade a solid GOP Congress (BOTH House and Senate) for an Obama Presidency.

I could easily see Obama pulling a page out of Bill Clinton's book and "going along to get along" with a strong Conservative Congress.

The late 1990s was fueled by the Gingrich-led Congress's lead on policy - cutting the Cap Gains tax, massive welfare reform that's still returning BIG dividends AND reductions in government spending that resulted in those surpluses!

Ironically enough, MSNBC's now demoted Obama-shill, Keith Olbermann, kept referring to the surpluses of the late 1990s as though they'd wiped out the national debt during that period. "We didn't have a debt back then, we had surpluses."

More proof that Keith Olbermann should've stuck to sports.

The National DEBT never went down at any time over the past two decades (nor over the past half century, for that matter), what was reduced and for a couple years ELIMINATED was our DEFICIT spending...THAT was the "surplus," and THAT was created by the Gingrich Congress' spending cuts.

The National DEBT has risen every year since 1950.

Interestingly enough the DEBT as a percentage of GDP has actually gone DOWN.

In 1950 it was 80% of the GDP, in 1960 it was appx 46% (45.7%) of GDP, in 1990 it was 42% of GDP and in 2007 it was appx 37% of GDP (36.8%).

But the Natioanl DEBT itself in shear numbers/dollars, has not gone down over the past half century.

Oh well, not to worry. Obama has made a right pig's ear of a diversion.

One thing the Reps cannot do anymore is claim O has too much celebrity while they put Palin on a pedestal above McCain. I know people had wanted Palin for VP but sheesh! They are beginning to sound like Obamabots.

and, no you do not suck, Barry :)

and, no you do not suck, Barry :)

He only sucks around election time. Otherwise he is fine :-)

"One thing the Reps cannot do anymore is claim O has too much celebrity while they put Palin on a pedestal above McCain." (Rachel)

That is VERY true.