"...is what she says about us."

Mad Dog Palin | Election 2008 | AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/election08/100551/?page=entire)

I remember thinking the same thing about Ronald Reagan.

This screed may be over the top, but the top is turning out to be a lot higher than I ever thought it was, and a lot harder to go over. I guess it's inevitable that in a democracy we get the lowest quality of government that the mass of people is willing to tolerate. Figuring out how to get them to tolerate, and even applaud, progressively worse government seems to be the long-term strategy for "a permanent Republican majority".

Hello ordinary:

I loved the screed. He's over the top. But, the Republicans went waaay over the top in picking her. It's surreal.

excon

I think she's OK, I mean, they let Hilary run 4 president.. why not have a female vice president? Beisdes, she seems down to earth an nice... I don't see what the problem is. Ok, maybe that statement was a bit over the top, but whenever a democrat says something bad, republicans never go and say anything...

Maybe they do, this whole political mess is syupid... whf...

OG:


That link was a class act,

Here is a sample







Not only is Sarah Palin a fraud, she's the tawdriest, most half-assed fraud imaginable, 20 floors below the lowest common denominator, a character too dumb even for daytime TV -and this country is going to eat her up, cheering her every step of the way. All because most Americans no longer have the energy to do anything but lie back and allow ourselves to be jacked off by the calculating thieves who run this grasping consumer paradise we call a nation.


:(

Now that was mild compared to all the expletives at the end. It seems that the expletives and hatred were a substitue for intelligent, reasoned, opinion.


How can anyone read that and be convinced when the writer's style includes expletives and stereotypes of whole sections of American society? :confused:

Is this representative of the liberal / leftist media? :confused:

Is this representative of the liberal / leftist media? :confused:


Uh... yeah. It pretty much is.

Elliot

First of all, the Republican Party is falling apart. Ths is a result of the disastrous Presidency of Bush who will go down in history as the worst Presidence in the history of the Republic.

Unregulated, free wheeling Capitalism under an unconcerned Bush with its booms and busts has gone BUST and will bring down America unless the government tries to rescue our economy.

Most Americans see this very clearly. :)

Sarah Palin is just a stooge in McQueeg's plans to try to capture the presidency.

She has disgraced herself on television in interviews... showing her lack of knowledge of foreign affairs and domestic affairs.

The only reason McCain isn't down by 15 points is that his opponent is a black man, and racism is alive and well in America.

To answer your question, it is what she says about MCCAIN. He thinks the electorate is stupid, and he is probably correct!

Is this representative of the liberal / leftist media? :confused:
The guy writes for The Rolling Stone, so the piece might provide some insight into how the mostly young, and generally non-political urban lefties are interpreting this quadrennial orgy of battling TV ads and campaign extravaganzas that passes for national elections in this country.

But my reason for posting it is to call attention to how she's being packaged and positioned and deployed. And what that says about the calculation that the Rovian Republican strategists have made about what flavor of crap we will be willing to swallow this time.

I'm firmly convinced that over the long-haul, democracy is a demand-side-driven enterprise, which means that if too few of us insist on substance, we will get, and deserve, "leaders" who are no more wise, or honest, or careful than we are when we take the bait, in spite of the hook we know (or ought to know) is hidden inside.

Is this representative of the liberal / leftist media? :confused:Hello in:

Yes, it is... The truth does hurt, doesn't it?

There's no question about it, she's the single most unqualified candidate EVER to be presented for national office. I didn't mind the expletives, either. That's the way I talk. But, like good righty's, when you don't like the message, you blame the media.

excon

PS> I'll bet you don't like Jon Stewart either. He tells the truth and uses the "f" word, too.

After wading through that heaping pile of steaming bovine excrement, I feel like my boots will never come clean. The only thing missing in this assinine profanity is the sound effect of a jackass braying.

To answer your question, it is what she says about MCCAIN
What her choice and use says about McCain is that he long ago sold his Honor-and-Duty-Bound-Maverick-Reformer's soul to the Col. Karl Rove Mercenary Panzer Division of Partisan Campaign Warfare. He will do and say whatever they tell him he must do and say, to win this election.

He thinks the electorate is stupid, and he is probably correct!Yeah, well, the same basic playbook has worked in three of the last four national elections, so you have to admit these guys have some pretty solid evidence to support their conclusion.

They'll keep running the same scam until it doesn't work anymore. I had dared to hope the 2006 midterms would dissuade them from running it again, but I guess they decided they could tweak it and get one more term out of it. I hope to god they're wrong, but I'm not betting the ranch on it.

This screed may be over the top

Ya think? Clearly, this pathetic individual is in need of therapy (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/09/18/cstillwell.DTL).

Ya think? Clearly, this pathetic individual is in need of therapy (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/09/18/cstillwell.DTL).
The Rolling Stone article is much more tame compared to that article you linked to: Cinnamon needs a little drama-queen mood-leveling medication.

Hello Steve:

When somebody criticizes your side, they're called haters. But, I don't hate Sara Palin. I'd LOVE for my son to join a cub scout pack with her as the den mother. I think she's a wonderful person... But, I don't hate her. What I do, is LOVE my country.

I love it sooooo much, that I'd NEVER consider putting someone in charge who doesn't know stuff. I just wouldn't. I'm sorry you would. Do you remember the Miss America girl who answered why most people can't find America (or someplace) on a map? I do. Sara Palin sounded like her when she tried to explain WHY living in Alaska gave her foreign policy experience... She absolutely knows NOTHING... That AIN'T GOOD FOR US!!

excon

The Rolling Stone article is much more tame compared to that article you linked to: Cinnamon needs a little drama-queen mood-leveling medication.

Only in your world is this tamer than pointing out the unhinged nature of the author:


Not only is Sarah Palin a fraud, she's the tawdriest, most half-assed fraud imaginable, 20 floors below the lowest common denominator, a character too dumb even for daytime TV -and this country is going to eat her up, cheering her every step of the way. All because most Americans no longer have the energy to do anything but lie back and allow ourselves to be jacked off by the calculating thieves who run this grasping consumer paradise we call a nation.

Only in your world is this tamer than pointing out the unhinged nature of the author:


Here's what Sarah Palin represents: being a fat f***ing pig who pins "Country First" buttons on his man titties and chants "U-S-A! U-S-A!" at the top of his lungs while his kids live off credit cards and Saudis buy up all the mortgages in Kansas.

And yet, you have the nerve to criticize and mock our politics. Right on cue again, NK.

Ex, not that I called anyone a hater, but read the two quotes from the article I just posted to NK and tell me these people people aren't worthy of the title.

I can understand your fears, but what I don't understand are these unhinged fears of people that don't know anything about the person they think doesn't know anything.

I do think it was incorrect to call her a fat pig. She is being paraded as a MILF. I stand corrected.

And I'll comment on anything my heart desires - the interweb is a great series of tubes!

Do you remember the Miss America girl who answered why most people can't find America (or someplace) on a map? I do. Sara Palin sounded like her when she tried to explain WHY living in Alaska gave her foreign policy experience.... She absolutely knows NOTHING...... That AIN'T GOOD FOR US!!! Or this!

zeMypXCUWMw

She absolutely knows NOTHING...... That AIN'T GOOD FOR US!!!

exconHello Need:

I hadn't seen that part of the interview. Now that I have, I too, stand corrected. She knows even LESS than I said.

excon

I do think it was incorrect to call her a fat pig. She is being paraded as a MILF. I stand corrected.

She isn't being paraded as such, and you're repeating such a disgusting, demeaning insult is pathetic. So go ahead, NK, I encourage you to comment all you want. The real Needkarma is showing more and more...

Thanks mate! :)

toledoblade.com -- Palin's campaign buttons revitalize interest in election (http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080925/OPINION04/309259992)


What American men really want to know is which campaign button the presidential candidates like better, "Sarah-liscious!" or "Sarah Barracuda!" This isn't something from a Saturday Night Live comedy sketch. These were actual buttons sold outside a Grand Rapid, Mich., event attended by Mrs. Palin and Mr. McCain earlier this month. "Sarah-liscious!" is a little more vice presidential, if misspelled. Resting her hand on her chin with a self-assured smile makes her look like she's facing off against Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez and is fully in control of the situation. At the same time, she's wearing her hair down, which is hot, demonstrating that she can be competent and sexy at the same time, like the caption suggests: Sarah-(de)liscious! This button is for women, but men could wear it too. I think "Sarah-liscious!" would appeal more to Mr. Obama, although he's probably a tad jealous that he's no longer the prettiest, the youngest, or the least experienced candidate.Or...
Sara Palin hottest VP buttons straight from the RNC (http://anchorage.craigslist.org/clt/854294905.html)
As sold at the RNC convention:
http://images.craigslist.org/1201411g4ZZZZZZZZZ89o99a547cddddc13fc.jpg

Thanks mate! :)

LOL, once you again you mistake us for idiots. What some unknown vendor (not exactly "straight from the RNC") sold outside a McCain-Palin event is hardly proof she's "being paraded as a MILF" as you so elegantly put it. I think even you're smart enough to realize McCain wouldn't be promoting such juvenile trinkets at a time she needs to be taken seriously.

RNC store (http://www.rncgiftstore.com/)

McCain Store (http://www.johnmccain08store.com/eshop/10Browse.asp)

LOL, once you again you mistake us for idiots.No, I didn't mistake you for idiots.

Hello again:

As I sit here considering the interview NeedKarma just posted, my mouth just won't close... If this isn't Alice Through The Looking Glass, I don't know what is. Please, tom, Elliot, Speech, one of you who support her. Tell me what she said.

Can you, with a straight face, tell me she's prepared to run THIS COUNTRY?? We're not talking about the PTA here, this is OUR COUNTRY, and YOUR CHILDREN'S COUNTRY. Having her finger on the button is the most frightening thought I've EVER had.

excon

PS> If you're going to give me the standard right wing crap to criticize Obama, I'm not interested.

Of course, Ex. You can criticize our people all you want, but we shouldn't criticize yours.
What are you smokin'?

Hello Gal:

It's like I told the Wolverine... Because the Dems nominated somebody inexperienced, the Republicans should too?? Ok, if I jumped off a bridge, you would too?? Please explain it to me.

excon

That is very clever but it is not the complete answer ;nor does the clip show the question being asked. They were previously discussing healthcare and the economy, and Couric posed a mixed bailout and healthcare question. Now the question and answer is being portrayed as a bailout only discussion and a Palin screwup.Not only that ;but the section used in the SNL parody clips from the middle of her response and leaves out the beginning and end making it sound worse than it is.

Here is the exact exchange :

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out.

But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track.

So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade — we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today.We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.

No it was not the best answer she could've given .Clearly she is not as experienced at doing the Ivy League 2 step slide and saying nothing ,as Obama demonstrated in the O'Reiley interview. She appears to be putting a bunch of talking points together that she was coached to say. That is more a McCain campaign error. She should be unleashed to say what she believes .It has harmed her image clearly and if she is not given free reign during the debate she will lose it.

It was Couric who made the ridiculous irrelevant linkage between the bailout and national health care .

She is correct about what the average American thinks of the bailout. It would've passed today if Congress could've gotten the cover of public support.

Hello again, tom:

I agree. She can't be as dumb as she sounds. Bill Krystol says McCain hired Bush aids to handle Palin. It looks like it. She should either sink or swim on her own.

All of the above reflects badly on McCain. He's making lots of mistakes. The failed bailout he suspended his campaign to fix, ain't fixed. At least Obama didn't say HE fixed it. But, I digress. Suffice to say, McCain is in BIG trouble. All he had to do was stay OUT of trouble and wait for Obama to make a mistake. Well, his impetuousness (maverickness?? ) failed him this time.

excon

No it was not the best answer she could've given .Clearly she is not as experienced at doing the Ivy League 2 step slide and saying nothing ,as Obama demonstrated in the O'Reiley interview. She appears to be putting a bunch of talking points together that she was coached to say. That is more a McCain campaign error. She should be unleashed to say what she believes .It has harmed her image clearly and if she is not given free reign during the debate she will lose it.


What's the saying again? Better off keeping your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot, than open your mouth and confirm it!

That was one of these moments.

She ain't up to it. Not even close. Surely not even you guys can claim she is.

I have seen her stump speeches and tapes of her Alaska debates. I think she will do fine if ;as Excon correctly points out ;those spin meisters don't load her head with bullet points .

Remember ; her pick as is often the case with a VEEP selection was for political considerations. I spoke in other postings that she is there to secure the base while McCain appeals to the middle. That means that most likely she has a view closer to mine on the bailout plan. In other words ,my guess is she disagrees with McCain's . Instead of glossing that over ,I think it would be better if she showed her differences ;just like she has done when discussing ANWR drilling .

Remember ; her pick as is often the case with a VEEP selection was for political considerations. I spoke in other postings that she is there to secure the base while McCain appeals to the middle.
Yes, and that's exactly the point. It has nothing to do with whether she has the ability to lead the nation, which she clearly does not. Yes, she can rally "The Base" (which translates into Arabic as "Al Qaeda"). But if the Great Apathetic Middle ever wakes up to the damage that such simple-minded idealogues can do when in power, the strategy will backfire on the Rovians, big time.

You know, come to think of it, the financial market meltdown just might be the dope slap that it takes to rouse them from their stupor! If so, I say praise the Lord, and pass the recession!!

Don't be silly . Just because her pick was a political consideration does not mean she she doesn't have the ability to lead the nation .

Is the base of the Democrat party (those simple-minded idealogues ) also 'al qaeda '?

She may have committed political suicide: lose the election and lose the confidence of Alaska i.e. no more politics for her.

don't be silly . just because her pick was a political consideration does not mean she she doesn't have the ability to lead the nation .
Don't be silly. That's not WHY she doesn't have the ability to lead the nation. She doesn't have the ability to lead the nation because she's a simple-minded ideologue.

Is the base of the Democrat party (those simple-minded idealogues ) also 'al qaeda '?The term is accurate for all fundamentalist true-believer groups.

She doesn't have the ability to lead the nation because she's a simple-minded ideologue.


That's what they said of Lincoln . In fact ;I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard the charge that Republicans are stupid.

By the way Excon

I'd like to submit this whole thred as an exhibit for the "Disconnect " thred

that's what they said of Lincoln . In fact ;I wish I had a dollar for everytime I've heard the charge that Republicans are stupid.

I didn't say Republicans are stupid, I said that Palin is a simple-minded ideologue, and the fact that the Rovian strategists chose her, knowing full-well that's what she is, means that they think WE'RE stupid. And even though the several prior successes of their strategy do tend to support that conclusion, I'm hopeful that Lincoln's dictum about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time is about to kick in.

Simple minded compared to what ;the candidate who can't give a straight answer about what a 'withdrawal 'means ?

To Couric she attempted to give an answer about a very complex issue; the bail out . You will note that for 45 minutes Friday both Presidential candidates tap danced and gave non-answers to Jim Lehrer about the complexities of the bail-out package. Like I said ;the only thing she needs better training in is how to speak Washintonese to satisfy the swamp dwellers. But she's be better off using her Alaska real straight talk in the debate Thursday.

Like I said ;the only thing she needs better training in is how to speak Washintonese
So the only leadership qualification she lacks is the ability to obfuscate, deny, and lie more convincingly? Not to worry, the McCain campaign is being run by people with demonstrated expertise in those areas, so I'm sure she'll have the best teachers around.

So the only leadership qualification she lacks is the ability to obfuscate, deny, and lie more convincingly? Not to worry, the McCain campaign is being run by people with demonstrated expertise in those areas, so I'm sure she'll have the best teachers around.Hello again:

Correctomundo... Couldn't have said it better. Here's a greenie where we can't give greenies.

excon

My my how that got turned around. When you see the Democrat presidential candidate doing his best impersonation of the Tracy character "Mumbles" what exactly do you think he's doing ? Being nuianced and contemplative ?

Palin's biggest problem is that she became deferential to those morons Couric and Gibson. I would've been more up front and told them...

"no ;I did not have time to take foreign junkets on the taxpayer's dime schmoozing with foreign dignitaries as Governor or Mayor . As a Governor I was too busy running my State!!! . I wasn't using the office as a stepping stone to my next elected position like the Democrat Presidential nominee.

If I seem inexperienced in foreign policy then too bad . I expect McCain to serve his full term and in the meantime I know how to pick competent staff and advisors. I am a quick study and unlike the Presidential nominee I WILL have the luxury of on the job training (Joe Biden's words) .

I can assure you that I know (unlike the nominee and his running mate on the Democrat ticket) what it means to make an executive decision .Obama and Biden have demonstrated that they are like their compatriots on the Hill ;unwilling to be involved in the decisions of the day. Obama has been phoning it in ;and Biden completely invisible and irrelevent . I show up for work every day .

Now if you want to seriously discuss the issues of the day I'll continue . If you persist in trying to quizz me so you can find gottcha sound bites for Tina Fey ,I'm afraid I'm wasting my time here. There are thousands upon thousands of Americans every day who go to events to hear what I have to say. Too bad you can't take this as seriously as they do "

Palin's biggest problem is that she became deferential to those morons Couric and Gibson. I would've been more up front and told them ....
Yes, I'm sure you are way smarter than she is. But you weren't chosen as the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee. You're too smart and articulate to serve the purpose the Rovians had in mind. She's the Goldilocks candidate--hot, but not too hot; smart, but not too smart.

Katie Couric pitched Sarah Palin soft balls in the first interview. Couric gave a tootsie foot interview, nothing earth shattering, and subjects that Palin should have a clue about as a VP candidate. Heaven forbid if McCain were to become president, the country would only be one bad burrito away from "I love Lucy." Even worse the second interview had the puppet's master, "McCain" by her side. It was Tweedledee and Tweedledum as Palin looked at McCain several times as they both fumbled for excuses in an attempt to stay on the same page. But hey, Sarah's husband "Todd" is a professional snowmobile racer and there's an island belonging to Alaska off their coast that is occupied by maybe a hundred fifty people, perhaps a few sea lions and seals. Yes sirree! If they squint hard enough across the Bering Strait they can see the rock outline of territory that belongs to Russia. Whoopee! :rolleyes:

Wall Street and Washington were full of people who were “qualified and experienced” in the field of finance. Sen. Barack Obama, for one, has a great deal of experience in the housing field. So do many of his closest advisers. I would have traded some of that experience for a few more leaders with less experience and more courage to buck the establishment and tell the truth about what was happening.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/FredThompson/2008/09/30/qualified

Tom, from your link:

When John McCain selected Governor Sarah Palin, as his running mate, the Democrats and their far-left constituency let out a primal scream that could be heard from sea to shining sea. How dare he choose someone that they and their pals in the media had not had a chance to vet (i.e. libel, slander, and otherwise and otherwise eviscerate). Ah, but it was not too late. These seekers of “a new kind of politics” poured torrents of malicious abuse upon her and her family.Isn't that what you guys did to Obama for months on end?

I don't know who you guys are. I did not and I have defended him against unwarranted slander. Nor have I said a thing about his family that was not in the realm of politics. Yes I panned his wife's public statements because they were a matter of public record ;statements made on the campaign trail.

I have tried to find out and fill in the gaps about some very important unanswered questions about his past.

Obama still has not been vetted properly even though the press has had ample opportunity .

Obama still has not been vetted properly even though the press has had ample opportunity .
And that's exactly what's happening to Palin. So suck it up and enjoy the ride, you gte to see what Obama had to endure.

By 'you guys' I meant the right-wing types here and whoever sends out those mass emails smearing Obama that people seem to receive a lot.

And that's exactly what's happening to Palin. So suck it up and enjoy the ride, you gte to see what Obama had to endure.

By 'you guys' I meant the right-wing types here and whoever sends out those mass emails smearing Obama that people seem to receive a lot.

That makes at least two of us "you guys" that have defended Obama on these boards against those mass email slanders, so what's your next excuse?

Fred Thompson :: Townhall.com :: Qualified (http://townhall.com/Columnists/FredThompson/2008/09/30/qualified)
Also from Fred's piece about qualifications:

However, it is a legitimate issue and should be taken seriously. I especially take seriously the criticism of people such as New York Times columnist David Brooks who I consider to be an insightful analyst of the political scene.
Here's what Brooks said on the subject: David Brooks--Why Experience Matters (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html)

Conservatism was once a frankly elitist movement. Conservatives stood against radical egalitarianism and the destruction of rigorous standards. They stood up for classical education, hard-earned knowledge, experience and prudence. Wisdom was acquired through immersion in the best that has been thought and said.

But, especially in America, there has always been a separate, populist, strain. For those in this school, book knowledge is suspect but practical knowledge is respected. The city is corrupting and the universities are kindergartens for overeducated fools.

The elitists favor sophistication, but the common-sense folk favor simplicity. The elitists favor deliberation, but the populists favor instinct.

This populist tendency produced the term-limits movement based on the belief that time in government destroys character but contact with grass-roots America gives one grounding in real life. And now it has produced Sarah Palin.

Palin is the ultimate small-town renegade rising from the frontier to do battle with the corrupt establishment. Her followers take pride in the way she has aroused fear, hatred and panic in the minds of the liberal elite. The feminists declare that she’s not a real woman because she doesn’t hew to their rigid categories. People who’ve never been in a Wal-Mart think she is parochial because she has never summered in Tuscany.

Look at the condescension and snobbery oozing from elite quarters, her backers say. Look at the endless string of vicious, one-sided attacks in the news media. This is what elites produce. This is why regular people need to take control.

And there’s a serious argument here. In the current Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward argues that the nation’s founders wanted uncertified citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. They did not believe in a separate class of professional executives. They wanted rough and rooted people like Palin.

I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.

And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.

What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events — the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight.

How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can’t, what has worked and what hasn’t.

Experienced leaders can certainly blunder if their minds have rigidified (see: Rumsfeld, Donald), but the records of leaders without long experience and prudence is not good. As George Will pointed out, the founders used the word “experience” 91 times in the Federalist Papers. Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared.

Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.

The idea that “the people” will take on and destroy “the establishment” is a utopian fantasy that corrupted the left before it corrupted the right. Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place.

Thompson's point is clear on this. Without term limits all we have in Washinton is swamp-rats with plenty of experience. Our economy is going down the toilet in no small part because of their experience at picking our pockets.

Thompson's point is clear on this. Without term limits all we have in Washinton is swamp-rats with plenty of experience. Our economy is going down the toilet in no small part because of their experience at picking our pockets.
So you think we should elect McCain-Palin because they are most likely "to destroy a corrupt establishment"? While it's probably true that they would unleash new forms of destruction, I agree with Brooks that we've had quite enough of that over the past 8 years, and it's time for some adult supervision.

Pat Oliphant--Preparing Palin (http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080930/lpo080930.gif)

David Brooks may believe this






Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.

The idea that “the people” will take on and destroy “the establishment” is a utopian fantasy that corrupted the left before it corrupted the right. Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place.





HOWEVER:


1] Palin has taken on the GOP's corruption in Alaska, and was successful.

2] The subsequent bolds indicate Mr Brook's
Cynicism for true change. He admits that most of the left and right have given up.


So who should people choose ?

Another adept politician that promises everything you want to hear - Obama ?
Same old same old partisanship- no CHANGE there.

Obama Votes Party Line 3X More Than McCain | Sweetness & Light (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-votes-the-party-line-more-than-mccain)

I agree with Brooks that we've had quite enough of that over the past 8 years
On the contrary the biggest problem with the Bush administration is that domestically they too often acted like the established Washington elite. David Brooks by the way is infected with the same "insider "disease and increasingly so is Peggy Noonan.

1] Palin has taken on the GOP's corruption in Alaska, and was successful.
I suppose you could say that Sarah Palin has "taken on" the GOP's corruption in Alaska in the sense that she has overthrown the previous power brokers, and now uses the powers of government to serve her own interests (personal vendetta, political power) instead of theirs (personal wealth, political power). But that's not much of an improvement in terms of the public interest.

2] The subsequent bolds indicate Mr Brook's
Cynicism for true change. He admits that most of the left and right have given up.

So what, exactly, do you think is the true change that we need? Is the whole idea of "constructive governance" just a lie told by the corrupt elites to dupe the virtuous masses? Are the ideas of "the common good", and "the public interest" nothing more than leftist political slogans that have no real validity?

on the contrary the biggest problem with the Bush administration is that domestically they too often acted like the established Washington elite.
I'm sure the question of what was "the biggest problem with the Bush administration " will be debated for years. There are so many to choose from, and they have such far-reaching consequences that it's hard to know how to even compare them, much less pick the biggest one. Can you give some examples of what you mean by "acted like the established Washington elite"?

David Brooks by the way is infected with the same "insider "disease and increasingly so is Peggy Noonan.Yeah, it's getting harder and harder to tell who's Us and who's Them, isn't it. The fact is that we're all in this together and one of the things we need is competent and prudent government.

I'd like to ask you the same questions I asked inthebox:
So what, exactly, do you think is the true change that we need?
Is the whole idea of "constructive governance" just a lie told by the corrupt elites to dupe the virtuous masses?
Are the ideas of "the common good", and "the public interest" nothing more than leftist political slogans that have no real validity?

I think shes ok, I mean, they let Hilary run 4 president..why not have a female vice president? Beisdes, she seems down to earth an nice...I don't see what the problem is. Ok, maybe that statement was a bit over the top, but whenever a democrat says something bad, republicans never go and say anything....

If you only had to be down to earth and nice to be vice president, then pretty much anyone could do it. I don't think that's the case.

All you people crying for change, and when it is offered, you carp. First you say McCain is Bush #2, and you don't like that. Then McCain chooses a vp that is REAL change, should McCain die in office, and you don't like that either.
You simply cannot be pleased, can you?

All you people crying for change, and when it is offered, you carp. First you say McCain is Bush #2, and you don't like that. Then McCain chooses a vp that is REAL change, should McCain die in office, and you don't like that either.
You simply cannot be pleased, can you?The hobo down the street is REAL change too but no one wants him to lead the country.

All you people crying for change, and when it is offered, you carp. First you say McCain is Bush #2, and you don't like that. Then McCain chooses a vp that is REAL change, should McCain die in office, and you don't like that either.
You simply cannot be pleased, can you?
Yes, I can be pleased, and I would be pleased, by competent, prudent, constructive governance in support of the common good.

Yes, I can be pleased, and I would be pleased, by competent, prudent, constructive governance in support of the common good.

And who currently on the scene do you think will bring this?

The hobo down the street is REAL change too but no one wants him to lead the country.


Yeah and that HOBO down the street can point out all that is wrong and "PROPOSE" changes that involve government solutions necessitating governments expansion and raising taxes. ;)

... and raising taxes. ;)If you make under $250,000 then under Obama's plan your taxes will lower.

The Tax Foundation - Both Candidates' Tax Plans Will Reduce Millions of Taxpayers' Liability to Zero (or Less) (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23631.html)





According to the most recent IRS statistics for 2006, some 45.6 million tax filers—one-third of all filers—have no tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. For good or ill, this is a dramatic 57 percent increase since 2000 in the number of Americans who pay no personal income taxes.






Tax Foundation estimates show that if all of the Obama tax provisions were enacted in 2009, the number of these "nonpayers" would rise by about 16 million, to 63 million overall. If all of the McCain tax proposals were enacted in 2009, the number of nonpayers would rise by about 15 million, to a total of 62 million overall.





How is it possible to cut 95 percent of Americans' taxes when the Tax Foundation reports that 40 percent of Americans don't pay any income tax?



The dangerous thing is that, those who have no federal tax liability will look more favorably to voting themselves more government entitlements and thus increasing gov spending.

Of course for a significant percentage of workers; ssi, medicare, state, property taxes are much higher than their federal tax burden.

The Tax Foundation - Both Candidates' Tax Plans Will Reduce Millions of Taxpayers' Liability to Zero (or Less) (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23631.html)

Glad you brought this up, just exactly how will Obama lower taxes for people that pay no income tax? It's no wonder that:


"60% of likely voters among nontaxpaying Americans (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307841193807843) favor Obama for president."

"a majority of the 30% of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes agree with Obama's $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded, universal health coverage."

"A majority of nontaxpayers (57%) also favor raising the individual income-tax rate for those in the highest bracket to 54% from 35%. A majority of nontaxpayers (59%) also favor raising Social Security taxes by 4% for any individual or business that makes at least $250,000."

""Nontaxpayers support Obama's plans for increased tax deductions for lower-income Americans along with higher overall tax rates levied against middle- and upper-income households as well.

They also want to expand their ranks from 30% of all Americans to 40%. Obama's tax plan, with its smorgasbord of deductions and credits aimed at lower-income households, would do exactly that."

So tell us, how do you give a tax break to someone that pays no taxes?

So what, exactly, do you think is the true change that we need? Is the whole idea of "constructive governance" just a lie told by the corrupt elites to dupe the virtuous masses? Are the ideas of "the common good", and "the public interest" nothing more than leftist political slogans that have no real validity?
So, inthebox, I guess you aren't going to answer my questions. That's what I thought. When it really comes down to it, you've got nothing do you?



I'd like to ask you the same questions I asked inthebox:
So what, exactly, do you think is the true change that we need?
Is the whole idea of "constructive governance" just a lie told by the corrupt elites to dupe the virtuous masses?
Are the ideas of "the common good", and "the public interest" nothing more than leftist political slogans that have no real validity?
Hey there, Tom, you got nothing to say? I'm not surprised. All bluff and bluster, no substance, just like your buddies.

The whole Obama tax plan is impossible. I'm certain he knows that, but he is depending on the dumb-masses to elect him on empty promises. I challenge any math that says ANYONE can do all Obama has promised, even if you leave off the extra programs he wants to create.

So, inthebox, I guess you aren't going to answer my questions. That's what I thought. When it really comes down to it, you've got nothin' do you?


Hey there, Tom, you got nothing to say? I'm not surprised. All bluff and bluster, no substance, just like your buddies.

Sorry to keep you waiting,

Change, hmmmm

1] tell the truth
- about your education, your associates, your positions

2] stop promising more entitlements, when we can't keep the ones we have [ medicare , ssi ]

3] stop bringing race or age or gender into the issues of qualifications

4] vote against your party's position every once in awhile if it is to the benefit of the country

5] bring something NEW to the table
- how about the fair tax
- how about legalizing THC
- how about saying no to lobbyists and special intrests
- how about appreciating the big corps that employ people and provide goods and
Services that we all use and need
- how about demanding that the rest of the world step up and start defending
Themselves
- how about stopping illegal immigration
- how about going after fraud in medicare, medicaid, soc security, this ability
- how about aiming for 100% child support rates [ 50 % ] now
- how about truly rating the crap that is in today's entertainment industry
- how about personal responsibility - sorry you bought a home you could not afford, or
Sorry you lost your home because it is in an area below sea level and in hurricane
Path every year, or on top of a hill of mud etc...

And who currently on the scene do you think will bring this?Well, I admit it's hard to get good help these days, but the Republicans have had eight years to show what they can do, and the debris is falling all around us. A party that has preached contempt for government ever since Reagan proclaimed "government IS the problem", and has corrupted the institutions of government and trashed the Constitution at every opportunity, needs to be out of power for several years so it can take some remedial courses in civics.

OG sorry I did not reply in what you think is a suitably timely manner . I sometimes just quickly peruse long extended postings that go off topic.


Jefferson described good governance in his 1st inauguration :
....a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

The problem with the liberal perscription is that, although it is well intentioned ,the unintended consequences outweigh the good.

Change, hmmmm

1] tell the truth

2] stop promising more entitlements, when we can't keep the ones we have

3] stop bringing race or age or gender into the issues of qualifications

4] vote against your party's position every once in awhile if it is to the benefit of the country

5] bring something NEW to the table

Hey! I agree! All of these would be a big change from every Republican administration that's been in power since 1981. But these are not the kinds of proposals I expected from someone who dissed David Brooks for suggesting that "the constructive act of governance" was a cop out from the "true change" that's needed to "destroy a corrupt establishment".

So how about answering my other questions as well?

Is the whole idea of "constructive governance" just a lie told by the corrupt elites to dupe the virtuous masses?
Are the ideas of "the common good", and "the public interest" nothing more than leftist political slogans that have no real validity?As you may or may not remember, "to promote the general welfare" is one of the objectives that is set out in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. I'm just trying to get a feel for how much of the Constitution you plan to repeal after your revolution to "destroy a corrupt establishment" is victorious.

Jefferson described good governance in his 1st inauguration :
....a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." So does this mean that you do recognize that there is such a thing as good governance, at least in theory? If so, I'm pleasantly surprised, but it does put you at odds with both McCain and Palin who are still flogging the "government IS the problem" line.

Let's see how the Republican track record measures up to Jefferson's vision:

"wise and frugal"? Bwa ha ha ha.
"restrain men from injuring one another"? If it were only women and children who were victims of violence, I guess they'd be able to claim success on this one. Alas, homicide is the leading cause of death (http://www.kff.org/minorityhealth/upload/7541.pdf) among black men under 30 years of age.
"shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned"? How's your 401(k) portfolio doing these days?

The problem with the liberal perscription is that, although it is well intentioned ,the unintended consequences outweigh the good.Is it a genetic thing for Republicans to answer the questions they want to answer instead of the ones that were asked, or do they teach you that in the Sarah Palin School of Debate?

I'll ask again. Are the concepts of "the general welfare", "the common good", and "the public interest" valid, or should we just get rid of them along with the Constitution?

[QUOTE=ordinaryguy;1306313]"restrain men from injuring one another"? If it were only women and children who were victims of violence, I guess they'd be able to claim success on this one. Alas, homicide is the leading cause of death (http://www.kff.org/minorityhealth/upload/7541.pdf) among black men under 30 years of age.

QUOTE]

How did you logically conclude that it is the fault of government that homicide is the leading cause of death among black men under 30 ?

Don't you think other factors like:
The break down of family, drugs, violent entertainment, a "victimization" mindset that contribute to that unfortunate statistic?

So does this mean that you do recognize that there is such a thing as good governance, at least in theory? If so, I'm pleasantly surprised, but it does put you at odds with both McCain and Palin who are still flogging the "government IS the problem" line.
The government that is in office is the problem .President Bush succumbed to the caring government bs and the liberals have control of the Congress... perfect together.



The problem is that the government is the primary cause of this .Even the goofy Alec Baldwin realizes this :
YouTube - The 800 Billion Dollar Week | Bill Maher | Oct 3 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yop7ks9N3bk&eurl=http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=188303)

Relevant part of his rant if the link doesn't work:

The, the thing we have to remember, a friend of mine who is very close to the financial community in New York pointed out that Democrats have a lot of the responsibility for this as well. I mean, it was Clinton who killed the Glass-Steagall, and it happened under a Democratic president. Barney Frank and his committee, they, they kept propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saying everything's fine, everything's fine, everything's good. And it was his job to know everything wasn't fine. And Barney Frank let you down and let us down as well. And so, but I want to say there's blame to go both ways. But I will say, I want to, I maybe keep beating this to death, but I still think anyone in this Congress who voted to add $140 billion to that bill, they should be ashamed of themselves. That is a disgrace. It's a disgrace. This Congress is a disgrace, Democrat and Republican.

The problem is that he will belly ache about Barney Frank and the Democrats are to blame in large measure for the subprime crisis... And he is entirely correct in saying there's enough blame to go around on both sides of the aisle.
But his and your perscription for what ails us is more of the same "caring government " .In the last few weeks we have found out how much “affordable housing” really cost. Ten years from now we will learn the cost of affordable health care

By the way .My 401K is doing fine.I realised a long time ago a basic fact of Wall Street... buy low ;sell high. So about a year ago I realised the market peaked and converted most of the 401K to a cash position(what they call a "guaranteed return " . )
But I do agree that most of Americans will open their quarterly statements this week and it will seal McCain's fate.